Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
City of South Portland, Maine
Compensation Plan Study
Paypoint HR, LLC
695 Santa Maria Lane
Davidsonville, MD 21035
(443) 336 - 4272
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Major Milestones for the Project .............................................................................................................. 4
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Scope of Work .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Benefit Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 9
The City of South Portland’s Current Employee Benefit Offering ................................................. 10 Benefit Survey Responses ....................................................................................................................... 11
Performance Pay .................................................................................................................................... 12 Pay Adjustments .................................................................................................................................... 12 Medical, Dental, and Vision Insurance .............................................................................................. 13 Out-of-Pocket (OOP) Maximums ......................................................................................................... 14 Retirement Plans .................................................................................................................................... 15 Other Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Supplements ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Health Insurance Opt-Out .................................................................................................................... 19 Paid Leave Types .................................................................................................................................... 19
Focus Groups .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Job Descriptions .................................................................................................................................... 23 Goals ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 General Trends ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Competitors ............................................................................................................................................ 40 Positions Considered to be Difficult to Recruit and Retain ......................................................... 42 Good Sources of Candidates ............................................................................................................... 44 Understanding of Current Pay Structure .......................................................................................... 46 Work Environment ................................................................................................................................ 47 Incentive Types ...................................................................................................................................... 49 Employee Ideas ...................................................................................................................................... 50
Comparators ................................................................................................................................................... 53
Other Comparators .................................................................................................................................. 57 Sample Calculation ................................................................................................................................... 57
Benchmark Positions ..................................................................................................................................... 58 Baseline Analysis............................................................................................................................................ 61
Current Salary Schedule – 37.5-hr Employees .................................................................................... 61 Current Salary Schedule – 40-hr Employees ....................................................................................... 63 Overall Salary Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 65 Distribution Observations – 37.5-hr ..................................................................................................... 66 Distribution Observations – 40-hr Employees.................................................................................... 68
Compensable Factor Score from Position Vantage Point ...................................................................... 71 External Market Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 76 Proposed Salary Schedules ........................................................................................................................ 101
General Employees ................................................................................................................................. 103 Managerial Employees ........................................................................................................................... 106
2
Executive Employees .............................................................................................................................. 107 Hourly Rates ............................................................................................................................................ 109 CFS Scoring by Grade ............................................................................................................................. 111 Proposed Internal Equity ....................................................................................................................... 112
Recommended Reclassifications .............................................................................................................. 115
List of Tables
Table 1 – Percentage of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees .............................................................. 11 Table 2 – Potential Comparators – Maine Cities ..................................................................................... 54 Table 3 – Potential Comparators – Maine Towns .................................................................................... 54 Table 4 – Potential Comparators – Maine Counties ................................................................................ 54 Table 5 - Economic Data of the City of South Portland and Potential Comparators ...................... 55 Table 6 – Statistics of Potential Comparators ......................................................................................... 56 Table 7 – Benchmark Positions ................................................................................................................... 58 Table 8 – Current Salary Schedule – 37.5-hr ............................................................................................ 61 Table 9 – Current Spread and Ladders – 37.5-hr .................................................................................... 62 Table 10 – Current Salary Schedule – 40-hr ............................................................................................. 63 Table 11 – Current Spread and Ladders – 40-hr ..................................................................................... 64 Table 12 – 37.5-hr Employees Near Min/Max .......................................................................................... 66 Table 13 – 37.5-hr Employees Near Midpoint .......................................................................................... 67 Table 14 – 40-hr Employees Near Min/Max ............................................................................................. 68 Table 15 – 40-hr Employees Near Midpoint ............................................................................................. 69 Table 16 – Compensable Factor Score ....................................................................................................... 71 Table 17 – Full-Time Positions Substantially Below Market (% Diff< -10%) ....................................... 76 Table 18 – Full-Time Positions Below Market (-10% < % Diff < -5%) .................................................... 76 Table 19 – Full-Time Positions Near Market (-5% < % Diff < +5%) ....................................................... 77 Table 20 – Full-Time Positions Above Market (+5% < % Diff < +10%) ................................................. 78 Table 21 – Full-Time Positions Substantially Above Market (% Diff > +10%) .................................... 78 Table 22 – External Market Comparison ................................................................................................... 79 Table 23 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Annual ..................................................................................... 102 Table 24 – Proposed Salary Schedule – 37.5-hr Employees ................................................................ 109 Table 25 – Proposed Salary Schedule – 40-hr Employees ................................................................... 110 Table 26 – Proposed Salary Schedule – CFS Range ............................................................................... 111 Table 27 – Proposed Internal Equity ........................................................................................................ 112 Table 28 – Recommended Reclassification ............................................................................................ 117
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Salary Distribution...................................................................................................................... 65
3
Executive Summary
Paypoint HR is pleased to present this comprehensive Compensation and Classification
Study to the City of South Portland, Maine. The study began with initial kick-off meetings
with the City Manager, Finance Director, and Human Resources Director on July 22, 2019.
The Final Report was completed for presentation to the City Council in February 2020.
The point of the Executive Summary is to give an overview of the most important issues and
opportunities identified by the consulting team during the study. The reader is highly
encouraged to read the document in its entirety in order to gain an understanding of the
recommendations within the report. The study takes into consideration both short and
long-term concerns. The intent of the study was to provide the leadership team and City
Council with a process for ascertaining equitable value of positions on a competitive salary
scale. The study compared existing pay to compensation scales of organizations identified
to be valid comparators the City of South Portland. This report provides a review and
update of the classification and compensation plan for the City’s employees. Paypoint HR
has identified opportunities, but it is up to the City Council to determine which are most
appropriate and the timing of implementation.
In considering the options for implementation, it is critical to understand the costs and
benefits related to each option. By utilizing market data and analysis it is possible to make
informed decisions with regard to possible changes. However, in addition to the
quantitative economic cost and benefit, it is important to consider the social/cultural
impact of implementation and management. South Portland will need to consider all
components in making final decisions.
The study was divided into two parts: a classification phase and a compensation phase. The
classification phase included identification, review, and analysis of specific work being
performed in various positions. That data was then used to simplify positions and match
them to the external market in an “apples to apples” comparison. The compensation phase
consisted of an initial baseline analysis and an external market survey of local public
organizations to determine what the local labor market pays for specific jobs.
The study included approximately 167 employees within roughly 115 distinct positions.
The study recommendations indicate what actions should be taken, to avoid loss of
qualified staff and address difficulties in recruiting new employees for the City. In addition,
it was expected that the study would recommend adjustments to the City’s salary
placement procedures, policies, and salary structure, to allow appropriate ongoing
compensation administration.
Comprehensive surveys like this establish a credible pay structure that is fair for the work
completed and strategically positions South Portland competitively in the labor market. The
desired result is the improved ability to attract and retain quality staff that perform at high
levels to meet the growing demands of the community.
4
Major Milestones for the Project
Initial kick-off meetings with the City Manager, Finance Director, and Human Resources
Director on July 22nd.
Employee Briefing Sessions were held onsite over a two-day period on July 29th and 30th
with groups of employees from all departments to discuss the project, their roles, and to
review the job analysis questionnaire.
A custom website was created for the City to have employees complete a Position Vantage
Point (PVP) job analysis questionnaire. A paper version of the PVP was made available as
well.
The data from the completed paper version of employee PVP’s was uploaded to the central
database. For positions that did not have an incumbent to complete the PVP, the Project
Team assigned a supervisor to complete it.
A second custom website was created with a copy of all 157 completed PVP’s for managers
to review. Managers were able to give their own responses to the same questions for the
position.
All positions were reviewed by managers on a separate PVP website.
Paypoint HR conducted a job evaluation for an internal review of job family classifications
based on the employee and manager responses to the PVP’s.
An analysis of the existing pay scale was completed.
External Market Comparators were vetted using economic and demographic data to
determine which comparators were most like South Portland to ensure validity. In order to
identify relevant and comparable organizations we restricted our search to a 150-mile
radius exclusive of Boston, Massachusetts.
Internal positions were reviewed, and benchmark positions were selected for inclusion in
the external survey.
The external market survey was sent out to a total of 39 comparator organizations and
responses from xx participants were collected. Typical surveys of this type yield a 5-10%
response rate. The City of South Portland’s study response rate is considered excellent at
67%. Respondents included the following organizations:
5
Respondents (26/39)
Auburn, ME Augusta, ME Bangor, ME
Biddeford, ME Brunswick, ME Concord, NH
Cumberland County, ME Dover, NH Falmouth, ME
Gorham, ME Kennebunk, ME Lewiston, ME
Portland, ME Saco, ME Sanford, ME
Westbrook, ME York, ME York County, ME
Brunswick Sewer District
Greater Portland Transit District
Lithgow Library
Portland Public Library
Portland Water District
Scarborough Library District
Scarborough Sanitary District
York Library District
From both the internal and external market analysis, recommendations for a new pay scale
was developed and individual job titles were assigned to the new pay grades.
Paypoint HR conducted 9 onsite focus groups with approximately 80 employees from all
departments. The Consultants met with employees by their peer categories over a two-day
period on September 26th and 27th. The purpose of the focus groups was to gain a better
understanding of the existing compensation plan and areas of possible improvement.
A draft report was generated for the Project Team along with updates to job descriptions.
Job descriptions were updated and standardized using PVP responses from employees and
managers.
6
Recommendations
1. Bring all positions into the new plan at the next highest step/wage based on current
salary
2. Raise the Salary of Positions Substantially Below Market
2 steps above their initial placement from #1 above
3. Raise the Salary of Positions Below Market
1 step above their initial placement from #1 above
4. Raise the salary of Positions that have been with the City
10 years or more an additional 1 step
5. Raise the salary of Positions that have been with the City in the same role for
20 years or more an additional 2 steps
6. For positions with new hires, do not provide additional steps if their initial placement
already provides a 5% or more increase in pay
7. Continue providing raises to positions Near Market
8. Discontinue providing raises to positions Above Market or Substantially Above Market
Estimated fiscal impact of recommendations
General Fund - $159,210 ($191,052 including benefits)
Other Funds - $11,069 ($13,283 including benefits)
Water Resource Protection – $57,357 ($68,829 including benefits)
Total: $227,636 ($273,164 including benefits)
7
Scope of Work
1) Job Descriptions
Create, modify and update job descriptions for all nonunion positions in compliance with
all applicable state and federal statutes. Provide orientation sessions to explain the process
to employees, supervisors and managers. Provide for employee input, likely via a survey and
follow up interview process, and the supervisor’s review, comments and approval; with final
approval by the Human Resources Department. Ensure Essential Functions are accurate and
documented. Ensure FLSA status us defensible. Standardize format.
2) Classifications
Rate and rank positions based on specific criteria, and then recommend how positions
should be placed into a grade or classification system that ensures internal equity and
fairness. Allow for an appeals process for individuals who may require additional
information regarding the proposed classification for their position. Meet with supervisors
and senior managers to introduce the classification structure and respond to questions and
concerns. Develop a position evaluation system for the Human Resources Department to
administer ongoing to ensure appropriate classification when new positions are introduced
or when significant changes to a position are made.
3) Salary Survey
Conduct a salary survey of comparable municipalities and relevant other organizations in
the region to provide data for comparison to current City wages to assess the level of
market competitiveness. The proposer’s proposal should outline methodology to be used
and recommended comparable communities and entities with rationale.
4) Compensation Plan
In collaboration with the City’s project oversight team (City Manager, Finance Director, and
Human Resources Director), develop a statement of compensation philosophy for the City.
Based on current information, this philosophy likely will include a merit compensation
component and a desire to pay employee “at market.” Using information from the salary
survey, recommend salary structures and a compensation plan aligned with the City’s
compensation philosophy. Develop a system to integrate positions and employees into the
plan and manage the plan going forward, including how to stay current with the market.
This system will include costing out the recommended approach and may include how the
new plan can be phased in over time if full deployment exceeds available resources. Provide
employee education on how the new plan works.
8
5) Performance Evaluation
Review the City’s current performance evaluation forms to ensure they align with the
recommended compensation plan. Suggest improvements to the evaluation forms as
needed. Provide supervisory training on using the final evaluation form to align and support
the compensation plan.
6) Other – Approval and Implementation
Consultant should be prepared to update employees through additional meetings, email,
website, or other approaches to ensure a responsive, open, and transparent process. The
consultant should plan for two meetings with the City Council to present findings and
explain the final recommendations.
9
Benefit Summary
Paypoint HR feels it is appropriate to consider benefits when addressing strategic planning
of compensations as there is a dynamic relationship between employers and employees.
When depicting the strategic elements of pay, external influences and an evolving business
environment affect attraction, retention, and engagement.
A total rewards review of compensation incorporates all components organizations utilize
to cultivate quality employees. An effective total rewards strategy produces a workforce
that has the right people in the right jobs who are motivated and engaged to meet goals and
feel loyal to the organization and its success.
The elements that contribute to Total Rewards are:
• Compensation,
• Benefits,
• Work-life effectiveness,
• Recognition,
• Performance management, and
• Talent development.
The information provided in this portion of the report is not intended to be an exhaustive
benefit survey comparing the benefit summaries, premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. The
benefit survey was designed to get a snapshot of the participant’s employee benefit
offerings. Where possible, Paypoint HR uses the information gathered from the external
survey to analyze findings.
Benefit offerings are often considered in aggregate data. Caution should be exercised in the
following:
• When interpreting the information, as elements within each organization are not
equal. For example, there may be more part-time or seasonal workers employed at
an organization who are not eligible for benefits. Using part-time or seasonal wages
in the calculation could skew the findings.
• When adjusting pay, certain costs such as, workers’ compensation premiums,
disability insurance premiums, pension contributions, FICA and other employer
related taxes may automatically increase as pay increases. Responsible employers
will consider the additional costs related to these changes.
10
Questions included in the External Benefit Survey addressed the following:
1. Does your organization have a pay for performance system in place? For example, a
bonus or stipend plan? How does it work?
2. When were your most recent across the board changes to pay? What was it based
on? For example, market adjustment, COLA, performance, longevity?
3. Do you have any future plans for across the board adjustments? What will that be
based on?
4. Do you offer major medical, dental & vision benefits? What are the
employer/employee contributions to premiums?
5. Do you offer a defined benefit pension plan? What is the formula you use for
matching? What employee contributions, if any, do you require?
6. Do you offer deferred compensation plan(s)? What is the formula you use for
matching? What employee contributions, if any, do you require?
7. What other employer sponsored benefits do you offer? Do you offer life insurance,
AD&D, Short-term/Long-term Disability, etc.?
8. Do you offer any cash supplements, cash payouts of leave, or standby pay?
9. What leave benefits do you offer (vacation, holiday, sick, PTO, Extended Illness
Accrual Bank or EIAB, and comp-time)?
10. Do you offer an "opt-out payment" or payment in lieu of health insurance benefit to
nonunion, union, both, or not at all? If offered, how is the payment structured, such
as, is it - a % of total premium, or a % of ER savings, or a flat amount.
The City of South Portland’s Current Employee Benefit Offering
The City of South Portland has an up-to-date Personnel Policy manual that conveys important employee information including benefit related topics. The City also provides pertinent employment related information access via its website link https://www.southportland.org/departments/human-resources/. Additionally, there is a portal at the same link where employees may login to MUNIS to access more data. Having multiple formats to access information allows for better communication and ease of use. Benefits available to eligible employees includes the following:
• Health Insurance offered through the Maine Municipal Employee’s Health Trust (MMEHT), including the Comprehensive Point of Service Plan C (POS C) and Preferred Provider (PPO 500) Plan
• Vision Care Plan through MMEHT
• Dental Insurance Plan • Health Insurance Premium Buyout Program • Flexible Spending Plan
• Employee Assistant Program (EAP) • Basic Life Insurance through MMEHT • Optional Group Life Insurance Maine Public Employees Retirement System
(MainePERS)
• Social Security • Maine Public Employees Retirement System (MainePERS) • Deferred Compensation
• Income Protection/Short Term Disability
11
• Holiday Leave
• Personal Day • Vacation Leave • Sick Leave/Unused Sick Leave Payment
• Unemployment • Workers’ Compensation
• Educational Reimbursement • Travel and Meeting Reimbursement
Benefit Survey Responses
The chart below provides counts and percentage breakdowns of market peers and South
Portland’s full-time and part-time employees. The market comparator organizations were
made up of, on average, 89.5% full-time employees and 10.5% part-time employees. For
South Portland, this percentage was 90.5% full-time, and 9.5% part-time. The number of
full-time and part-time employees can influence the benefits offered by an organization.
Logically, the more full-time, benefit eligible employees an organization has, it’s more likely
that the amount paid towards benefit offerings will be higher.
Table 1 – Percentage of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees
Personnel Count Market Average South Portland
Full-Time Employees 292 89.5% 152 90.5%
Part-Time Employees 34 10.5% 16 9.5%
Total 326 100% 168 100%
The percentage of benefits in relation to total compensation is a common broad indicator
that organizations use to assess how generous the discretionary benefits are at individual
organizations. Total compensation refers to the compensation package (salary and
benefits) an employee receives from its organization. Therefore, benefits as a percentage of
total compensation is calculated by dividing benefits expressed as a dollar amount by the
amount of total compensation (salary plus benefits).
Generally, benefits included in total compensation calculations include: health, dental, and
vision premiums; life insurance; workers’ compensation; pension contributions; and FICA,
though organizations may calculate this number differently. According to the Bureau of
Labor and Statistics https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf, the national average
for the cost of benefits as a percent of total compensation for private sector is 29.9%. and
37.8% for state and local government employers. Also, it is common for benefit
contributions to vary depending on the compensation practices of the organization, union
presence, and the relative cost of benefits.
12
Performance Pay
Of the respondents, roughly 47% stated they offered a pay-for-performance incentive
element to their pay system. There were three types of performance pay types reported;
they included the following:
• A flat dollar amount bonus to employees who had reached the top step in their pay
grade and who met satisfactory performance levels. For example, employees at the
top of their pay grade could qualify for up to $500 for meeting performance
standards.
• A range of incentives for performance. For example, 0% to 5% of base pay
distributed based on annual performance review evaluations to all employees.
Employees who scored higher on their evaluations receive a greater percentage
towards their performance bonus.
• A permanent merit step increase to employees as a pay-for-performance incentive.
South Portland’s non-union positions are classified into grades. The grades have steps that
an employee can move through. Moving to a higher step equates to higher pay. Progression
up the steps is based on meeting expectations through the annual performance evaluation.
In the Fall of 2018, the City added a bonus program that gave an incentive to employees
who had been at the top step (Step 9) for two or more years upon meeting performance
expectations. Lower grades were eligible for smaller incentives and higher grades were
eligible for more. Additionally, the better review for these individuals, the greater percent of
the total they received.
Pay Adjustments
.
Adjustments to pay were reported as being made based on performance, Cost of Living
Adjustments (COLA), union agreements, longevity, annual step increases, and market
competitiveness.
• Approximately 60% of respondents stated they had made across the board
adjustments to pay in the last year.
• Roughly 77% of respondents reported they plan to make across-the-board (ATB)
adjustments to pay in the upcoming budget cycle. Of the respondents, 23% stated
they did not plan on making an ATB adjustment to pay in the next year.
Below is a chart depicting the prevalence of pay adjustment types.
13
Prevalence of Pay Adjustment Type
Type Previous Budget
Cycle 2019 Upcoming
Budget Cycle
Performance 15% 11%
COLA 46% 47%
Longevity 19% 10%
Step 8% 16%
Market 12% 16%
Total 100% 100%
Terminology is sometimes vague when referring to pay adjustment types as union
agreements may include COLA, longevity, or step increases. However, these adjustment
types are reported for non-union staff as well.
South Portland offers the performance incentive and has offered COLA’s for ATB pay scale
adjustments.
Medical, Dental, and Vision Insurance
A large majority of respondents offer the Maine Municipal Employees Health Trust (MMEHT)
benefits to their employees. The Maine Municipal Employees Health Trust provides quality
employee benefits at competitive rates to municipal and quasi-municipal organizations and
county governments throughout the state. In order to be eligible for participation in the
Health Trust, an employer group must be a member or associate member of the Maine
Municipal Association. At the present time, over 450 municipalities, counties, special
districts, and non-profit organizations participate in one or more of the Health Trust’s
plans.
Current MMEHT Medical Plans
• POS A Summary
• POS C Summary
• POS 200 Summary
• PPO 500 Summary
• PPO 1000 Summary
• PPO 1500 Summary
• PPO 2500 Summary
Please Note: The POS A plan was “frozen” effective January 1, 2016. No new groups may
begin offering the POS A plan after that date. In addition, the PPO 1000 Plan is being
discontinued. No new groups may offer the PPO 1000 Plan after July 1, 2018. Current and
14
new participants may remain in the plan at this time, if their employer was offering it prior
to the dates above.
MMEHT plans that respondents reported as offering their employees included the POS C,
POS 200, PPO 500, and PPO 2500.
Below is a chart that shows the average amount responding survey participants contribute
to their employee insurance premiums by insurance type.
Respondent’s Contributions to Premiums
Respondents
Insurance Type
Single Level Premium
Contributions
Family Level Premium
Contributions
Medical 89% 72%
Dental 30% 18%
Vision 11% 8%
In comparison to the market study findings, South Portland offers more towards health
insurance premiums for both of its plans at all participation levels.
South Portland’s Contributions to Premiums
Plan
Participation Level
POS C PPO 500
Single 97.50% 100%
Employee and Dependent
87.00% 90.00%
Family 81.50% 85.00%
Out-of-Pocket (OOP) Maximums
Out-of-Pocket maximums reflect the deductible plus the coinsurance amount an employee
and their dependents would be responsible for per calendar year.
15
The chart below shows the OOP maximums for the 2019 and 2020 MMEHT Plans.
Plan Name In-Network Out-of-Network
Single Level Family Level Single Level Family Level
POS A $1,000 $2,000 $2,250 $4,500
POS C $1,500 $3,000 $2,250 $4,500
POS 200 $1,700 $3,400 $2,300 $4,600
PPO 500 $2,000 $4,000 $3,000 $6,000
PPO 1000 $2,500 $5,000 $4,000 $8,000
PPO 1500 $3,500 $7,000 $4,000 $8,000
PPO 2500 $4,500 $9,000 $7,000 $14,000
South Portland offers the POS C and the PPO 500 which are both quality plans with low OOP
maximums.
Retirement Plans
A Deferred Comp plan is strictly employee contributions and completely voluntary.
457 plans are deferred compensation type plans. A 457 plan is designed to supplement
retirement income. Pre-tax contributions made reduce taxable income for the year. These
contributions and all associated earnings are then not subject to tax until withdrawn.
On the other hand, a Defined Contribution plan can have mandatory employer and
voluntary employee contributions. Both are similar in that all of the employee contributions
plus earnings attributed to the employee contributions belong to the employee immediately.
Employer matching contributions and earnings attributed to the employer match belong to
the employee after a vesting period in a Defined Contribution system. The employee has
access to the plan balance subject to a vesting schedule at a termination date. Defined
Contribution plans are typically 401 and 403 plans.
This is different from another form of pension, the defined benefit plan, or DB. In a DB
plan, the eligible retired employee gets a benefit on a monthly basis, usually calculated by
using a formula of Average Final Compensation (AFC) times a multiplier, times years of
service. This monthly pension is paid over the life of the employee and may also provide a
survivor benefit. In a DB plan, usually both the employee and the employer make
contributions. The plan is invested in the market—generally in stocks and bonds. The
employer has a liability for the amount necessary to fund a monthly pension. An important
distinction is that the employer takes the market risk. If the market performs better than
the expected return of the plan (one of the actuarial assumptions), then the employer’s
contribution can be reduced, eliminated, or increased.
16
Maine Public Employees Retirement System (MainePERS) was established in 1942 to ensure
that certain benefits are available to State employees, teachers, and employees of
participating local districts (PLDs) in the State of Maine. The MainePERS PLD Consolidated
Plan is a defined benefit plan.
There are three service retirement plans under the PLD Consolidated Plan. They are the AC,
AN, and BC plans. Additionally, there are eight special plans available. Respondents only
reported offering the AC plans to their non-union staff.
Retirement Plan Type Premium
Contributions
Deferred Compensation 89%
Defined Contribution Plan 30%
MainePERS PLD DB 90%
MainePERS PLD DB and Social Security 60%
• The average employer contribution to the MainePERS plan was reported as 8.88%.
• The average employee contributions reported by respondents for the deferred
compensation plans were 4.75% and the employer match on average was 4.88%.
• Additionally, respondents reported offering supplemental retirement savings
through the International City Manager’s Association (ICMA) either in a deferred
compensation plan or an after tax ICMA RC or Roth IRA.
In addition to Social Security, effective July 1, 1995, all full-time employees of South
Portland (other than certain firefighters who joined later and do not get Social Security) are
eligible to participate in the MainePERS System. South Portland participates in the AC plan
save for non-union employees. Effective December 15, 2010, regular part-time employees
working twenty (20) hours or more per week may participate in MainePERS on the same
terms as full-time employees.
Regular employees working at least twenty (20) hours per week who do not participate in
MainePERS are eligible to participate in the City’s deferred compensation plans The City
offers two deferred compensation plans. They are an employer match 401(a) plan with a
mandatory 8% employee contribution and an employer match 457/401(a) plan with
discretionary employee contribution rate. Both plans offer up to an 8% employer match.
Members of MainePERS may also participate in the City’s 457 Deferred Compensation Plan
but there are no employer matching contributions to the 401(a) Plan.
There are special exceptions for retired returning to work employees and the City offers
additional options for these staff.
17
Other Benefits
For all MainePERS PLD Consolidated Plan employer participants, other benefits optionally
available include disability retirement benefit, ordinary death benefit, accidental death
benefit, group life Insurance, Social Security, defined contribution, and deferred
compensation plans.
The MMEHT also offers supplemental benefits such as income protection insurance.
The following is a list of additional benefits respondents offered their employees:
Additional Benefits Offered
Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance
Health Insurance Opt-Out Payment
Cell Phone & Cell Phone Discount Income Protection
Compensatory Time and/or Carry-Over Leave Buy Back
Critical Illness Insurance Licensing / Certification Reimbursement
Death Benefit Life Insurance for Employee and Dependents
Domestic Partner Benefits Membership Dues
Deferred Compensation Plans Prepaid Legal
Defined Contribution Plans Purchasing Discounts
Disability Insurance Recreation Center Membership or Discount
Employee Recognition Section 125
Employee Discount Opportunities like AAA, dining, phone service, auto supplies, entertainment
Short and Long-Term Disability Insurance
Employee Assistance Program Sick Leave Conversion to Vacation or Personal Leave
Extended Illness Bank Social Security
Flexible Spending Account Tuition Reimbursement or Reduction
Fitness Program Reimbursement Uniform / Clothing Payment
Health Retirement Account & Contribution
Voluntary Supplemental Benefits
Health Savings Account & Contribution Wellness Programs & Incentives
Healthy Employee Incentive
18
Supplements
Respondent reported the following items as eligible for a possible supplement to pay or
benefits:
Items Listed by Reported Prevalence Lowest to Highest
Years of Service
Performance
Compensatory Time
On-Call
Extra Duty
Health Insurance Opt-Out Pay
Longevity
Recruitment
Fitness Pass
Cell Phone
Travel
Paid Time Off
Call-In Pay
Tuition
Standby Pay
Shift Differential
Education / Certification
Sick Leave
Clothing Allowance
Vacation Leave
South Portland offers pay out of Sick Leave, Call-In Pay for IT and Water Resource Protection
and some positions have stipends for extra work.
19
Health Insurance Opt-Out
Over 60% of respondents reported offering a pay-out for employees who either opted not to
participate in health insurance benefits or who did not elect health insurance benefits for
their eligible dependents. The amount paid to employees ranged from a percent of the
employer’s premium cost savings to a flat dollar amount. Those respondents who reported
calculating a percentage of savings reported ranges from 30% to 60% of employer saving at
employee level premiums to 25% to 50% of all dependent level premiums. Those who
reported a fixed dollar amount payout, reported paying from $1,300 up to $15,350 per year.
South Portland does offer an employee payment in lieu of insurance. The dollar amounts
for the payment range depending on the plan type and the participation level. The lowest
amount is $3,766.20 per year for opting out of the PPO 500 plan at single level. The highest
is $7,621.35 for the POS C plan going from family level to no coverage.
Paid Leave Types
Holiday Pay
The City of South Portland offers eligible employees 11 paid Holidays per year and 2
paid personal days per year. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BOL) for
State and local government workers as of March 2019,
https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/govt/table32a.pdf, the average
number of paid Holidays government employers offer per year is 11 days, and for
private sector, 8 days. South Portland’s comparators offer 12 paid Holidays annually on
average. Respondents reported offering floating days, personal days, and anniversary
or birthdays as paid time off.
Vacation Pay
The average number of Vacation Days reported for the 0-5–year workers was 10 days.
The maximum number of Vacation Leave accrual days reported for employees was 27
days after 20 years of service. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics shows that local
government employers with 100 to 499 workers on average offer 12 to 22 Vacation Days
per year dependent on the number of years of employment. The information can be
found at the following link:
https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/govt/table37a.pdf
South Portland offers employees from 10 to 25 days of Vacation Leave per year
depending on years of service.
Sick Leave
According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics
https://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2019/ownership/govt/table34a.pdf, the average
number of annual Sick Days offered by State and Local government employers with 100
to 499 workers is 13 days. Respondents to Paypoint HR’s external survey stated a range
of Sick Leave annual accrual days between 12 to 15 days. The average number of days
earned Sick Leave reported was 12.5 days per year.
20
South Portland offers eligible staff 15 Sick Leave days per year with a maximum accrual
balance of 120 days.
Other Leave types reported were compensatory time off, personal leave, healthy incentive,
paid time-off, bereavement leave, flexible schedule, and storm closing leave.
21
Focus Groups
The purpose of the focus groups is to have employees share valuable firsthand knowledge
and opinions of the existing South Portland pay structure. Each focus group generally lasted
an hour and consisted of a Q & A session where Paypoint HR asked questions from a pre-set
list of 10 questions. While the main point of the employee feedback is centered on
classification and compensation, these topics naturally open discussion to a number of
other factors. This is a normal communication pattern and the report addresses the topics
as they presented themselves in the discussion. The City may want further consider
exploring issues raised during the study focus groups.
On September 26rd and 27th, 2019 Paypoint HR held 9 onsite focus group sessions with
employees. All employees were invited to attend the focus group sessions and actual
attendance was approximately 80 employees in total. Participation was strongly encouraged
but voluntary. Employees who attended were given an acknowledgement form to sign that
explained the ground rules for focus groups. A copy of the list of questions is shown below:
1. Is your job description accurate?
2. Do you have an understanding of the City’s goals?
3. What general trends/forces impact your and the City’s success?
a. Economic
b. Regulatory
c. Cultural
d. Technology
e. Organizational Structure
f. Demographics
g. Political
h. Natural Environment
4. Who are the City’s competitors for labor? What makes other organizations
successful?
5. Has the City of South Portland had difficulty retaining, developing, motivating, and
recruiting competent performers in any positions? If so, which one(s) and why?
6. Who are key sources of employees for the City of South Portland? Any
recommendations?
7. Do you understand the compensation plan?
a. Is it motivating/fair?
b. Is it in line with the City’s goals?
c. Does it use the right metrics?
d. Does it allow for advancement in your career ladder?
e. Is it competitive?
f. What does it recognize? Education, tenure, performance?
8. Does the City’s work environment encourage the following:
a. Personal growth,
b. Team building,
c. Praise for effort, not just outcomes, or,
d. Kindness & caring?
e. Other
22
9. Which do you prefer?
a. Individual incentives
b. Group incentives
c. Individual & Group incentives
10. What recommendations for improvements do you have?
Employee Focus Group Responses:
A brief description of the comments made by focus group participants are summarized in
the response section below. It is important to note that the views shared in this summary
are not necessarily supported by Paypoint HR, nor are they fact checked for accuracy. While
the information included in this portion of the study is qualitative in nature, it is important
to include any “perceived impressions” of employees so that the City has information and
can choose to communicate and clarify as they see fit. The information that may identify
the commenter has been removed. The feedback obtained provides a much stronger
foundation for the study than simply reading the information from handbooks, job
descriptions, and employment agreements. The comments and suggestions received during
these meetings were compared by session and by topic to look for patterns, red flags, best
practices, and areas of opportunity. They are one component to the study.
While the Focus Group questions are established to uncover areas of improvement it is also
an opportunity to uncover strengths within the organization that the City should strive to
maintain. The City of South Portland had several areas where it stood out.
The employees of South Portland are proud of their City. Employees said that South
Portland was an evolving City with a unique harbor town history anchored in shipbuilding
and fishing. They explained the City’s geography with a working waterfront, close proximity
to Portland, Portland Bay, Casco Bay, and local islands attracted people to the area. They
referenced point of interest such as the Spring Point Lighthouse, Bug Light, the mall, shops,
beaches, restaurants, and marinas as elements that added to the Cities charm. Education
and culture were described as important to employees and residents. The City was home to
libraries, a museum, theatre, and Southern Maine Community College (SMCC). They said the
City was easily accessible with a local airport, shipping ports, railroad yard, bus routes, and
major highways, allowing for convenient travel.
Employees felt the City was poised for continued growth but also had great respect for
maintaining its natural resources and quaint waterfront town feel. They described the
organization as rising to the challenge of meeting the needs of the local residents and
visitors. They explained that the City offered services found in other municipalities like
emergency services, streets, parks and recreation, library, water, water treatment,
sanitation, and recycling but that it was held to a higher standard than some of its industry
peers.
Employees enjoyed coming to work every day and felt that while there is always room for
improvement, they experienced a sense of comradery amongst their work unit peers.
Employees felt they were kept busy and time at work went quickly. They generally felt
supported, encouraged, and respected by their supervisors. The supervisors who
23
communicated well with their employees and clearly defined expectations were seen as role
models. Finance, Fire, Human Resources, and Public Works departments were all described
as having a “great” culture. Employees were grateful to see initiatives that recognized
performance and wellness and mentioned the efforts of department heads to encourage
them. Employees explained the City had a Leadership Academy through SMCC and they
appreciated the opportunity to participate. Further, they were encouraged by the fact the
City thought enough of them, to conduct a pay study. Overall, employees describe South
Portland as a wonderful place to live and work.
Job Descriptions
• Workers described some job descriptions as being accurate. These jobs included
Code Enforcement Director; Accountant; Purchasing Agent/Benefits Manager; HR
Specialist; Safety Coordinator; Recreation Coordinator. Departments with generally
accurate job descriptions were said to be, the Engineering Division; the Finance
Department; the Water Resource Protection Department; the Transportation
Department; the Fire Department; Public Works, the Parks, Recreation and
Waterfront Department; and the Police Department.
• Other job descriptions were said to be in need of improvement. These jobs included
Employee Relations Manager; Park Ranger; Administrative Assistant; Administrative
Assistant for the Police Department; Administrative Assistant to Water Resource
Protection, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager; Assistant City Manager,
Park Operations Manager; Lifeguard; Public Works Superintendent; Fire Department
Custodian; Police Mechanic; Administration Information Assistant; the Deputy
Director of Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront; Library Aides, part-time library jobs;
Economic Development; Planning and Development Director; Community Planner,
Sustainability, Code Enforcement, Social Services Director, Public Safety
Administrator, SPC-TV division, and some positions in Public Works.
• It was thought that job descriptions were updated when there was a vacancy and
positions where there was no turnover were more outdated.
• There were some employees who reported not having seen their job description at
all.
• The Library department’s job descriptions were said to be accurate at first, but after
further discussions, workers said that many of the positions had inaccurate
descriptions. Part-time library positions were said to have multiple layers to them
that are not reflected in their job descriptions. Others said that they acted in a
supervisory capacity when their superior was out of the office, which was a
responsibility not listed in the job description.
• It was stated that two administrators in the Parks, Recreation & Waterfront
Department do different jobs. They each only do specific job duties listed in the
existing job description. While they have a shared job description, it was said to not
be reciprocal. Both administrations did not cover for each other when one was out —
only one covered for the other.
• Employees felt part-time positions were possibly intentionally not updated with
accurate responsibilities to restrict their access to benefits.
• Areas of improvement to job descriptions included the following:
24
o Delete outdated responsibilities
o Update service area to include Westbrook
o Update changes to reflect industry specific regulations, for example cable TV
o Update education requirements
o Update chain of command and reflect reporting relationships along with
related responsibilities
o Review of Fair Labor Standards ACT (FLSA) overtime exemption for some
positions
o Address on-call status
o Address physical requirements for lifting in the Library department
o Update specific department requirements
o Address coordination of volunteer programs
• Reasons for job descriptions being outdated were cited as; program offering
changes, organizational structure changes, conversion from part-time to full-time
status, new technology, evolving demands, regulatory compliance, and cross
training.
• Employees felt that cross training needed to be addressed for some positions to
ensure that it was reciprocal.
• Personnel anticipated changes to IT job descriptions will be needed.
• Employees suggested a centralized library of all job descriptions so they may be able
to review them as needed.
• Employees said they would like to see a universal format of the job descriptions.
• Staff said there was value in updating job descriptions to set expectations, reduce
turnover, and allow employees to positively impact their performance.
Goals
• Employees felt there has been better communication now between the Council and
department heads than there had been in the past. The Council was said to have
established triangle meeting plans where directors could check in on the progress
made by department heads. Workers said weekly emails were also sent with updates
from council meetings and what new developments would affect them. Emails from
the City Manager, which contained goals and objectives, were previously sent out,
but had recently been discontinued.
• Some said that the City’s goal is to be the best possible provider for community
services for the lowest taxes, and that the City’s focus was on customer satisfaction.
• Others said that currently there is a feeling that each department is just trying to
stay afloat, and keep up with minimum standards.
• It was also mentioned that the City was rebranding and trying to market their
economic development.
• While most workers said they were unsure about the City’s goals, most were
confident they knew the goals of their department. Some felt that neither the City
nor the individual departments had set clear goals.
• The City Council’s goals were said to change depending on the Council, and that it
would be good to have a long-term goal that stayed constant no matter how much
the Council changed. For example, the Lions Club, Chamber of Commerce, and
25
Rotary Club were said not to receive the same support they did in the past. This was
viewed as an image problem by some, as the City did more with them than ever.
• Staff said it was nice to have goals and felt they could benefit from a clearer mission
statement from the City. While employees could not recite a specific goal, they said
they know the City had goals to be energy efficient, sustainable, and to prioritize
safety.
• The City’s slogan was mentioned as being “Anything is Possible.” and “The Way Life
Should Be.”
• Employees said they felt that communication was key in understanding goals and
would like City-wide goals to match with departmental goals so they could set
expectations. They suggested more communication among and between
departments as some departments described feeling siloed. Departments that
stated they could use more communication included Police, Library and Tax
Assessment.
• Department goals were said to vary across the organization. Department Directors
were said to report to Council as subject matter experts and the Council did a good
job listening to departmental needs. It was said the City Council is not expected to
provide feedback or guidance on all topics out of their area of expertise and they
historically have shown respect to Department Heads.
• It was said departments must wait to hear back from the City Manager’s Office for
final decisions on budget and priorities, but they take the lead on setting goals. The
departments were said to know what was expected of them and knew the goals for
each of their programs. For example, it was said Water established goals and had a
20-year plan for paving, utility, treatment, and pump stations. It was further stated
that the department guided the City on technical issues. Workers said that the City
had done an excellent job of supporting the department while allowing them to get
the job done. However, it was said that Water would like to get some feedback or
direction from City Hall and the Councilors to better understand their priorities.
• Personnel said there was a concern regarding a potential for conflicting goals. For
example, it was said departments must try to find money from the budget or grants
to complete needed projects. The City budget and the grant compliance standards
may have inconsistent goals and priorities. Another example was said to be that
departments could be at odds as they were competing for the same general fund
budget which could create conflict.
• Some employees stated that their department had a mission statement, but they
were unsure of its origins. They also said that departments may have never given
anyone instructions or tips on how to apply the mission statement to their different
work areas. They said this meant the City was expecting a lot from them. They felt
more personal responsibility to perform and at the same time felt there was added
risk of them doing a poor job or getting unexpected criticism.
• Some workers thought it would be a good idea to give new employees a tour of the
City when they are hired. It was felt, this would give new hires a general
understanding of where things are, allow them to conceptualize resources, better
relate to the people who support them, and gain a clear understanding of how
operations work. In turn, it was thought this it would also give workers a sense of
belonging to something bigger. One employee mentioned that then they were hired
they were given clear goals by their Department Head and this helped them to
prioritize their work. They felt empowered by this to be able to make a difference.
26
• Workers generally feel like everyone knows each other and things are getting taken
care of. However, they felt that the City is growing and will eventually need to
transition to being more systems based to accommodate for greater demand. Some
felt the transition could be painful, and it would force people with experience and
ability to see more than just themselves and their own departments.
• Employees in departments who were reported as having consistent meeting were
described as having a better understanding of goals.
• Departments that said they were working on updating goals were Public Works,
Engineering, and Sustainability.
• SPC TV staff felt they understood the City’s goals because they attend Council
meetings and could assist in conveying them internally and to the community.
• Staff stressed the importance of leadership within departments having experience in
their practice area when it came to setting goals. They felt this could reduce
problems and eliminate errors.
General Trends
a. Economic
o Employees said that the City felt the effects of fluctuations in the economy.
Some said economics affect every department because there is not enough
money in general.
o The current local economy was said to be strong. A strong economy was said to work
both for and against the City. Staff explained that because the economy was good
revenues were up. However, for recruiting, especially for positions found in the private
sector, the City could still not keep up with the market rate. It was explained that the City
spent time and resources training employees who were highly sought after in the external
market. These trained and experienced personnel were at risk to be recruited out for
better pay. They felt this is why the City had its current list of job vacancies.
o The City was said to have a diversified economy, with a mix of old-school
industries and newer, high-tech ones, and a good socioeconomic base.
Businesses were becoming more diverse in the City, and workers said that the
City was trying to increase its business diversity even further.
o The local economy was said to have enough industry and business to support the City but
that taxes needed to increase.
o Participants said, at some point, someone will need to explain to citizens that their
expectations are not realistic for services when the City’s budget is limited. The City does
not have the money or personnel to do everything residents want it to do.
o Employees felt the inability of the City to remain competitive on pay and resources
contributed to a lack of good morale.
o The Library was said to have had its budget frozen and decreased during the
2008 recession. Employees were also said to have been laid off during this time.
o Workers said that 5 people were laid off in 2008. Before that, people were laid
off in 1991. The layoffs, it was said, were done by department, not by who was
more recently hired.
o South Portland was said to be growing and adjusting on a tax basis. It was said
there was a large young generation and a strong older generation as well. It was
said that the young and old population have conflicting interests — the older
citizens who were said to be on limited fixed incomes did not want their taxes to
27
go up for schools and parks, and the younger generation has a high demand for
more services.
o It was said the tax and assessment basis for South Portland was being
reevaluated, and, while no one likes taxes, as long as the City can explain the
reason for the increase, residents are mostly okay with it.
o Other workers felt that the community was not open to more taxes. They feel the
older residents will fight against tax increases, and workers are worried about
layoffs. More and more people were said to be putting themselves on tax
payment plans. Workers said they were seeing more tax abatement for seniors,
as well as more reverse mortgages.
o It was noted that South Portland did tax assessments for both themselves and
for Westbrook, and that Westbrook paid the City for its services. South Portland
was currently doing a redo of its tax base after having done one for Westbrook
last year. Employees stated that South Portland was more open to tax increases
in return for services than Westbrook.
o Some participants said that the City cannot continue to conduct business as it
has been doing — it needs to think outside the box for creating additional
revenue for the City. The City, it was said, will not be able to adequately provide
services the way it was been for very much longer. It was believed that other
places in the country know ways to financially keep up on maintenance,
technology, and services and the City could learn from their experience. It was
suggested that the department should look to make partners with the
community to increase revenue instead of increasing taxes on people with fixed
incomes.
o Some said that South Portland does a fabulous job of offering services and
balancing the budget. For example, staff reported that South Portland has one of
the most affordable before and after-school care programs in the state, about
$130 per week; they are still the most affordable even though they were
increasing the price for the 4th straight year.
o It was also reported that a pipeline lawsuit and other legal suits were going on
currently, including ones over clean air, air quality, and SPC TV. All this is
affecting the City because of the legal costs.
o It was said that people from New Hampshire reportedly do not have to pay taxes
apart from property taxes. This was felt to be a possible deterrent for people
looking to move to Maine and the South Portland area in particular.
o Some employees mentioned working 2-3 other jobs to make ends meet. Some of
the older workers said it was difficult for them to work so many jobs and pay
the state taxes.
o South Portland was said to be growing and was described as a great place to live.
However, rent prices were said to be going through the roof, and homes were
likewise very expensive. Wages were said to not be keeping up the housing
prices. One employee said South Portland was turning into a little Boston, with
rent prices being the same but the pay in South Portland being less. Another
employee said they had to move to public housing because they could not find a
place they could afford.
o Employees explained a poor economy affects the safety and efficiency of the
work employees do. They described a desire to want to know the tools and
vehicles they use are in good working condition.
28
o Some felt that funds were misallocated and thought there could be more
efficient ways to do things.
b. Regulatory
o Workers were concerned about unfunded mandates. They said as state and
federal initiatives were passed, the City had to figure out how to afford
implementation them on their own. Some said the City had been good about
providing funds to deal with more compliance related demands. It was said this
can be expensive, take a long time to figure out, and may end up being scrapped
in the end. Workers credit the City Manager for trying to handle the changing
political will of government the best he can. Workers wondered if it was even
possible to manage, and they were unsure of future impact of changing
regulations to their jobs. An example of a local ordinance that was passed was
one to keep sidewalks weeded instead of applying pesticides. Staff said this has
put an additional strain on the City that was probably not anticipated by Council.
Some called it a large waste of resources since operating a gas-powered steamer
to kill weeds is not good for the environment and the City did not have the
resources to maintain it as intended.
o Employees reported having to keep up with industry standards. Specific
departments and division with governing bodies they had to adhere to were the
following:
− SPC TV has to keep up with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
For example, major changes in cable billing reimbursement to municipalities
was passed and SPC TV cannot legally advertise itself, but it can create things
the City can use.
− Certain safety compliances were said to be required by the MOSHA and the
DOL.
− The Finance Department stated that they had to follow state rules, and were
regulated by the DMV, tax liens, and GAAP.
− The City was said to be restricted by the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP).
o The City was said to spend a lot of money updating its infrastructure and
equipment to keep up with standards. The following were cited as examples:
− The City’s storm water system has not been modified in 100 years, and it was
said that it needed to be updated in order to meet current regulations.
− The City was said to have started administering permits to begin complying
with phase 2 water regulations. Workers must get things done the way the
permit requires, and this demands more resources. Workers said it is very
expensive to repair their water treatment plant, because the plant is 40 years
old and requires more to replace parts.
− The Fire Department said they need to provide more data for medical
reimbursement, which takes a lot of time and is seen as a large drain on
resources in general. They said they wanted either someone to do this in-
house or use a billing company. Another option was to outsource the work to
someone else, but workers believed that it may cost even more money to do
so.
− The Police Department said complying with federal reporting requirements is
becoming increasingly demanding, which takes time away from officers
29
doing their jobs. However, if they do not comply, then they lose federal
funding.
− Building codes were said to have had an increase in demand for training.
State requirements were said to force 5 members of the department to have
one full day of training.
− Employees stated that Public Works had been impacted by recent regulatory
changes with regards to China and recycling policies.
o Some departments are trying to cross-train to comply with regulations, so they
do not have to add people to cover other workers who are out.
o Workers expected regulatory demands to increase, especially ones on clean
water.
o Grants were said to take 4-5 days to get supporting documents, and workers are
not given more resources to do this.
o SPC TV workers said that cable companies kept switching the local TV stations,
which made it difficult for citizens to find the channel for watching local
government meetings.
o SPC TV is currently involved in four pending lawsuits. They are suing 2 lobbyist
groups while being sued by two others. Lobbying organizations in Washington
were conducting the suits, and workers said that the lawsuits themselves were
not costing the City any money. However, the department also just had its
funding pulled by the FCC, which will have an impact on the department.
Workers are unsure what the full extent of the impact will be.
o Water Resource Protection was said to have a successful relationship with both
the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
City was staying ahead of regulations and doing a good job of complying.
Because of this, the City was able to get generous amounts of grant money from
the Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Environmental
Protection, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of
Transportation.
o Workers said there is a concrete boat ramp on a local beach, and it was viewed
by most as a public safety risk, but it has not been touched because to do so
would require the approval of too many different departments.
o Some departments felt like requiring them to go through the planning board and
code enforcement when they wanted to get something done in the same manner
a resident would was not efficient. Workers thought there should be an
expedited process for this, and they should not have to wait 2 months on a
project. They should just be able to ask directly for approval instead of waiting
for a formal meeting and giving a big presentation. At the present time, they said
they are hiring temporary workers to fill in until the budget is approved and
then are going to hire for permanent, benefited positions.
o The Code of Ordinances was said to be outdated in many places. It was
suggested that it should be revised. Also, workers mentioned that there were
some omissions and contradictions in the ordinances, rendering them essentially
unenforceable.
30
c. Cultural
o Workers from most departments viewed the overall culture as being positive. It
was reported that 50% or more of employees had been working for the City for
15 years are more, which suggested a positive environment.
o It was noted that many workers retired out of the City.
o Some felt that workers themselves should take responsibility for self-motivation
and that a person’s desire to stay was affected by enjoying the work and culture,
feeling competent, getting training, and having an interest in a project. Workers
said that getting a good project and feeling fulfilled in their work can be more
important, at times, than a promotion.
o Departments that reported positive work cultures included the following:
− Assessing
− City Manager
− Finance
− Human Resources
− Social Services
− IT
− Fire Department
− Public Works
o Contributors to a positive morale were explained as good leadership, effective 2-
way communication, and clear goals.
o Departments or divisions that were said to need improved morale and culture
were
− Police
− Library
− Waterfront
o Contributors to poor morale were said to be a need for better communication,
poor leadership, facilities that were spread out across the City, industry specific
stress such as Social Services, lack of understanding of each other’s roles, and
low staff or vacant positions,
o Employees in departments like SPC TV, HR, and IT appreciated the opportunity
to work across departments and felt that the City had good morale overall.
o Employees said that it has become increasingly harder over the last few years for
Parks, Recreation & Waterfront to get help. They said the department may have
to increase the seasonal employees’ rate of pay.
o Workers said the City had a very proactive environmental group.
o Workers spoke positively about the new building where they work now.
o Some said the only downside to them was that they inevitably had to deal with a
few unhappy residents. Despite this, they said they did their best to provide
good customer service.
o The Library said that young families are the most vocal and usually end up
getting their way. Kids were said to easily get what they needed, but some were
worried that the elderly may get overlooked.
o The Finance Department was said to have a good culture, and workers there said
it felt like a family.
o The Police Department; Planning and Development; and Parks, Recreation &
Waterfront were all described as having low morale.
31
o Workers were said to have gone to Parks, Recreation & Waterfront to discuss
problems and suggest solutions, but many feel that nothing has been done. Many
also felt that people were not being held accountable and people in the
department were being retained when they should be let go. Some workers were
described as not doing their jobs or doing questionable things at work. For
example, it was thought the City should practice better oversight of the time-
punch system to avoid “buddy punching” and paying unearned overtime. One
coordinator in the department was said to be very rude and unkind to people,
and no one wanted to work with this person. Despite numerous complaints
being made, no one ever did anything. It was said that these problems affect
both the public view and the finances of the department.
o Communication was said to be very important and could be improved
throughout the organizational structure.
o The City was said to be becoming more diverse culturally which was thought to
be positive for morale. Staff felt that seeing other perspectives helped to see
where the City could support the community more.
o Workers said the overall social mood across the county towards police officers
has not seemed to have affected the Police Department and they feel supported
by residents.
d. Tools and Technology
o Many workers thought very highly of the City’s IT Department. It was noted that
IT was asked to do a lot, and they always came through.
o The City was said to be very forward thinking when it came to technology.
o The City was said to be willing to get better technology when staff requested it
but did not always follow through. For example, it was mentioned that $100k
was spent to implement Vieworks software but the portal was not opened to
residents and the committee that oversaw it was terminated. Another example
was the technology being put into police cars could be better maximized.
o The iWorks resident portal was said to be a good platform as long as citizens
knew it existed.
o Workers said they would like to have a centralized system for managing and
sharing information across departments.
o An IT employee position that services many departments was said to be vacant.
This further complicated technology issues because some cannot get proper
support. The position was important for both assessing and communicating with
MUNIS, and the lack of an employee in this position is complicating things.
o It was suggested that the City start reassessing the technology it has in order to
stay abreast of new developments. It was also suggested that the City
discontinue using technology that is no longer effective or is now available at
lower costs.
o Workers were concerned that there was no streamlined way to access
interdepartmental information. This, it was said, has led to problems when
residents request information. For example, when one resident asked when dogs
were allowed on the beach full time, the worker had to direct the resident to the
City’s website. Another example given was front desk workers sending phone
calls to lifeguards instead of being able to help them at the desk. Workers said
32
they want to solve this problem and be able to provide definitive answers when
asked.
o Some said that things do not get done quickly because of old IT.
o Many of the workers liked the MUNIS software used by the City.
o Staff said that GL software and MUNIS will need to be upgraded in 2 years, which
will cost a lot.
o The Police Department was said to have some trouble with their technology.
Workers said it takes 10 minutes to log in to computers. They are working on
upgrading their records system, but they have to share it with other
municipalities. There is said to be communication problems between these
groups. Other municipalities are said to hold on to important things when they
should be shared. Portland and Cape Elizabeth do things for South Portland
instead of teaching South Portland how to do things themselves. This means
South Portland has to wait for the two cities to respond instead of doing things
for themselves. For example, if South Portland tries to print an incident report
and it fails, the police must email or call Portland or Cape Elizabeth to see if the
problem is the shared server. Work gets backed up because it takes too long to
load or print things. Employees also said the workflow was not always the best,
with new tech being purchased and other technology becoming outdated very
quickly. For example, the police said they would buy a laptop for one of their
cars in order to scan licenses. The software on the other side would be outdated
and the communication line would break down. Workers said they need better
communication and coordination with IT.
o Registration for vehicles was moved to SQL, and next year it will be moved to
Web. There was reportedly a cost each time it was moved.
o Some said that learning new technology was rewarding but also stressful; other
workers wished they could have more time for training on new technology.
o The Waste Water Treatment Plant felt that their technology is adequate.
o Some workers said they had to purchase their own supplies and books and had
to drive their own vehicles for work. Staff that drove their own vehicles said they
were reimbursed but that it put additional wear and tear on the personal vehicle.
o Engineering was said to have cutting-edge technology, even better than most
consulting firms. Workers were using this to their advantage by keeping up with
the pace of projects they are working on.
o The appraisal software used by the City was said to have been recently updated,
which was causing some difficulty. It had been rolled out 18 months ago and,
employees seemed underwhelmed so far. It was said to have a few bugs to work
out, and a training program for using it needs to be developed and implemented.
However, employees were hopeful that this would improve with time.
o Some said that equipment is not treated or used properly, and then it is not
replaced when it breaks down. Workers said the City could save money and
resources with a good preventative maintenance plan. An example of effective
preventative maintenance is in Public Works. They require that vehicles be
treated for salt to help preserve the engines and extend the life of equipment.
Further, it was said that by treating the vehicles, themselves, it was said they
were saving the City the cost of contracting it out.
o It was that RFPs were said to take too long for trucks. They said their equipment
was outdated and needed to be replaced. They said they are only buying 2 trucks
33
a year and have $5-$8 million in equipment they need. They said they must
borrow dump trucks, salt trucks, sidewalk tractors, plow trucks, and loaders
regularly from Parks, Recreation & Waterfront. These are all 1-ton trucks used
for paving and hauling. They also said they must spend more because of salt and
plowing. They said that insulation was expensive, and they felt they were being
set up for failure.
o The Library was said to have issues with their printer on a regular basis, which
was a problem because it is important and heavily used. The Library was also
said to have a lot of outdated equipment, including computers, although they
also said those were being updated. The department often gets requests from
citizens for card readers for computers, and workers there would like to have a
way to pay fines electronically.
o Workers said that there were printers for title processing. One laser printer was
used for some documents, but another printer was required by the state to be
used for other types of documents.
o It was said that Planning and Development could use better computers. They
were said to run powerful software and the computers they used had a hard time
keeping up.
o The pool was said to use general funds and does not usually have a lot of money.
Workers said that technology is improving for them, but they are missing
equipment that they need to safely do their jobs, and they still worry about what
to do if something breaks.
o Workers said the City was having trouble making traffic signals interface with
the system.
o Public Works felt that the budget and economy are having a negative impact on
their department.
o SPC TV was said to build their own computers. The department was also said to
have replaced their old equipment in the last couple of years. Workers liked the
new equipment but wanted more time to read the manuals and really learn how
to use it well.
o The Finance Department said they use TRIO software for cars but are having a
hard time registering vehicle. They said they are supposed to get a new update to
it, but they are not sure when.
o Public Works said they need better software but are supposed to get
improvements in July. Workers said the department used to have a streamlined
software program for citizens to send requests to the Superintendent, but that
had been assigned to a crew instead. Now it was said that there are two software
programs that are not integrated to manage both citizen and City responses to
incidents. When the department asks the crew about what tools they need to get
their job done, the crew says they need better equipment.
o Some said that doing a Capital Improvement Project CIP takes 6-12 months,
which is slower than the private sector. The plan they are following is a 7-year
plan; employees said departments have to balance their budget needs for tech
for the next 7 years. Some said it was difficult to predict that far ahead for
technology. For example, databases keep changing and costs keep increasing
along with that, making it difficult to predict the budget.
34
e. Organizational Structure
o It was said there was a significant divide between what union and non-union
employees receive, and this creates internal strife. For example, the Fire
Department reportedly wanted to hire a mechanic at higher pay because he had
a higher certification, but the City turned the request down. It was also said that
union workers have incentives like certifications that non-union workers do not
have.
o Employees said there was little advocacy for non-union workers because they do
not have any collective bargaining rights, and this leads these workers to fall
behind their union coworkers over time. It was said that unless a manager
advocates for them, non-union workers do not receive much.
o Staff said that the City has less bureaucracy than Portland. Workers felt that the
City’s bureaucracy was big enough to provide full services, but not so big as to
be a burden. Some said it was easy to go directly to a person and ask questions.
However, some also said that South Portland’s bureaucracy was more top heavy
when compared to Portland.
o South Portland was described as being a small city that is expected to operate
like a large city.
o Some said it was hard to get staff to attend “boring council sessions at odd
hours.”
o Workers said it would be beneficial if the City standardized the handling of
projects so workers knew who to ask for information or help. Many said that
right now workers just go to the most senior worker around them and ask any
questions they have. They said they do not get in trouble for asking questions,
but they are unsure whether answers will be consistent.
o Workers in one department stated that an environment of learning and sharing
is more conducive to the department’s overall goals.
o Staff said that some managers had been corrected for demonstrating what they
feel are appropriate leadership skills and described this as demoralizing.
o It was said that, in order to be a successful supervisor, one had to be a good
listener. Being diplomatic instead of democratic with those you supervise was
said to work best because it gave subordinates a chance to view an issue as a
problem solver.
o Directors were said to be fantastic and have an open-door policy. When someone
is out, another person was said to jump in and help.
o It was suggested that a GIS Manager position should be created.
o The Finance Department was said to have been without a supervisor for a
number of months but was getting a new one in mid-October. Workers in the
department were said to have their own duties and to know when they have to
do them, and the organizational structure is flat, which was described as a
positive.
o Employees said that when a leadership position was out on an extended medical
leave, the next highest-ranking person was not always put in charge.
o Some expressed uncertainty about why Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront were
all included together in the same department. According to workers, each is in a
different building, and the concerns and goals of each are completely different
from one another. Some personnel felt that each should be its own separate
department.
35
o Some said that the department administrators were not included in the staff
meetings. Non-union workers were not invited to the meetings, which were
described as being a lot of talk with no action.
o Some departments were said to have monthly meetings where they would go
around and each worker would tell what they were doing. These meetings were
thought to be okay and it was suggested they could be more efficient if they
talked about how to do their jobs better, not just what they were doing. Some
departments were also said to have quarterly meetings that could be more
effective if staff and management had better communication skills.
o Communication was said to be important for organizational structures. Some
workers reported there being a “lag time” in communication with regards to the
City’s organizational structure.
o Interactions with some of the City’s administrators were described as being
inconsistent and problematic, and it was said that some administrators did not
seem to be on the same page, which posed an unexpected challenge to workers.
o Other workers said that they had great working relationships with all the people
they dealt with, and further claimed that the internal structure may look
inconsistent from the outside, but internally it made sense most of the time.
This was said to depend somewhat on what your job was and who you usually
dealt with, but for the most part these workers felt everyone was on the same
page.
o Crossing guards were said to have meetings at the beginning and end of the
school year, and these meetings were described as helpful. Workers said it would
be nice if the Police Department had similarly effective meetings.
o Some said chain of command was not always followed. Workers said they
learned to go straight to the top because they saw an opportunity to get better
answers more quickly when they had questions.
o Some of the departments were described as having “interesting hierarchies.”
According to workers, these departments reported to the City Manager, but gave
daily reports to the Assistant City Manager. Answering to these two
administrators was said to be inconsistent.
o Hierarchy was said to not be followed. Examples were when filling vacancies
which did not make sense if attempting a succession plan. The Chain of
Command was said to be important, and South Portland had a different
structure than most due to internal stress.
o Some said that the recorded organizational structure is inaccurate and does not
work as intended. One example given of this is the Parks, Recreation &
Waterfront Supervisor was said to answer to 4 different people, but this was not
recorded anywhere. Also, after a reconstruction 2 years ago, different employees
from Parks, Recreation & Waterfront go to different tenured employees for
advice on certain topics.
o Organizational structure was said to be lacking in many departments. Parks,
Recreation & Waterfront was said to be top heavy with lots of supervisory
positions. There are 5-6 different levels in the department, and workers said it
can be confusing. Supervisory staff meetings for the department were said to
involve over half the actual organization. This was said to make it difficult for
new hires to understand who they are supposed to go to for answers.
36
o Some workers said that if a major mistake occurred, the worker would get in
trouble instead of the supervisor. Staff said that even though a supervisor may
have the same certifications as those they oversee, the subordinate was on call
instead of the supervisor
o It was said the City Council created a position in the Sustainability Office
concentrated on making everything more environmentally friendly.
o Departments said they would like more control over how the spend the revenue
they bring in. They also said they would like to able to hire when needed and not
wait for the next budget cycle.
o Planning and Development was said to be in charge of Code Enforcement but did
not know what they did. Code Enforcement was said to be shrinking, and felt the
department head should ask what that meant to the City with regards to meeting
deadlines and long-term implications.
o Workers often felt they could not be proactive because they were too busy on
yesterday’s work. They felt the cause was a combination of factors such as a
need for improved efficiencies, better technology, more staff, and increased
demands and regulations.
o It was noted that the union and non-union workers are treated differently. For
example, the union employees were not part of the study.
o City policy was said to be inconsistent.
o Dispatch was said to be in Portland.
o Parks, Recreation & Waterfront; Water Resource Protection; and Public Works all
felt they needed to hire more employees. They felt they could get more done and
be more proactive if they were fully staffed. Public Works said that they have to
spend money on overtime because there are not enough employees to do the
necessary work. They need money for flaggers and end up having to use their
own workers. They get a lot of overtime pay for this, but it was said that no one
would be upset if this overtime was taken away. Parks, Recreation & Waterfront
said there are more kids participating in programs and they simply do not have
the staff to run programs nor the budgetary resources to expand programs. The
department also said they are constantly struggling to hire new employees but
have to wait on the budgetary processes to go through. Then, as soon as they can
hire a new employee, the program expands again, and they need to hire yet
another one. This was good because they were making a lot of money on the
program and were in fact running 150-160% ahead of expectations financially;
however, they said they need more workers and resources.
o The Water Department was said to have a strong structure and have great
working relationships within the department and with other departments. The
organizational structure of the department was said to be changed as needed in
order to keep up with the industry and regulations, and it was also constantly
evolving to keep the department successful in its endeavors.
o WWTP was said to rotate shifts for people on call. It was also said that the
department has 3 supervisors for 7 employees when in the past the department
had 1 in charge of 16.
o The Police Department was restructured a few years ago after some legal battles
and the results of this were seen as positive. It was suggested that the
organizational structure of the department be reviewed regularly to make sure
workers there are being used effectively.
37
o Staff said the City had recently created a Facilities Department, which was
seriously needed. The City was said to be considering a City Electrician position
as well. Some workers felt that it would be better to have a dedicated electrician
rather than outsourcing the work. It was also said that the City should consider
hiring a dedicated Corporate Counsel rather than contracting with an outside
firm.
o Public Works was said to have a good organizational structure with some minor
conflicts between various leadership positions. Workers mentioned that there are
some personality conflicts in the department, but the Superintendent does a
good job keeping things peaceful. It was also said that the department needs
more leadership during the summer; workers thought 1 more foreman would be
helpful.
o The Library was said to suffer from a lack of a top-down organizational structure
and a lack of communication from supervisor-level employees. It was suggested
that the department should have more effective channels for executive decisions
to be conveyed to all levels. Some also felt that while the organizational
structure works in terms of management, there should be fewer non-benefitted
part-time positions and more benefitted part-time positions.
f. Demographics
o Workers said that the City is becoming more diverse in its demographics. Some
said that diversity helps the City be more successful if there is equal opportunity
for all members to participate and contribute to the community.
o Workers said that there were more new residents and more revenue. They said
they had gotten 3k more residents in the last 12 years.
o More people of low or moderate income were said to be moving in. At the same
time, residents who have lived in South Portland for a long time are getting
priced out and are moving out of the City because they can get a lot of money
for their homes. It was said families are not replacing these people because many
families cannot afford to live in the City. Staff reported knowing several families
whose grown children could not afford to live in South Portland. The City was
said to not contain a lot of land areas for new development.
o Workers said the City has to deal with homelessness and more immigrants,
which was said to be affecting social services and schools.
o While the City is becoming more diverse, some workers were concerned that
older residents were retiring out of the City and being replaced by lower-income
citizens. Since the workers felt living in the City was unaffordable, they worried
about how this influx of lower-income citizens would affect things.
o It was said that an increased volume of Asylum Seekers has changed the
dynamic of what Social Services does. The General Assistance Division was said
to be sometimes unable to provide services. It was said that 10 years ago there
were 10 families on General Assistance; now there are 62. Workers said the City
has to follow certain guidelines to get funding. If they cannot get enough, the
City has to work with local churches. Dependence on local churches was said to
have increased 30%.
o Staff said more financial aid is being offered to Parks, Recreation & Waterfront
because of the influx of immigrants, and funds for an entire year are now being
38
used up in a matter of weeks. This problem was said to arise from expanding the
program when there are not enough funds to support the expansion.
o Citizens were said to be positive about the idea of affordable housing but were
less enthusiastic about having affordable housing in their neighborhoods.
o Workers reported seeing more homelessness. They said the City did not have a
lot of homeless, but the number had gone up.
o Social Services reported seeing changes in demographics. They said that seniors
are living longer and on fixed income. Many of the elderly are said to have
trouble paying their taxes, and hardship abatements were said to be increasing
because seniors are unable to make ends meet on Social Security. Seniors were
said to be more willing to reach out to Social Services for assistance, which they
did not used to do because of pride. Social Services also reported an increase in
opiate use between ages 20-45. Alcohol abuse was more common than opioids
for people over 45. Asylum seekers have increased the departments workload,
and workers there said more training was needed.
o It was said that more retirees and refugees were coming into the Library. The
Department was also seeing an increase of homeless entering during the winter
months.
o Some said that people used to be more tolerant of changes they saw in the City.
Blue-collar families were in the City for shipbuilding and tolerated businesses
being close to their homes. Nowadays, though, staff said people are more likely
to complain to the City Council when there are problems and Council Members
are more likely to request immediate action.
o It was said that there are more ambulance calls being made.
o Some employees said traffic has gotten worse and they were starting to see
crime. Workers said there has been a string of car break ins on High Street.
People were said to usually leave their cars unlocked, and someone has been
going around and looking for loose change in the cars. People are now starting to
lock their cars.
o Workers said Park Rangers are in the process of being deputized, which means
they can write tickets for things like marijuana use on city premises.
o It was said that more marijuana use was being reported, as well as more drug
overdoses.
o The School Department was said to be struggling with the number of families
that have come to the City. The City itself was said to be having an even bigger
struggle with this.
o Bridgeton, a City about an hour away from South Portland, is seen as being a lot
less costly place to live.
o Some workers recommended having a ferry service to Portland. People going
from other suburbs into Portland during rush hour make it difficult for people
to travel to South Portland.
g. Political
o Residents of South Portland were said to be involved in local politics and cared
about the local government and City services. Residents were said to be eager to
learn more about local matters and encouraged others to explain things so they
understood everything more clearly. It was said demographics played a part of
how community residents heard about local happenings.
39
o The politics of how the City operates were said to be fairly functional. The state
government was said to have either a liberal or a conservative bend, but this is
not a significant factor in the City.
o Workers said Council Members in the past have had to be reminded to go
through the City Manager to deal with the workforce but that recently that has
not been the case.
o It was said that those workers that have opportunities to spend time with
officials get more resources while in some cases other, more experienced
workers get dismissed or overlooked. Employees suggested that more
experienced workers be consulted before decisions are made.
o At the moment, the City Council was said to be very upbeat and cohesive;
however, workers noted that this outlook might change with elections and new
council members. For example, the Council was said to be favoring
environmental and sustainability initiatives now, but getting new Council
Members could change that.
o Some said planning and budgets could be significantly impacted by politics
because the City Council dictates priorities. These priorities, it was said, can
change quickly and often without notice. For example, it was decided the City
would be on phase 4 of the CIP project. Then, after 15 years, the City decided not
to follow through with it, which really impacts how departments operate.
o Workers said the temperament of the Council can affect the daily work of
employees.
o It was said that the Council created new positions in departments that the
departments did not ask for. Other positions were cut that the departments
thought they needed. It was also said that if the Council decided to focus on
something, the City workers just had to live with it. This was reported to have
widespread effects on the City.
o The creation of new committees to staff and ordinances to enforce was said to
put a burden on workers because they do not get additional funding to support
these new measures.
o The Library and Community Center are seen as providing essential services.
Because of this, both are expected to remain open when other City buildings are
closed.
o Some said that the Library should be taking on more community service
responsibilities in terms of the homelessness but does not because it is not
currently equipped to do so.
o Some said that municipal workers are not able to have a voice with the Council
because they are not considered tax payers. They worry that messages that are
delivered to the public may not be accurate.
o Employees said that people sometimes view City laborers as being uneducated
and uncertified when they are actually very knowledgeable and experts in their
field. Reversing that outlook was said to be a struggle.
o Some felt that the Council was indifferent to the workers and the jobs they do.
They said the City had spent $72 million on a water facility, but only one Council
Member had gone to see it in 30 years.
o Workers said they desire politics to stay out of their daily work environment and
suggest staff keep political opinions neutral. They said it helps to remember they
40
are all public servants hired to serve the community as a whole. As such they
should not impose their personal, religious, or political beliefs on others.
h. Natural Environment
o South Portland was said to have a lot going on, and was also in close proximity
to the water, the beach, lakes, and the city of Portland. The City was said to
benefit from having a good location along the coast. The City was also said to
attract people from Portland, and does a good job maintaining parks and green
spaces while also balancing revitalization. It was stated that the highways were
good, and the City is near a good airport. Events are usually held on City
property. Workers said they want to keep South Portland a desirable location.
o There was said to be a disconnect in expectations from businesses who want to
expand and citizens who want the City to have double the amount of green
spaces other organizations have.
o Some said there was an evolution in the environment because both the coastal
community and the climate are changing.
o Workers said the City is unique because it has lots of things crammed into a very
small space — working and passive waterfronts, 39 parks, lighthouses, industry,
retail, passive and active recreation, and businesses.
o It was said only a few employees live in Portland; many others live in
surrounding municipalities.
o Some buildings were said to need fans in the restrooms.
o Workers said the City gets a lot of summer tourism. Cruise ships come in during
this time, and lots of people come to shop in the Maine Mall, the largest
shopping mall in the state of Maine.
o Employees said that there is an expectation that people will come in to work
regardless of weather or snow. This was said to create a huge burden, especially
for workers who cannot afford to come and live in the City. Portland City offices
will close during inclement weather, but the South Portland offices will stay
open. Some suggested that if the schools close, government offices should
consider closing as well.
o Several groups of activists were said to be advocating for many things —
sustainability, banning pesticides, closing the Pipeline, demanding clean air —
which can affect South Portland’s success because the City depends on some of
these industries for revenue. Some also noted that, even though there is a
movement against the use of tobacco products, there is also, ironically, support
for licensing marijuana businesses.
Competitors
• According to workers, some government and municipal competitors include:
Portland; Cumberland; Scarborough; Westbrook; Brunswick; Biddeford; Yarmouth;
Falmouth; Gorham; Saco; Windham; Boston; Old Orchard Beach; Concord, NH; the
University of Southern Maine; Southern Maine Community College; the Maine College
of Art; the MECA Library; the Wetlands Reserve Program; the state government;
various water districts; and other cities and municipalities.
41
• Some of the private competitors mentioned include Texas Instruments, consulting
firms, landscapers, real estate and building trades, contractors, recreation agencies,
summer camps, engineering firms, and local TV networks.
• Parks, Recreation & Waterfront was said to lose workers to anywhere that pays
above minimum wage.
• Workers stated the above competitors were popular for the following reasons: better
pay, especially for experienced workers; a better work culture; better schedules; less
work; and more opportunities for full-time employment.
• It was said that the loss of volunteer firehouses has made recruitment more
challenging for the Fire Department and forced communities to consider paid
staffing.
• Employees explicitly stated that local municipalities like Portland and Cumberland
should be included in this study, because, employees aver, the City loses workers to
these areas regularly.
• It was said there was a great potential for good workers to leave in order to secure
positions where they will be at the top of their profession and have advancement
potential.
• SPC TV was said to have a positive work environment and pay camera operators
more than the market average, but only for entry-level positions, and these
operators also hold down other jobs working for networks.
• It was said that South Portland often gets employees from smaller communities, due
to the City’s market having extremely low unemployment.
• Workers noted that SMCC had a wastewater feeder program 10-15 years ago but had
discontinued it. It was said that the loss of the program made it harder to find a
qualified person with a wastewater background.
• Workers reported seeing a lot of people retire from South Portland.
• The City was said to have given up on hiring Camera Operators part time because
they cannot keep them if they only work 19.5 hours a week.
• The Library was said to have significant turnover and often loses workers to other
localities. City Hall was said to not have much turnover.
• Competition for seasonal pay workers was said to boil down to who pays more.
Workers suggested that restructuring and getting rid of some management could
allow the City to reallocate funds and offer more competitive wages.
• The Police Department was said to compete against all the other police departments
for a limited pool of acceptable applicants. The department was noted to have strict
hiring standards. So, they needed to attract candidates who could work anywhere as
long as they pass a background check and other hiring requirements. The
expectation was for new hires to pass a background check and learn multiple
specialties.
• The Police Department reported offering a sign-on bonus because of the
competition. It was stated that they had lost two people in the last year — one went
to a federal agency, the other went to another local agency in Cumberland. The
department has reportedly been trying to make benefits better, so they appear more
competitive. They say if they can retain workers for 5-10 years, then the workers
stay their entire career.
• The City was reportedly trying to fill the Police Chief position, but what is being
offered is not competitive with other localities.
42
• It was said workers from neighboring police departments would not want to work at
the South Portland Police Department due to all the responsibilities the department
has
• The Fire and Police departments were said to not be losing too many workers. They
reportedly lost one who was not a good fit. Workers suggested the departments
make a distinction between those who are promoted and those who are new. It was
further suggested that the departments need to incentivize new hires. It was
suggested the departments should have a $5k pay bump for experienced workers
who are hired by one of the departments.
• The Library stated that they had no problem retaining people but had posted a
position for a worker and could not attract anyone from other local libraries. The
workers who applied were either severely underqualified or wanted to relocate form
outside the state.
• Part-time employees were said to find part-time jobs elsewhere, which was said to
make loyalty difficult.
• Library said that, hours were said to have been expanded, and 2 locations of the
main library were now open on Mondays. Another branch was now open from
Sunday to Friday from 1:00 until 5:00. The libraries used to be open on Sunday,
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, but the new hours began in mid-August. Workers
said the City only hired one non-benefitted, 17-hour worker to accommodate these
new hours.
• Some expressed concern that the City’s workforce was aging and did not have
anyone to replace them; the pay was said to be uncompetitive in the eyes of the
younger generation.
• Workers felt that people were attracted to South Portland because of the quality of
life and the great services the City offered. The City was said to have a good culture,
lots of parks, a library, and a community center. However, many also noted that the
housing costs were extremely high, and so many workers could not afford to live in
the City. According to employees, this lack of affordable housing caused many of
them to live either west or north of the City.
• South Portland was said to not pay as well as some of the other surrounding areas.
Workers said they were paid less than the going rate for a municipality, and they
could get better pay in other areas, such as Boston if they were willing to live there.
Positions Considered to be Difficult to Recruit and Retain
• Specific positions described as being difficult for the City to find and hold on to
were the following:
− Aquatics Workers
− Assistant Teen Center Coordinator
− Before and After-School Child Care Workers
− Camera Operators
− Code Enforcement
− Equipment Operators
− Inspectors
− IT
43
− Library Assistant
− Library Workers
− Lifeguards
− Mechanics
− Operators
− Skilled Labor
− Teen Center Coordinator
− Site Leaders
− Seasonal
− Supervisors
• Factors that were said to contribute to low number of candidates responding to job
openings were primarily pay and benefits not keep up with the market.
• Some said that all the City positions took months to fill. This was said to put a strain
on other workers.
• If workers lived outside the City, they said they would have to commute, and this
caused wear and tear on vehicles.
• Turnover for some positions is said to be high. For example, some mentioned that
before the current Teen Center Coordinator was hired in February, 3 people had
been hired in the previous year to do the job. It was also said that the City had gone
through 3 Assistant Teen Center Coordinators since the current Coordinator had
arrived.
• Some said South Portland has too high expectations for certain positions, which
causes the City to waste time and resources trying to find over-qualified candidates
that do not exist. In addition to having standards that are too high, many said that
workers have to take a pay cut to work in South Portland.
• The City was said to have to lure inspectors away from other communities because
they needed a state certification to do the job.
• Some workers said the City was having a difficult time hiring 30-hour part-time
workers, notably school-aged site leaders and before and after-care workers, and
keeping those positions filled. It was also said to be difficult to find people to work
split shifts in the before and after-school care program. After care was said to be
staffed with mostly high school students; staffing before care was more difficult due
to a lack of high school workers during those hours.
• When hiring for positions, it was said it would be helpful if the hire knows how to
use MUNIS software VISION, and TRIO software.
• It was said to be difficult to find qualified job applicants when people leave or retire.
• It was said that a Site Leader could be a waitress or waiter for similar money and not
work full time.
• The Library was said to have a difficult time recruiting for positions in general due
to having a small pool of potential hires and a lack of people within the industry in
the local market. This was said to be especially true for positions that were part
time and unbenefited.
• Library jobs were sad to be coveted by people, but other departments have vacancies
that go on for months.
• WWTP said that they have trouble finding people who will do both the technical
aspects of the job as well as the more grunt aspects.
44
• Employees said the City spent 3 months trying to hire a weekend supervisor for the
pool. It was said that they got only 6 applicants during this time period, and all but
2 of them were not qualified for the position.
• Some workers said they entered their jobs knowing the pay would not be great, but
that the benefits would be good. They said they have been working for the City for a
long time, and the benefits area is not keeping up.
• Unions were said to have an impact on recruiting because they make it difficult for
the City to offer competitive pay. The City needs to replace a set skill but are bound
to what is contractually negotiated. Some workers need to get certifications within a
given time after being hired, but it is hard to remove union workers if they do not
get the certifications in time. Some of them were said to not test well; others can
past the test but do not have a good work ethic.
• In order to hire for a position, Public Works was said to have had to offer things that
caused trouble internally with other employees.
• Workers said that communication with the Recreation Department was a problem. It
was said that managers will promote people who are not qualified. This can cause
the employees to feel frustrated and mistreated, leading them to leave and find new
jobs.
• The SPC TV media feels that no one in the City knows what they do.
• It was said that there was a disparity in pay at the Police Department between the
Deputy Chief and the Lieutenants. The Deputy Chief must be promoted from the
Lieutenant ranks, of which there are 4. At the present time, the pay for the Deputy
Chief was said to be similar to the pay most of the lieutenants receive. The
lieutenants were said to get stipends or incentives that the Deputy Chief does not
get. This disparity was corrected last year but has since returned in part because of
the collective bargaining agreement that is applied to the lieutenants. This disparity
is a concern because the Deputy Chief has a far greater level of responsibility
compared to the lieutenants and hiring or raising another Deputy Chief in the future
could be difficult without better pay as an incentive.
• The City expects operators to have CDLs and experience, which other communities
usually offer more pay for. The City was said to hire operators without a CDL so
long as the workers can get it within 6 months. It was thought the same extension
was said to be given to arborists as well.
• The City was said to have advertised the Operator 1 position for two years without
finding a replacement. The City used to have 4 mechanics and electricians but now
had only one. They found one person they almost hired, but the person declined to
take the position.
• Parks, Recreation & Waterfront and IT also reported trouble getting good candidates.
Good Sources of Candidates
• The City was said to use Maine Municipal, Indeed.com, JobsInME.com, the city
website, newspapers, bulletins, and weekly print adds to recruit new workers. The
Parks Department reportedly conducted their own job fair last year. It helped them
find 7 people, but they reportedly still need more workers.
45
• Every department was said to have different sources for getting applicants. The
Library was said to have various online sources that they used to recruit, such as
statewide list servers and national list servers.
• The Police Department posts all jobs in the state and was said to be getting a lot out
of City and state applicants. Employees said the department also released a
recruiting video to attract people who are interested in the tactical aspect of police
work. It is said the video will soon be supplemented by another video that focuses
on the community interaction part of policework to attract those potential
candidates who have a different motivation. The police were said to advertise within
the profession, at colleges and technical schools, and among veterans. They are also
said to promote interaction with the youth community to provide a positive roe
model and to perhaps awaken an interest in law enforcement at a young age.
• The City was said to only spend $3k per year on recruiting, plus some money from
department hiring.
• Some suggested recruiting out of state like in Connecticut, where cost of living is
similar to South Portland, but the pay was felt to be low. Pay there was said to be
less, and people did not get as much for their money.
• Some said there was not a common place where they looked for workers. The Tax
Office was said to attract employees from other cities.
• Parks, Recreation & Waterfront believe the department needs to recruit outside the
City for part-time, seasonal workers. They said high schools will not have enough
students to provide staff to the department.
• Competition for workers was said to be much harder than it used to be. It was said
the City used to get a lot of applications, but not anymore. It was said the City still
gets a good number of applicants, though.
• Interns were mentioned as a recruitment source. It was said if the interns gained
knowledge while working for a department, they would be put into a pool for
position searches. However, the system was said to not easily allow
• departments to convert good interns unless it was in the budget. The Fire
Department was said to have their interns do work for an allotted amount of time so
that they could see if the interns would be a good fit for the department.
• The City was said to have connected with the Maine college system in order to
develop a feeder program. The local community college was said to have Fire
Department training, and it was said this would be an advantage over other
communities. It was also said that this program was part of the education program
there, and so did not cost the City any money. The Sustainability Department has
reportedly had success with reaching out to local colleges.
• Some employees said that they had been unaware of public sector jobs when
growing up, and in college there was not much career awareness of the public sector.
It was suggested the City do more to raise this awareness among younger workers
and college students.
• Employees for some departments said workers have to know state rules and
regulations, and it helps if an employee has previous experience with a municipal or
state organization.
• Workers said the City may want to consider creating positions for internships in the
Library.
• Workers suggested that the City should do a better job advertising for and raising
awareness of public sector positions. It was also suggested that the City offer to pay
46
for some of the costs for a college degree if students agreed to work for the City for
a certain amount of time.
• It was suggested that the City do a better job of letting employees, especially per
diem workers, know when new positions are available. It was also suggested the City
keep the Supervisors up to date on this information so they can inform their
workers when these openings occur.
• Some suggested that the City should update job descriptions while there were still
workers in the positions so that workers can help make the descriptions more
accurate.
• Workers felt the City should reduce lead time to post positions. For example, the IT
Network Administrator/Help Desk Technician II worker was said to have passed
away in July but the job description for the position has only recently been released.
Understanding of Current Pay Structure
• Employees said there was no merit increase for City workers, and the City did not
compete with the outside labor market.
• Personnel described the City as not incentivize learning special skills and said it did
not pay extra to workers who had certifications.
• Some employees said department heads typically do not know what their employees
do, which affects the budget because they do not know how to allocate funds.
Lower-level employees are said to do more of the actual work than management, and
organizations are becoming too top heavy and was not as effective as it could be.
• Some noted a dichotomy between hourly workers and salary workers. Hourly
workers were said to have no room to negotiate terms, but salary workers have room
to negotiate pay, benefits, vacation time, excused sick time, and other items. Hourly
workers also reportedly must give five-days’ notice before using vacation time, while
salary workers do not need to give any notice. Hourly workers were described as
having to come in if there is an emergency while some salary workers do not. Hourly
workers were also said to get their wages frozen faster than salary workers. It was
said that the last three steps in the 9 step plans for hourly workers did not contain
any pay increases; however, some workers admitted that they have never seen the
salary worker pay scale. Some said the policy should be opened up more.
• Workers said the City did not offer to pay for new licenses for new hires at Water
Treatment at first, even though workers must have a wastewater license. The City
did pay for continuing education, though, and last year began paying for water
treatment licenses. It was said new employees have to pay $200 to take the test for
the license. The City also limited compensation time for the department, and only
gave a $150 allowance for safety shoes, which had not been increased in years. The
department was said to be the only one to put a stricter limit on compensation time,
moving it from 240 hours to 80 hours.
• Staff said retirement benefits did not start for an ICMA worker until they worked
there for 3 years; for a regular worker, the wait was 5 years. If a worker leaves before
reaching that point, they lose everything. Some thought more workers would stay if
the length on vesting for PERS was shortened, but others said PERS is state
mandated. It was also said that, for the State of Maine, retirement benefits could be
transferred to other localities if a worker’s next employer is a municipality.
47
• Salaries were said to get frozen after 5 years, and even that 5-year step is lower than
entry-level jobs in the private sector. After the 5th year, employees must wait
another few years before getting a pay raise; many of them go to other jobs before
that time comes.
• Personnel explained that new employees who have experience must be brought on at
a level higher than entry level. While many workers thought this was an appropriate
thing to do, they pointed out that this caused problems for the new employees
because there was less room for growth. For example, if a new employee comes in at
step 7 of 9, then it will not take him too long to reach the top spot.
• Workers said as South Portland is growing, the cost of living is going up and there is
no COLA adjustment.
• Workers were concerned that this study would find that employees were indeed
underpaid, but that the City would say they did not have the money for pay
increases.
• Municipalities were said to be higher in benefits, and the wellness program for the
City was said to be very good.
• Some customer service training was reported to be offered by the City. One worker
said they were partially reimbursed for some college courses that were directly
related to the work they did.
• Workers said that the City paid about $25-30k more for managerial positions
compared to other municipalities. It was also said that the City puts effort into
hiring new employees but does not do much to try and keep current workers.
Benefits, such as extra vacation time, are added to attract new employees, but the
same benefits are not offered to existing employees, which lowers morale.
• Employees were said to all be held to the same standards, and workers said there
was very little room to negotiate for better benefits or conditions which was said to
not motivate stellar performers. Some felt that Supervisors should have more power
to keep good performers and deal with things such as this.
• Some employees said they have to use their personal cell phones without
compensation from the City.
Work Environment
• The culture was said to have improved over the last few years; the City was said to
now recognize the need to stay current on certifications and has done more to
support and encourage this.
• It was said that the City used to send supervisors to leadership academy; the
practice was described by some as being ineffective as newer programs may exist.
The cost for going to the academy was said to be reimbursed.
• The City was said to offer reimbursements for education, but this account was said
to be typically drained well before the end of the fiscal year. They think money for
that mostly goes to workers who must keep their certifications. It was suggested
this fund be increased so that more employees could benefit from it.
• The Library said they do not get a lot of funds for professional training; the money it
does get usually comes from Friends of the Library, not the City budget. A lot of the
funds for professional training in Safety was said to come from grants funded
through the state.
48
• The team building, praise, and recognition an employee receives was said to depend
on the department they are in and who their supervisor is.
• Workers stated that Water and Code Enforcement receive praise and recognition
when they do good work. Some said that this practice is not as prevalent in other
departments.
• The City was said to advertise about being family friendly and providing personal
growth, team building, and praise, but it was felt these characteristics are
exaggerated.
• The Safety Committee was said to be starting a recognition program to recognize
workers and give them $5 Dunkin Donuts gift cards which employees appreciated.
• Employees said the Wellness Committee tries to give incentives for being healthy
and involved, promoting activities such as bowling parties and apple picking. Public
Works was also said to try and show appreciation for the workers by doing things
like buying birthday cakes, bringing in donuts, or providing food during storms.
Incentive were often said to be paid for by the supervisor of the department using
their own money. The supervisors also made sure employees had cots and food for
the Snow team when they must work for a long time. These actions were said to be
greatly appreciated by the workers in the department.
• The Engineering Department was said to push employees for personal growth. The
diversity of the projects they do and the effort it takes to resolve the problems they
face was said to be a challenge, and the department pushed its workers to be up to
the challenge. This was said to help promote team building as well. Some said that
the department does little things to help keep comradery high. For example, workers
mentioned that everyone in the department does a good job of saying thank you.
• It was said that many in the City government try to be kind and caring and to
accommodate workers beyond what is normally done. The City Manager, for
example, was said to try and make decisions that are employee friendly.
• Workers said that many department heads are positive, encouraging, and
supportive.
• Workers at Water Resource Protection felt that their supervisor was good about
praising them for their efforts.
• Some workers said employees only get notified if there is a problem and receive
little praise or recognition.
• Planning and Development workers said they would like to have team building
promoted more but felt that praise was readily given and there was plenty of
encouragement for personal growth.
• Some supervisors said they would like to show more appreciation for their workers
and felt such actions would go a long way to improving the work environment.
• Human Resources was said to be a great place to work.
• The Aquatics staff said that when the pool closes for the weekend, they still have to
maintain it. They all chip in to make sure it is taken care of, but they do not get
compensation for it.
• Parks, Recreation & Waterfront said they would like to be able to buy pizza for their
staff once a month but were told they cannot have a food budget. They have a
quarterly budget to do events, but anything beyond that must be done with their
own money.
• Public Workers felt that their work environment encourages personal growth, team
building, praise for effort, and kindness and caring. Workers said that when one of
49
them goes to the supervisors with a concern, the supervisors do a fair job of
addressing it.
• The Police department was said to promote team building by assigning patrol
officers according to teams. The Detective Division and Community Response Unit
were said to act as teams as well. The department was also said to have an Officer of
the Month recognition program to recognize the daily contribution of officers. The
department has an annual award ceremony to recognize special achievements.
Kindness and caring were said to be a part of the community policing philosophy.
• Some said that some supervisors would like to use a few thousand dollars a year to
show appreciation to their employees, but they are not allowed to use any extra
funds for it.
• City Hall was said to have a holiday party for everyone, but separate holiday parties
for Public Works and Parks, Recreation & Waterfront were said to be paid for from
their budgets. The Finance Department was also said to have its own event.
• Some participants said the buildings need to be renovated, or the City needs the
make entirely new buildings. Workers said South Portland needs a new City Hall and
Finance Department. The City promised to renovate these areas but still has not
done it. It was mentioned that there is a new middle school being built to replace
two separate existing ones, and when the project is complete, there are rumors that
the City plans to move City Hall into one of the vacant buildings.
• Supervisors said they hope that subordinate employees get more competitive pay,
and said they would like to see more incentives for them.
Incentive Types
• Most worker expressed a desire for either individual incentives or a combination of
individual and group incentives.
• Some mentioned that the City is already promoting some group incentives, and
workers enjoyed this because it creates a good work environment makes people
want to work together in order to do more than the minimum. For example, the City
had a biggest loser contest, which was done in groups and reported to be largely
successful.
• Workers said they want to encourage teamwork, but there should be individual
awards for hard work and going above and beyond what is called for.
• Some noted that a worker will not meet many goals unless they are part of a good
team. As such, it is important to have group incentives as well as individual ones.
• Union contracts were said to make the use of individual incentives difficult.
• It was said that there should be more than just financial incentives. For example,
some mentioned that more flexible schedules would be a nice reward for those who
earned it.
• It was said that someone will have to make the decision of how to disperse the
incentives, and to do that there will need to be an increase of internal
communication within departments.
• It was said that union workers used to have a performance bonus that was up to 4%
of their base pay. Workers said that if someone was outspoken, they got the reward.
Employees said the policy was discontinued. Some thought it would be nice if this
was brought back and non-union workers received a similar incentive.
50
• Some departments were described as being on “autopilot” and there was a
disconnect on those who are closely monitored.
• Workers said that they would like the City to do more to recognize employees. They
said that, because of their positions, some workers do not get the recognition they
deserve.
• Some felt that benefits were being diluted because the public sector was dropping
benefits while the private sector was picking them up.
• Some felt that employees gave an unnecessarily negative view about working for
South Portland. They said that there are always parts about their work people will
not like, but there are a lot more positives than negatives.
• Employees mentioned that there used to be a program where if a worker saved the
City money, that worker could be recommended for a bonus by their supervisor.
Some felt this incentive should be brought back.
• Individual incentives were suggested to be best for certain positions like some in the
Police Department and the Assistant to the City Manager position. It was said that
much of the Police Department’s work was done individually, and each person
contributes to an incident individually to make the group’s effort a success.
Employee Ideas
• It was said that personnel policy and rules are not interpreted consistently across
departments, and some areas need to be reviewed. Interpretation was said to depend
on the hierarchy of the organization and be treated differently in each department
and even more differently in HR.
• Some felt a major focus for the City should be offering competitive pay in order to
recruit qualified workers. It was also requested that the City make sure City jobs are
comparable to their private sector counterparts in pay, although some admitted that
it could be difficult to find completely equal comparisons for some positions.
• Employees said salaries for positions should be updated to increase qualified
applicants and get candidates to show up for interviews.
• Some said the City used to have an employee recognition breakfast and wanted the
practice to be brought back.
• If the City incorporates merit into its pay steps, some were concerned about how
positions like the bus driver was going to have an opportunity to stand out enough
to impact their pay.
• Some workers requested a less expensive dental plan, saying their current one has
much higher rates than other, similar plans.
• Many wanted the step plan to be improved so that it was fairer to all the workers.
• The Human Resources Department said that they would like to have more two-way
communication with employees.
• Workers requested that there be a more open environment for suggestions and
complaints. Some said they were worried about being reprimanded if they speak up.
• Some people were said to not have access to the CBA’s and do not know what is in
them.
• Some workers said they wanted fans installed in the bathrooms.
• Some suggested the Library offer part-time employee benefits, like leave and some
medical. It was also stated that the City create more Librarian positions. They
reported that there are no actual librarians in the Library currently. It was further
51
suggested that the Library should do more to advance workers with higher
education levels.
• Employees said the Library needs a clearer policy about breaks and how many hours
employees need to work before they get one, as well as how long breaks should be.
• Some said they would like Administrative Assistants to be made more equal across
departments so that some are not making more than others or identify what they do
differently to earn more.
• It was suggested the City should either find more money for the budget or use
existing funds more efficiently and effectively. Workers said the money is out there
and they see a lot of businesses getting Tax Increment Funding (TIF) subsidies. They
also noted that the City had recently hired a firm to do something the City could do
itself.
• It was said that the department heads met every Monday but could communicate
better to others what happens in the meetings. Workers said more clarity about what
occurs would be appreciated.
• It was said that some departments have the idea that certain things are not their job
and will not do anything that is outside of their job description, which makes things
more difficult. Workers said having departments contribute as much as they can
even when it is not explicitly mentioned in their descriptions would be a big help.
• The problem with pay for the Deputy Chief of police needs to be corrected again,
and this time it needs to be maintained as a standard, so the problem does not
continuously occur.
• It was further suggested that workers need to be given a reason to stay longer than 5
years. For example, employees who work for the City for five years and are in good
standing should get a bonus, which could be up to $5,000 but could also be a certain
percentage of a worker’s pay.
• Some said the City should allow workers to get additional pay for certifications that
that are above what their job requires. For example, Operators who get a Grade 4 or
Grade 5 license when they only need a Grade 3 could be given a 2% increase in pay
per grade, and anyone who does not need a license for their position could get one
at their own expense and also get a 2% raise. This, it was said, would promote
education and knowledge while making workers more versatile, allowing workers to
move within a department to fill empty positions if necessary. It was further
suggested that, if a 2% pay raise is not possible, the City could offer to apply the 2%
to the worker’s personal contribution of the City’s health insurance.
• Employees also suggested that accumulated sick time payout that an employee
receives when they leave the job should reflect the number of years the worker has
been in the City’s service. This payout is currently limited to 60 days. It was
suggested that the number increase by 30 every ten additional years an employee
works for the City. So, a ten-year worker could get a 60-day payout, a 20-year worker
a 90-day payout, etc. This could go up to 40 years, where a worker who stayed for
that long could potentially get a 150-day payout. They felt this would incentivize
workers to accrue sick days and not use them frivolously in order to create a long-
term investment. It was said that there were at least 2 union contracts that give
union workers 100% of their sick time at termination. While it would be great for
non-union workers to get the same benefit, it may not be viewed positively. The
above policy was considered to be a good compromise between the current standard
and the union one.
52
• Some said the City should fully implement COLA rate increases yearly, as published
by the United States government. It was said that failure to implement the yearly
COLA rates were the reason why pay was so out of alignment and not competitive.
• It was said that departments should pay for the staff they want, not the staff they
can get. If the City needs to pay a little more to get a qualified worker, employees
felt the City should do it.
• Some said the from the study should be followed.
• Employees said departments should be able to compensate workers for doing work
above and beyond what was required of them. It was suggested that this could
include jumping pay steps or adding flexibility to the pay plan to pay above COLA.
• Some said steps 7 and 8, the “seniority steps,” should be eliminated.
• Workers wanted vision and dental insurance added to their benefits. They also
wanted pay for short term disability and a reduction to the City’s sick time burden
by dropping the max sick days.
• Some felt workers who went a long time without using any sick days should be
rewarded a personal day off.
• Employees felt recognition for good work should be rewarded. Rewards such as free
coffee, gift certificates, and extra vacation days were suggested.
• Workers said they would like to see the Deputy Director of their department more
often. They want them to help them know his vision of what the department could
or should be.
• Some suggested that the City should pay its employees more so that workers could
afford to live in the City.
• Workers suggested a 5-year anniversary bonuses as a good incentive option for
retaining employees.
• Some workers recommended a monetary incentive as a solution to the disparity
between public sector and private industry. For example, it was noted that the
private sector had stock options for workers. Others suggested that the City make
sure departments have what they need to get their work done, as pay is not the only
determining factor in whether an employee chooses to stay or not.
• Workers said they had adequate tools and technology but wanted more money for
the recruitment advertising budget.
53
Comparators
Purpose
To determine economically comparable organizations for inclusion in the external market
study by comparing economic metrics of the City of South Portland to those of similar
communities. (Paypoint HR and the project team collaborated to construct the initial
comparator list for examination.)
Methodology
The goal was to understand how each of the twenty-three (23) similar communities
compared with the City of South Portland. Six (6) metrics that were chosen for evaluation
were population, unemployment rate, labor force participation rate, median household
income, cost of living adjustment, and median housing price. Each metric was assumed to
be equally important and were examined individually and in combination.
A statistic was produced for each metric by first taking the absolute value of the difference
between the metric for a similar community and the same metric for the City of South
Portland, for example, the difference between the population of the City of Portland and the
City of South Portland. The difference was then divided by the standard deviation to
understand how the difference varied for each similar community in relation to the sample
population of the twenty-three (23) communities as a whole.
If any of the metrics had a value in excess of three standard deviations, then the community
was considered to not be a good comparator for the City of South Portland – highlighted in
red below. Comparators highlighted in green were perceived by the project team as a valid
comparator.
From a statistical perspective, Chebyshev’s Inequality Theorem indicates that 88.8% of all
data values would be within three (3) standard deviations of the mean for a generic
distribution. If a normal distribution exists, then values less than three (3) standard
deviations account for 99.73% of the population. The choice of comparison is therefore
statistically sound and appropriate.
A summary table of these calculations is presented in the following tables. (Sample
calculations are also presented.)
54
Table 2 – Potential Comparators – Maine Cities
Auburn Biddeford Portland Sanford
Augusta Lewiston Saco Westbrook
Bangor
Table 3 – Potential Comparators – Maine Towns
Brunswick Gorham Scarborough York
Falmouth Kennebunk Windham
Table 4 – Potential Comparators – Maine Counties
Cumberland County York County
Table 4 – Potential Comparators – New Hampshire Cities
Concord Merrimack Portsmouth Rochester
Dover
For reference:
Population
Maine – 1,330,160 United States – 321,368,864
Median Housing Price (MHP)
Maine - $179,900 United States - $193,500
Median Household Income (MHI)
Maine - $53,024 United States - $57,652
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)
Maine – 101.2 United States – 100
Unemployment Rate (U Rate)
Maine – 3% United States – 4%
Labor Force Participation Rate (LFP Rate)
Maine – 63% United States – 63%
55
Table 5 - Economic Data of the City of South Portland and Potential Comparators
Community Population MHP MHI COLA U Rate LFP
Rate
South Portland 25,397 $229,400 $56,250 109.9 4% 71%
Maine Cities
Auburn 22,943 $152,200 $46,976 98.4 4% 66%
Augusta 18,691 $138,900 $40,555 96.4 4% 59%
Bangor 32,491 $148,600 $37,987 98.4 5% 62%
Biddeford 21,341 $211,400 $47,265 105.0 4% 69%
Lewiston 36,277 $143,500 $38,199 96.8 4% 63%
Portland 66,649 $248,000 $48,259 108.7 4% 71%
Saco 19,008 $232,200 $59,740 109.2 2% 71%
Sanford 20,920 $166,200 $45,563 99.7 4% 64%
Westbrook 17,969 $204,300 $48,074 105.3 4% 67%
Maine Towns
Brunswick 20,523 $219,100 $58,125 102.1 3% 62%
Falmouth 11,868 $373,100 $108,547 128.2 2% 67%
Gorham 17,147 $236,500 $76,267 108.7 2% 72%
Kennebunk 11,223 $264,400 $73,105 111.3 3% 63%
Scarborough 19,620 $288,100 $89,255 117.1 1% 69%
Windham 17,732 $231,600 $72,602 109.0 2% 67%
York 12,872 $388,100 $83,072 127.8 4% 66%
Maine Counties
Cumberland 289,173 $259,400 $65,702 111.3 3% 69%
York 201,454 $233,000 $62,618 108.1 3% 67%
New Hampshire Cities
Concord 42,634 $204,600 $57,566 113.7 3% 64%
Dover 30,750 $238,100 $63,096 116.9 4% 71%
Merrimack 25,566 $263,200 $93,798 122.2 3% 75%
Portsmouth 21,458 $361,000 $69,664 128.8 2% 72%
Rochester 30,052 $161,200 $50,759 108.8 4% 65%
56
Table 6 – Statistics of Potential Comparators
Community Population MHP MHI COLA U Rate LFP
Rate
Maine Cities
Auburn 0.04 1.12 0.50 1.20 0.00 1.26
Augusta 0.10 1.32 0.85 1.41 0.00 3.04
Bangor 0.11 1.18 0.99 1.20 1.01 2.28
Biddeford 0.06 0.26 0.49 0.51 0.00 0.51
Lewiston 0.17 1.25 0.98 1.36 0.00 2.02
Portland 0.64 0.27 0.43 0.13 0.00 0.00
Saco 0.10 0.04 0.19 0.07 2.02 0.00
Sanford 0.07 0.92 0.58 1.06 0.00 1.77
Westbrook 0.11 0.37 0.44 0.48 0.00 1.01
Maine Towns
Brunswick 0.08 0.15 0.10 0.81 1.01 2.28
Falmouth 0.21 2.09 2.84 1.91 2.02 1.01
Gorham 0.13 0.10 1.09 0.13 2.02 0.25
Kennebunk 0.22 0.51 0.92 0.15 1.01 2.02
Scarborough 0.09 0.86 1.80 0.75 3.03 0.51
Windham 0.12 0.03 0.89 0.09 2.02 1.01
York 0.19 2.31 1.46 1.86 0.00 1.26
Maine Counties
Cumberland 4.53 0.41 0.46 0.12 0.87 0.35
York 2.72 0.05 0.35 0.19 1.01 1.01
New Hampshire Cities
Concord 0.27 0.36 0.07 0.40 1.01 1.77
Dover 0.08 0.13 0.37 0.73 0.00 0.00
Merrimack 0.00 0.49 2.04 1.28 1.01 1.01
Portsmouth 0.06 1.92 0.73 1.97 2.02 0.25
Rochester 0.07 0.99 0.30 0.11 0.00 1.52
57
Other Comparators
Augusta Library District
Bangor Library District
Biddeford-Saco-Old Orchard Beach Transit Shuttle Bus – Zoom
Brunswick Sewer District
Concord Coach
Greater Portland Transit District
Lewiston-Auburn Water Pollution Authority
Lewiston Water District
Lithgow Library
Portland Public Library
Portland Water District
Scarborough Library District
Scarborough Sanitary District
Shoreline Explore York County Community Action
Waterville Water District
York Library District
Sample Calculation
Sample Calculation for Portland
Population Statistic
Maximum Population = 289,173 (Cumberland County, ME)
Minimum Population = 11,223 (Kennebunk, ME)
Portland Population = 66,649
South Portland Population = 25,397
Sample Average = 43,073
Sample Standard Deviation (s) = 64,679
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 =|𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 − 𝑆𝑜𝑢𝑡ℎ 𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑|
𝑠
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 =|66,649 − 25,397|
64,679
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 0.64
58
Benchmark Positions
Benchmark positions are normally chosen to reflect a broad spectrum of class levels. The
positions that are selected normally include classes that are most likely to be found in other
similar agencies and will therefore provide a sufficient and valid sample for analysis.
Benchmark positions are selected to encompass the entire range of positions from the
beginning of the pay ranges to the end and equally interspersed among the pay scale.
In Table 7, the benchmark positions used in the external survey are presented and marked
in green. From this list of benchmark positions, all job titles employed by the City were
examined.
Table 7 – Benchmark Positions
Job Title Job Title
- Front Desk Attendant F Administrative Assistant
A Teen Center Program Assistant F Bus Driver
C Assistant City Clerk I F Library Assistant II
C Customer Service Representative
F Licensing Administrator
C Head Lifeguard F Outreach Librarian
C Library Aide I F Recreation Coordinator
C Production Technician F Sewer Maintenance Worker I
C School Age Site Leader F Treasury Accountant
C Teen Center Coordinator F Youth Services Assistant
D Clerk/Cashier II G Accounts Payable Specialist
D Custodian G Assistant to Assessor
D Park Ranger/Recreation Supervisor
G Human Resources Specialist/Caseworker
E Animal Control Officer G IS Help Desk Technician I
E Aquatic Supervisor G Manager’s Office Assistant
E Assistant City Clerk II G Payroll & Finance Specialist
E Media Specialist G Police Administrative Information Assistant
E Police Custodian G Station Coordinator
E Senior Clerk Cashier G Sustainability Program Coordinator
59
Job Title Job Title
G Treatment Plant Operator I K Accountant
G Transportation Evening Coordinator
K Assistant Code Enforcement Officer/Building/Plumbing Inspector
H IS Help Desk Technician II K Assistant Code Enforcement Officer/Electrical Inspector
H Maintenance Mechanic K Chief Operator
H Mechanical Electrician K Collection Systems Supervisor
H Safety Coordinator K Community Planner
H Sewer Maintenance Worker II K Compliance Administrator
H Station Coordinator (Supervisory)
K Deputy Library Director
H Transportation Coordinator/ Administrative Assistant
K Maintenance Supervisor
H Vehicle Maintenance Mechanic K Purchasing Agent Benefits Administrator
I Behavioral Health Liaison K Stormwater Coordinator
I Cable Access Manager L Deputy Assessor
I Children's Librarian L Deputy Facilities Manager
I Circulation Librarian L Deputy Tax Collector
I Executive Assistant to City Manager
L Parks Operations Manager
I Library Cataloger L Recreation Operations Manager
I Mechanic II L Senior CAD Operator
I Network Administrator I M Deputy Code Enforcement Officer
I Property Appraiser M Director of Social Services
I Tax/Treasury Specialist M Employee Relations Manager
J Excavation/Sewer Inspector N Sustainability Director
J GA Social Services Support Specialist
N WRP Civil Transportation Engineer
J Health Inspector O Controller
J Network Administrator II O Deputy Fire Chief
J Operations Supervisor O Parks & Recreation Deputy Director
J Recreation Manager O Public Works Superintendent
J SoPo Unite Drug Coalition Director
P Collection Systems Manager
60
Job Title Job Title
P Deputy Finance Director R Engineering Division Manager
P Director of Bus Service R IS Director
P Facilities Manager S Assistant City Manager
P Treatment Systems Manager S Fire Chief
Q Assessor S Human Resource Director
Q Code Enforcement Officer/Division Director
S Parks & Recreation Director
Q Deputy Police Chief S Police Chief
Q Economic Development Director
S Public Works Director
Q Library Director U Finance Director
R Director of Planning and Development
U Water Resource Director
61
Baseline Analysis
Current Salary Schedule – 37.5-hr Employees
The salary schedule for employees who nominally work 37.5 hours per week is presented in
Table 8. Midpoints for each salary grade have also been calculated for comparison with
external market data.
Spread measures the percentage difference between the maximum and minimum salary for
a position. It is also an indication of the lateral progression available to an employee within
their job title. A narrow spread often leads to wage compression as the maximum salary is
quickly achieved. A narrow spread can also lead to low morale and high turnover as
economic advancement is limited. The salary schedule from Table 8 has an inconsistent
spread ranging from 21.5% to 42.4%. It is important that the spread is consistent amongst
all employees so that all positions have a relatively equal advancement opportunity.
Ladders define the percentage salary difference between consecutive groups of job titles.
Ladders can be used to differentiate employees with different knowledge, skills, and
abilities and motivate career advancement. The ladders, that is, the percent difference
between consecutive minimums, consecutive midpoints, and consecutive maximums, is
inconsistent ranging from 3.7% to 8.4%. It is recommended that the ladders be consistent
between grades.
Table 8 – Current Salary Schedule – 37.5-hr
Current
Grade
Annual
Min
Annual
Mid
Annual
Max Min Mid Max
A $26,969 $29,874 $32,780 $13.83 $15.32 $16.81
B $29,172 $32,302 $35,432 $14.96 $16.57 $18.17
C $30,245 $33,560 $36,875 $15.51 $17.21 $18.91
D $31,590 $35,724 $39,858 $16.20 $18.32 $20.44
E $34,106 $38,620 $43,134 $17.49 $19.81 $22.12
F $35,432 $41,018 $46,605 $18.17 $21.04 $23.90
G $38,337 $44,421 $50,505 $19.66 $22.78 $25.90
H $39,858 $46,186 $52,514 $20.44 $23.69 $26.93
I $43,134 $49,979 $56,823 $22.12 $25.63 $29.14
J $44,889 $51,948 $59,007 $23.02 $26.64 $30.26
K $48,516 $56,189 $63,863 $24.88 $28.82 $32.75
L $50,505 $58,442 $66,378 $25.90 $29.97 $34.04
M $52,514 $60,752 $68,991 $26.93 $31.16 $35.38
N $54,581 $64,633 $74,685 $27.99 $33.15 $38.30
62
Current
Grade
Annual
Min
Annual
Mid
Annual
Max Min Mid Max
O $59,007 $69,878 $80,750 $30.26 $35.84 $41.41
P $61,328 $72,696 $84,065 $31.45 $37.28 $43.11
Q $63,863 $75,602 $87,341 $32.75 $38.77 $44.79
R $68,991 $81,744 $94,497 $35.38 $41.92 $48.46
S $71,780 $86,980 $102,180 $36.81 $44.61 $52.40
T $74,627 $90,422 $106,217 $38.27 $46.37 $54.47
U $80,594 $97,656 $114,719 $41.33 $50.08 $58.83
Table 9 – Current Spread and Ladders – 37.5-hr
Current
Grade Spread
Min
Ladder
Mid
Ladder
Max
Ladder
A 21.5%
B 21.5% 8.2% 8.1% 8.1%
C 21.9% 3.7% 3.9% 4.1%
D 26.2% 4.4% 6.4% 8.1%
E 26.5% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2%
F 31.5% 3.9% 6.2% 8.0%
G 31.7% 8.2% 8.3% 8.4%
H 31.8% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
I 31.7% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2%
J 31.5% 4.1% 3.9% 3.8%
K 31.6% 8.1% 8.2% 8.2%
L 31.4% 4.1% 4.0% 3.9%
M 31.4% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9%
N 36.8% 3.9% 6.4% 8.3%
O 36.8% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1%
P 37.1% 3.9% 4.0% 4.1%
Q 36.8% 4.1% 4.0% 3.9%
R 37.0% 8.0% 8.1% 8.2%
S 42.4% 4.0% 6.4% 8.1%
T 42.3% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
U 42.3% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%
63
Current Salary Schedule – 40-hr Employees
The salary schedule for employees who nominally work 40 hours per week is presented in
Table 10. Midpoints for each salary grade have also been calculated for comparison with
external market data.
The salary schedule from Table 10 has an inconsistent spread ranging from 18.1% to 42.5%.
The ladders are inconsistent ranging from 1.3% to 11.2%. It is recommended that the
ladders be consistent between grades.
Table 10 – Current Salary Schedule – 40-hr
Current
Grade
Annual
Min
Annual
Mid
Annual
Max Min Mid Max
A $26,894 $29,827 $32,760 $12.93 $14.34 $15.75
B $29,016 $31,647 $34,278 $13.95 $15.22 $16.48
C $29,390 $32,583 $35,776 $14.13 $15.67 $17.20
D $31,429 $35,610 $39,790 $15.11 $17.12 $19.13
E $34,008 $38,522 $43,035 $16.35 $18.52 $20.69
F $35,339 $40,934 $46,530 $16.99 $19.68 $22.37
G $38,293 $44,356 $50,419 $18.41 $21.33 $24.24
H $39,790 $46,072 $52,354 $19.13 $22.15 $25.17
I $43,035 $49,816 $56,597 $20.69 $23.95 $27.21
J $44,762 $51,834 $58,906 $21.52 $24.92 $28.32
K $48,422 $56,066 $63,710 $23.28 $26.96 $30.63
L $50,419 $58,334 $66,248 $24.24 $28.05 $31.85
M $52,354 $60,653 $68,952 $25.17 $29.16 $33.15
N $54,392 $64,470 $74,547 $26.15 $31.00 $35.84
O $58,906 $69,763 $80,621 $28.32 $33.54 $38.76
P $61,194 $72,478 $83,762 $29.42 $34.85 $40.27
Q $63,710 $75,421 $87,131 $30.63 $36.26 $41.89
R $68,952 $81,640 $94,328 $33.15 $39.25 $45.35
S $71,614 $86,798 $101,982 $34.43 $41.73 $49.03
T $74,506 $90,314 $106,122 $35.82 $43.42 $51.02
U $80,434 $97,531 $114,629 $38.67 $46.89 $55.11
64
Table 11 – Current Spread and Ladders – 40-hr
Current
Grade Spread
Min
Ladder
Mid
Ladder
Max
Ladder
A 21.8%
B 18.1% 7.9% 6.1% 4.6%
C 21.7% 1.3% 3.0% 4.4%
D 26.6% 6.9% 9.3% 11.2%
E 26.5% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2%
F 31.7% 3.9% 6.3% 8.1%
G 31.7% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4%
H 31.6% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8%
I 31.5% 8.2% 8.1% 8.1%
J 31.6% 4.0% 4.1% 4.1%
K 31.6% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2%
L 31.4% 4.1% 4.0% 4.0%
M 31.7% 3.8% 4.0% 4.1%
N 37.1% 3.9% 6.3% 8.1%
O 36.9% 8.3% 8.2% 8.1%
P 36.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9%
Q 36.8% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0%
R 36.8% 8.2% 8.2% 8.3%
S 42.4% 3.9% 6.3% 8.1%
T 42.4% 4.0% 4.0% 4.1%
U 42.5% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%
65
Overall Salary Distribution
The salary distribution for all employees is shown in Figure 1. The label “Percentage of
Employees” on the ordinate y-axis reflects the total number of employees.
A clear bimodal pattern does not exist which would demonstrate a two-tier compensation
structure. It is preferable if there is a clear broad-banded bimodal distribution, that is, two
bell curves, demonstrating both separation between supervisory and non-supervisory
compensation and career progression within these two groups.
The concentration of employees in the upper end of the salary range in comparison to the
lower end is not excessive, meaning that the organization is not top-heavy with respect to
compensation.
Figure 1 – Salary Distribution
66
Distribution Observations – 37.5-hr
Table 12 examines salaries for employees who nominally work 37.5 hours per week with
respect to the maximum and minimum of each grade. In Table 13, the distribution of
salaries above or below the midpoint of each grade is presented
Table 12 – 37.5-hr Employees Near Min/Max
Current
Grade
Staff
#
# near
Min
% near
Min
# near
Max
% near
Max
C 17 5 29% 8 47%
D 12 1 8% 5 42%
E 6 1 17% 2 33%
F 19 2 11% 12 63%
G 7 0 0% 6 86%
H 1 0 0% 1 100%
I 8 0 0% 6 75%
J 9 1 11% 5 56%
K 7 0 0% 7 100%
L 4 0 0% 3 75%
M 3 0 0% 3 100%
N 1 0 0% 1 100%
O 2 0 0% 1 50%
P 2 0 0% 1 50%
Q 4 0 0% 3 75%
R 2 0 0% 2 100%
S 3 0 0% 1 33%
T 0 0 - 0 -
U 1 0 0% 1 100%
67
Table 13 – 37.5-hr Employees Near Midpoint
Current
Grade
Staff
#
Below
Mid
Below
Mid %
Above
Mid
Above
Mid %
C 17 5 29% 12 71%
D 12 5 42% 7 58%
E 6 3 50% 3 50%
F 19 5 26% 14 74%
G 7 1 14% 6 86%
H 1 0 0% 1 100%
I 8 0 0% 8 100%
J 9 3 33% 6 67%
K 7 0 0% 7 100%
L 4 0 0% 4 100%
M 3 0 0% 3 100%
N 1 0 0% 1 100%
O 2 1 50% 1 50%
P 2 0 0% 2 100%
Q 4 0 0% 4 100%
R 2 0 0% 2 100%
S 3 0 0% 3 100%
T 0 0 - 0 -
U 1 0 0% 1 100%
Observations
• Overall there is a high concentration (69%) of salaries near the maximum.
• In Grade C, a high concentration of employees is near the minimum of the respective
grade. In Grades C, D, F, and J, a high concentration of employees is near the
maximum of the respective grade. A high concentration of employees at the
extremes can lead to or be the cause of systemic employment issues including low
morale, retention, etc.
• In Grades C, F, and J, a high concentration of employees is above the midpoint of
each respective grade suggesting skewed distribution of salaries. A high
68
concentration of employees below the midpoint can lead to or be the cause of
systemic employment issues.
• Overall, there is a high concentration of employees above the midpoint of the grade
(83%) suggesting, that is, there is an unbalanced distribution of salaries.
• Four (4) employees are currently being compensated above the maximum of the
respective grade including 1 Clerk/Cashier II, 1 Senior Cash Clerk, 1 Director of Bus
Service, and 1 IS Director. In addition, no employees are currently being
compensated below the minimum of the respective grade.
Distribution Observations – 40-hr Employees
Table 12 examines salaries for employees who nominally work 40 hours per week with
respect to the maximum and minimum of each grade. In Table 13, the distribution of
salaries above or below the midpoint of each grade is presented
Table 14 – 40-hr Employees Near Min/Max
Current Grade
Staff #
# near Min
% near Min
# near Max
% near Max
C 0 0 - 0 -
D 0 0 - 0 -
E 2 0 0% 2 100%
F 19 1 5% 12 63%
G 6 0 0% 5 83%
H 7 0 0% 5 71%
I 2 0 0% 1 50%
J 2 0 0% 2 100%
K 5 0 0% 5 100%
L 2 0 0% 2 100%
M 0 0 - 0 -
N 1 0 0% 1 100%
O 5 1 20% 4 80%
P 2 0 0% 2 100%
69
Current
Grade
Staff
#
# near
Min
% near
Min
# near
Max
% near
Max
Q 1 0 0% 1 100%
R 1 0 0% 1 100%
S 3 0 0% 3 100%
T 0 0 - 0 -
U 1 0 0% 1 100%
Table 15 – 40-hr Employees Near Midpoint
Current
Grade
Staff
#
Below
Mid
Below
Mid %
Above
Mid
Above
Mid %
C 0 0 - 0 -
D 0 0 - 0 -
E 2 0 0% 2 100%
F 19 4 21% 15 79%
G 6 1 17% 5 83%
H 7 0 0% 7 100%
I 2 0 0% 2 100%
J 2 0 0% 2 100%
K 5 0 0% 5 100%
L 2 0 0% 2 100%
M 0 0 - 0 -
N 1 0 0% 1 100%
O 5 1 20% 4 80%
P 2 0 0% 2 100%
Q 1 0 0% 1 100%
R 1 0 0% 1 100%
S 3 0 0% 3 100%
T 0 0 - 0 -
U 1 0 0% 1 100%
70
Observations
• Overall there is a high concentration (69%) of salaries near the maximum.
• In Grade F, a high concentration of employees is near the maximum of the respective
grade. A high concentration of employees at the extremes can lead to or be the
cause of systemic employment issues including low morale, retention, etc.
• In Grade F, a high concentration of employees is above the midpoint of each
respective grade suggesting skewed distribution of salaries. A high concentration of
employees below the midpoint can lead to or be the cause of systemic employment
issues.
• Overall, there is a high concentration of employees above the midpoint of the grade
(83%) suggesting, that is, there is an unbalanced distribution of salaries.
• Two (2) employees are currently being compensated above the maximum of the
respective grade including 1 Animal Control Officer and 1 Fire Chief. In addition, no
employees are currently being compensated below the minimum of the respective
grade.
71
Compensable Factor Score from Position Vantage Point
To assist in determining the internal hierarchy of positions in the City, the employees and
managers participated in the Position Vantage Point Job Survey. Questions asked in the PVP
are divided into four areas: Background, Authority, Skill, and Environment. In these four
areas, the following compensable factors were examined:
Education Complexity
Certifications Independence
Work Duties Impact
Work Experience Physical
Financial Authority Working Conditions
Supervision Interaction
Job descriptions were consulted to update both the minimum education level and minimum
experience level required for each position. The responses were then evaluated, producing
the Compensable Factor Score (CFS) as shown below. For positions, where there was
insufficient data from the employee/manager survey, job descriptions were consulted to fill
out the survey.
Table 16 – Compensable Factor Score
Current
Grade Job Title
CFS
Score
U-37.5 Finance Director 142.1
U-40 Water Resource Director 127.3
S-37.5 Assistant City Manager 102.3
S-40 Police Chief 100.5
S-40 Fire Chief 100.1
S-37.5 Parks & Recreation Director 94.8
R-37.5 Director of Planning and Development 91.1
Q-37.5 Assessor 85.8
S-40 Public Works Director 79.5
R-37.5 IS Director 79.1
S-37.5 Human Resource Director 74.7
P-40 Collection Systems Manager 64.3
72
Current
Grade Job Title
CFS
Score
Q-40 Deputy Police Chief 62.2
P-40 Treatment Systems Manager 59.5
R-40 Engineering Division Manager 58.0
Q-37.5 Library Director 57.6
P-37.5 Director of Bus Service 52.1
Q-37.5 Code Enforcement Officer/Division Director
51.5
P-37.5 Deputy Finance Director 48.4
Q-37.5 Economic Development Director 47.4
O-40 Deputy Fire Chief 44.6
P-37.5 Facilities Manager 44.2
O-37.5 Controller 42.2
O-37.5 Parks & Recreation Deputy Director 41.1
O-40 Public Works Superintendent 39.2
N-40 WRP Civil Transportation Engineer 38.1
M-37.5 Employee Relations Manager 36.9
N-37.5 Sustainability Director 36.2
M-37.5 Director of Social Services 33.2
M-37.5 Deputy Code Enforcement Officer 32.9
L-40 Parks Operations Manager 29.9
L-37.5 Recreation Operations Manager 29.8
J-40 Operations Supervisor 29.7
K-40 Chief Operator 28.6
K-40 Collection Systems Supervisor 28.6
K-37.5 Deputy Library Director 26.3
K-40 Maintenance Supervisor 25.9
K-37.5 Community Planner 25.4
L-37.5 Deputy Facilities Manager 25.1
73
Current
Grade Job Title
CFS
Score
L-37.5 Deputy Tax Collector 25.1
K-37.5 Purchasing Agent Benefits Administrator 25.0
L-37.5 Deputy Assessor 24.8
I-37.5 Cable Access Manager 23.0
K-37.5 Accountant 22.7
J-40 SoPo Unite Drug Coalition Director 22.7
K-40 Compliance Administrator 22.6
K-40 Stormwater Coordinator 22.4
K-37.5 Assistant Code Enforcement Officer/Electrical Inspector
22.3
J-37.5 Recreation Manager 22.1
L-40 Senior CAD Operator 21.4
I-37.5 Executive Assistant to City Manager 19.8
K-37.5 Assistant Code Enforcement Officer/Building/Plumbing Inspector
19.4
J-37.5 Network Administrator II 19.4
I-37.5 Behavioral Health Liaison 19.4
I-37.5 Library Cataloger 19.1
I-37.5 Children's Librarian 18.9
I-37.5 Circulation Librarian 18.9
J-37.5 Excavation/Sewer Inspector 18.8
J-37.5 GA Social Services Support Specialist 18.3
H-40 Sewer Maintenance Worker II 17.7
I-40 Mechanic II 17.6
H-40 Vehicle Maintenance Mechanic 17.6
H-37.5 Safety Coordinator 16.8
G-37.5 Human Resources Specialist/Caseworker 16.8
J-37.5 Health Inspector 16.7
74
Current
Grade Job Title
CFS
Score
I-37.5 Network Administrator I 16.6
I-37.5 Tax/Treasury Specialist 16.6
I-37.5 Property Appraiser 16.3
G-40 Treatment Plant Operator I 15.7
G-37.5 Sustainability Program Coordinator 15.0
G-37.5 Payroll & Finance Specialist 15.0
F-37.5 Outreach Librarian 14.9
H-40 Mechanical Electrician 14.8
G-37.5 Accounts Payable Specialist 14.3
G-37.5 Manager’s Office Assistant 14.2
H-40 Transportation Coordinator/Administrative Assistant
14.1
H-37.5 IS Help Desk Technician II 13.9
H-37.5 Station Coordinator (Supervisory) 13.9
H-40 Maintenance Mechanic 13.9
F-37.5 Recreation Coordinator 13.7
F-37.5 Treasury Accountant 13.7
G-37.5 Police Administrative Information Assistant
13.5
G-40 Transportation Evening Coordinator 12.9
G-37.5 Assistant to Assessor 12.8
G-37.5 IS Help Desk Technician I 12.8
G-37.5 Station Coordinator 12.8
F-37.5 Library Assistant II 12.7
F-37.5 Youth Services Assistant 12.7
F-40 Sewer Maintenance Worker I 12.1
D-37.5 Park Ranger/Recreation Supervisor 11.8
E-37.5 Aquatic Supervisor 11.7
75
Current
Grade Job Title
CFS
Score
F-37.5 Licensing Administrator 11.5
E-37.5 Media Specialist 11.3
F-40 Bus Driver 10.6
E-40 Animal Control Officer 10.5
F-37.5 Administrative Assistant 10.4
E-37.5 Senior Clerk Cashier 10.4
D-37.5 Clerk/Cashier II 10.1
D-37.5 Custodian 9.0
E-40 Police Custodian 9.0
E-37.5 Assistant City Clerk II 8.9
C-37.5 Library Aide I 7.7
C-37.5 Assistant City Clerk I 7.7
C-37.5 Customer Service Representative 7.7
C-37.5 Head Lifeguard 7.7
C-37.5 Production Technician 7.7
C-37.5 School Age Site Leader 7.7
C-37.5 Teen Center Coordinator 7.5
A-37.5 Teen Center Program Assistant 6.5
A-37.5 Front Desk Attendant 4.8
76
External Market Comparison
A summary of the findings of the external market analysis is presented in Table 17 through
Table 21. In Table 22 the external market findings for all job titles is presented, sorted
alphabetically. The minimum, midpoint, and maximum hourly salary for each job title is
presented first. The various market quantiles are then presented. Lastly the Compa-Ratio,
the ratio of the grade’s midpoint divided by the 50th percentile from the external market,
which measures the extent of the deviation of the current salary range in comparison to the
market median, is presented. Values highlighted in green indicate that the range is below
market and those highlighted in red indicate that the range is above market.
Table 17 – Full-Time Positions Substantially Below Market (% Diff< -10%)
Cable Access Manager Operations Supervisor
Chief Operator Outreach Librarian
Collection Systems Manager Park Ranger/Recreation Supervisor
Collection Systems Supervisor Parks Operations Manager
Deputy Fire Chief Police Chief
Deputy Police Chief Sewer Maintenance Worker II
Economic Development Director SoPo Unite Drug Coalition Director
Human Resources Specialist/Caseworker Treasury Accountant
Maintenance Mechanic Treatment Plant Operator I
Maintenance Supervisor Vehicle Maintenance Mechanic
Network Administrator II WRP Civil Transportation Engineer
Table 18 – Full-Time Positions Below Market (-10% < % Diff < -5%)
Animal Control Officer Library Cataloger
Aquatic Supervisor Mechanic II
Behavioral Health Liaison Mechanical Electrician
Bus Driver Media Specialist
Children's Librarian Payroll & Finance Specialist
Circulation Librarian Recreation Coordinator
Clerk/Cashier II Recreation Manager
77
Compliance Administrator Safety Coordinator
Deputy Code Enforcement Officer Stormwater Coordinator
Deputy Library Director Sustainability Program Coordinator
Deputy Tax Collector Transportation Coordinator/Administrative Assistant
Director of Social Services Transportation Evening Coordinator
Fire Chief Youth Services Assistant
Library Assistant II
Table 19 – Full-Time Positions Near Market (-5% < % Diff < +5%)
Accountant IS Help Desk Technician I
Accounts Payable Specialist IS Help Desk Technician II
Administrative Assistant Library Aide I
Assessor Library Director
Assistant City Clerk I Licensing Administrator
Assistant City Manager Manager’s Office Assistant
Assistant Code Enforcement Officer/Electrical Inspector
Network Administrator I
Assistant to Assessor Parks & Recreation Deputy Director
Code Enforcement Officer/Division Director
Police Administrative Information Assistant
Community Planner Police Custodian
Controller Production Technician
Custodian Property Appraiser
Customer Service Representative Public Works Director
Deputy Assessor Public Works Superintendent
Deputy Facilities Manager Purchasing Agent Benefits Administrator
Deputy Finance Director Recreation Operations Manager
Director of Bus Service School Age Site Leader
Director of Planning and Development Senior CAD Operator
Employee Relations Manager Senior Clerk Cashier
78
Engineering Division Manager Sewer Maintenance Worker I
Excavation/Sewer Inspector Station Coordinator
Executive Assistant to City Manager Station Coordinator (Supervisory)
Facilities Manager Sustainability Director
Finance Director Tax/Treasury Specialist
GA Social Services Support Specialist Teen Center Coordinator
Head Lifeguard Teen Center Program Assistant
Health Inspector Treatment Systems Manager
Human Resource Director Water Resource Director
IS Director
Table 20 – Full-Time Positions Above Market (+5% < % Diff < +10%)
Assistant City Clerk II Parks & Recreation Director
Assistant Code Enforcement Officer/Building/Plumbing Inspector
Table 21 – Full-Time Positions Substantially Above Market (% Diff > +10%)
None
79
Table 22 – External Market Comparison
Accountant
Accounts
Payable
Specialist
Admin.
Assistant
Animal
Control
Officer
Aquatic
Supervisor
Current Scale
Grade K-37.5 G-37.5 F-37.5 E-40 E-37.5
Minimum $24.88 $19.66 $18.17 $16.35 $17.49
Midpoint $28.82 $22.78 $21.04 $18.52 $19.81
Maximum $32.75 $25.90 $23.90 $20.69 $22.12
Market Percentiles
20% $24.39 $19.66 $18.09 $17.30 $18.59
25% $24.79 $20.15 $18.58 $17.96 $19.29
30% $26.83 $20.66 $19.97 $18.03 $19.85
35% $27.05 $21.02 $20.28 $18.12 $20.29
40% $27.60 $21.33 $20.59 $18.39 $20.67
45% $28.53 $21.99 $20.88 $19.70 $21.28
50% $29.41 $22.89 $21.14 $19.70 $21.82
55% $30.40 $23.40 $21.14 $20.34 $22.42
60% $30.75 $24.53 $21.81 $20.53 $22.94
65% $31.06 $24.68 $22.31 $20.83 $23.43
70% $31.80 $25.34 $23.34 $21.30 $24.03
75% $31.86 $26.73 $24.17 $22.13 $25.03
80% $32.75 $26.73 $24.83 $23.21 $25.64
Average $28.94 $23.23 $21.64 $20.25 $22.41
Compa-Ratio
-2.0% -0.5% -0.5% -6.0% -9.2%
80
Assessor Assistant
City Clerk I
Assistant
City Clerk II
Assistant
City
Manager
Asst. CEO
Bldg./Plbg.
Inspector
Current Scale
Grade Q-37.5 C-37.5 E-37.5 S-37.5 K-37.5
Minimum $32.75 $15.51 $17.49 $36.81 $24.88
Midpoint $38.77 $17.21 $19.81 $44.61 $28.82
Maximum $44.79 $18.91 $22.12 $52.40 $32.75
Market Percentiles
20% $34.05 $14.44 $15.87 $43.63 $23.81
25% $36.65 $15.06 $16.52 $43.79 $24.23
30% $37.49 $15.50 $17.00 $43.81 $24.67
35% $37.73 $15.86 $17.38 $43.85 $25.06
40% $37.98 $16.14 $17.70 $44.68 $26.74
45% $38.36 $16.72 $18.29 $45.00 $26.92
50% $38.96 $17.21 $18.80 $45.00 $27.34
55% $41.21 $17.72 $19.34 $46.51 $27.34
60% $43.34 $18.13 $19.79 $48.82 $28.23
65% $44.73 $18.52 $20.21 $49.67 $28.93
70% $45.02 $18.97 $20.71 $50.89 $29.53
75% $45.41 $19.95 $21.70 $53.01 $30.08
80% $46.32 $20.32 $22.15 $55.10 $30.25
Average $40.79 $17.77 $19.36 $47.75 $27.39
Compa-Ratio
-0.5% 0.0% +5.4% -0.9% +5.4%
81
Asst. CEO
Electrical
Inspector
Assistant to
Assessor
Behavioral
Health
Liaison
Bus Driver
Cable
Access
Manager
Current Scale
Grade K-37.5 G-37.5 I-37.5 F-40 I-37.5
Minimum $24.88 $19.66 $22.12 $16.99 $22.12
Midpoint $28.82 $22.78 $25.63 $19.68 $25.63
Maximum $32.75 $25.90 $29.14 $22.37 $29.14
Market Percentiles
20% $24.87 $19.45 $23.49 $17.59 $25.18
25% $25.70 $20.17 $24.29 $18.28 $26.01
30% $26.45 $20.75 $25.00 $18.81 $26.76
35% $27.00 $21.21 $25.53 $19.23 $27.33
40% $27.55 $21.61 $26.03 $19.59 $27.88
45% $28.19 $22.22 $26.67 $20.18 $28.52
50% $28.82 $22.78 $27.28 $20.72 $29.15
55% $29.54 $23.39 $27.97 $21.29 $29.88
60% $30.22 $23.94 $28.62 $21.79 $30.57
65% $30.88 $24.45 $29.24 $22.26 $31.24
70% $31.71 $25.08 $30.02 $22.82 $32.08
75% $32.74 $26.09 $31.04 $23.81 $33.11
80% $33.70 $26.74 $31.92 $24.37 $34.09
Average $29.44 $23.37 $27.90 $21.30 $29.78
Compa-Ratio
0.0% 0.0% -6.0% -5.0% -12.1%
82
Chief
Operator
Children’s
Librarian
Circulation
Librarian
Clerk/
Cashier II
CEO/
Division
Director
Current Scale
Grade K-40 I-37.5 I-37.5 D-37.5 Q-37.5
Minimum $23.28 $22.12 $22.12 $16.20 $32.75
Midpoint $26.96 $25.63 $25.63 $18.32 $38.77
Maximum $30.63 $29.14 $29.14 $20.44 $44.79
Market Percentiles
20% $25.25 $24.06 $23.27 $17.08 $31.98
25% $26.96 $24.15 $24.07 $17.75 $32.75
30% $28.61 $24.69 $24.76 $18.27 $34.08
35% $28.63 $25.63 $25.29 $18.68 $34.63
40% $29.62 $25.72 $25.79 $19.02 $36.68
45% $30.17 $26.37 $26.43 $19.62 $37.55
50% $30.50 $28.03 $27.03 $20.14 $38.15
55% $30.63 $29.06 $27.72 $20.71 $38.60
60% $31.38 $29.14 $28.37 $21.19 $39.51
65% $32.59 $29.29 $28.98 $21.65 $41.38
70% $33.24 $31.18 $29.75 $22.19 $41.96
75% $35.74 $31.37 $30.77 $23.18 $42.42
80% $35.77 $34.05 $31.64 $23.71 $44.78
Average $30.89 $28.43 $27.65 $20.72 $38.51
Compa-Ratio
-11.6% -8.6% -5.2% -9.1% +1.6%
83
Collection
Systems
Manager
Collection
Systems
Supervisor
Community
Planner
Compliance
Admin. Controller
Current Scale
Grade P-40 K-40 K-37.5 K-40 O-37.5
Minimum $29.42 $23.28 $24.88 $23.28 $30.26
Midpoint $34.85 $26.96 $28.82 $26.96 $35.84
Maximum $40.27 $30.63 $32.75 $30.63 $41.41
Market Percentiles
20% $35.27 $29.02 $26.14 $25.02 $31.14
25% $36.31 $29.89 $27.00 $25.86 $32.09
30% $37.35 $30.72 $27.78 $26.60 $33.02
35% $38.10 $31.44 $28.36 $27.16 $33.69
40% $38.91 $31.72 $28.93 $27.71 $34.40
45% $39.62 $31.78 $29.58 $28.35 $35.08
50% $40.38 $31.78 $30.23 $28.98 $35.78
55% $41.31 $33.02 $30.98 $29.71 $36.63
60% $42.27 $35.42 $31.69 $30.40 $37.48
65% $43.19 $35.84 $32.38 $31.06 $38.30
70% $44.40 $37.10 $33.26 $31.89 $39.36
75% $45.48 $38.94 $34.29 $32.92 $40.41
80% $47.02 $39.50 $35.32 $33.89 $41.73
Average $41.08 $33.47 $30.87 $29.61 $36.46
Compa-Ratio
-13.7% -15.2% -4.7% -7.0% +0.1%
84
Custodian
Customer
Service
Rep.
Deputy
Assessor Deputy CEO
Deputy
Facilities
Manager
Current Scale
Grade D-37.5 C-37.5 L-37.5 M-37.5 L-37.5
Minimum $16.20 $15.51 $25.90 $26.93 $25.90
Midpoint $18.32 $17.21 $29.97 $31.16 $29.97
Maximum $20.44 $18.91 $34.04 $35.38 $34.04
Market Percentiles
20% $15.41 $14.44 $25.91 $28.70 $26.05
25% $15.76 $15.06 $26.76 $29.61 $26.90
30% $16.02 $15.50 $27.54 $30.47 $27.68
35% $16.39 $15.86 $28.11 $31.09 $28.25
40% $16.49 $16.14 $28.68 $31.74 $28.83
45% $17.16 $16.72 $29.33 $32.40 $29.48
50% $17.64 $17.21 $29.97 $33.08 $30.12
55% $18.13 $17.72 $30.72 $33.88 $30.87
60% $18.37 $18.13 $31.43 $34.66 $31.58
65% $18.46 $18.52 $32.11 $35.42 $32.27
70% $19.07 $18.97 $32.98 $36.39 $33.14
75% $20.20 $19.95 $34.01 $37.43 $34.17
80% $20.55 $20.32 $35.03 $38.61 $35.20
Average $18.23 $17.77 $30.61 $33.73 $30.76
Compa-Ratio
+3.9% 0.0% 0.0% -5.8% -0.5%
85
Deputy
Finance
Director
Deputy Fire
Chief
Deputy
Library
Director
Deputy
Police Chief
Deputy Tax
Collector
Current Scale
Grade P-37.5 O-40 K-37.5 Q-40 L-37.5
Minimum $31.45 $28.32 $24.88 $30.63 $25.90
Midpoint $37.28 $33.54 $28.82 $36.26 $29.97
Maximum $43.11 $38.76 $32.75 $41.89 $34.04
Market Percentiles
20% $32.49 $35.13 $26.50 $35.98 $26.88
25% $33.47 $35.55 $27.37 $38.10 $28.49
30% $34.43 $36.88 $28.16 $39.02 $29.02
35% $35.13 $37.30 $28.74 $40.04 $29.92
40% $35.87 $37.70 $29.33 $40.14 $30.22
45% $36.56 $38.12 $29.98 $40.28 $30.82
50% $37.28 $39.87 $30.63 $41.89 $32.00
55% $38.16 $40.17 $31.39 $42.92 $33.30
60% $39.04 $40.43 $32.11 $44.07 $34.26
65% $39.90 $40.64 $32.81 $44.98 $35.12
70% $41.00 $42.86 $33.70 $46.12 $35.12
75% $42.06 $43.67 $34.73 $46.17 $35.12
80% $43.45 $44.64 $35.79 $48.05 $35.67
Average $37.96 $40.23 $31.27 $42.49 $32.22
Compa-Ratio
0.0% -15.9% -5.9% -13.4% -6.4%
86
Director
Bus Service
Director
Planning &
Dev.
Director
Social
Services
Economic
Dev.
Director
Employee
Relations
Manager
Current Scale
Grade P-37.5 R-37.5 M-37.5 Q-37.5 M-37.5
Minimum $31.45 $35.38 $26.93 $32.75 $26.93
Midpoint $37.28 $41.92 $31.16 $38.77 $31.16
Maximum $43.11 $48.46 $35.38 $44.79 $35.38
Market Percentiles
20% $33.19 $38.15 $28.78 $37.67 $26.93
25% $34.19 $39.14 $29.69 $38.93 $28.14
30% $35.18 $41.01 $30.55 $40.85 $28.59
35% $35.89 $41.86 $31.18 $41.61 $30.20
40% $36.64 $42.76 $31.82 $41.95 $31.16
45% $37.34 $43.22 $32.49 $43.02 $31.33
50% $38.07 $43.27 $33.16 $44.92 $32.15
55% $38.96 $43.80 $33.97 $45.07 $32.33
60% $39.86 $45.04 $34.75 $45.70 $33.56
65% $40.73 $45.07 $35.51 $47.61 $35.38
70% $41.87 $47.95 $36.48 $48.41 $35.70
75% $42.93 $48.52 $37.53 $48.83 $35.80
80% $44.36 $49.50 $38.71 $50.38 $37.29
Average $38.76 $43.77 $33.82 $44.04 $32.56
Compa-Ratio
-2.1% -3.1% -6.1% -13.7% -3.1%
87
Engineering
Division
Manager
Excavation
Sewer
Inspector
Exec. Asst.
to City
Manager
Facilities
Manager
Finance
Director
Current Scale
Grade R-40 J-37.5 I-37.5 P-37.5 U-37.5
Minimum $33.15 $23.02 $22.12 $31.45 $41.33
Midpoint $39.25 $26.64 $25.63 $37.28 $50.08
Maximum $45.35 $30.26 $29.14 $43.11 $58.83
Market Percentiles
20% $34.26 $23.21 $21.56 $31.60 $43.20
25% $35.28 $24.01 $22.12 $32.56 $44.36
30% $36.29 $24.70 $22.50 $33.50 $45.24
35% $37.02 $25.23 $23.92 $34.18 $46.17
40% $37.81 $25.73 $24.02 $34.90 $47.72
45% $38.50 $26.36 $25.48 $35.58 $47.96
50% $39.25 $26.97 $25.63 $36.29 $48.99
55% $40.16 $27.66 $26.20 $37.15 $50.30
60% $41.10 $28.30 $26.82 $38.01 $50.79
65% $41.99 $28.91 $27.29 $38.84 $51.44
70% $43.16 $29.68 $28.11 $39.92 $52.16
75% $44.23 $30.70 $29.46 $40.97 $53.02
80% $45.72 $31.57 $29.53 $42.31 $54.93
Average $39.95 $27.59 $25.55 $36.97 $49.10
Compa-Ratio
0.0% -1.2% 0.0% +2.7% +2.2%
88
Fire Chief
GA Social
Services
Support
Head
Lifeguard
Health
Inspector
Human
Resource
Director
Current Scale
Grade S-40 J-37.5 C-37.5 J-37.5 S-37.5
Minimum $34.43 $23.02 $15.51 $23.02 $36.81
Midpoint $41.73 $26.64 $17.21 $26.64 $44.61
Maximum $49.03 $30.26 $18.91 $30.26 $52.40
Market Percentiles
20% $41.67 $22.92 $14.44 $22.06 $36.01
25% $42.39 $23.71 $15.06 $22.83 $36.61
30% $43.56 $24.39 $15.50 $23.49 $37.26
35% $44.56 $24.91 $15.86 $24.00 $39.36
40% $45.36 $25.41 $16.14 $24.47 $40.88
45% $45.95 $26.04 $16.72 $25.09 $41.84
50% $45.95 $26.64 $17.21 $25.68 $43.38
55% $47.13 $27.32 $17.72 $26.35 $45.10
60% $48.00 $27.96 $18.13 $26.96 $45.50
65% $48.91 $28.56 $18.52 $27.55 $46.99
70% $49.42 $29.32 $18.97 $28.27 $47.38
75% $50.92 $30.34 $19.95 $29.28 $48.27
80% $52.58 $31.19 $20.32 $30.09 $50.35
Average $47.02 $27.26 $17.77 $26.29 $43.21
Compa-Ratio
-9.2% 0.0% 0.0% +3.7% +2.8%
89
HR
Specialist
Caseworker
IS Director
IS Help
Desk Tech.
I
IS Help
Desk Tech.
II
Library
Aide I
Current Scale
Grade G-37.5 R-37.5 G-37.5 H-37.5 C-37.5
Minimum $19.66 $35.38 $19.66 $20.44 $15.51
Midpoint $22.78 $41.92 $22.78 $23.69 $17.21
Maximum $25.90 $48.46 $25.90 $26.93 $18.91
Market Percentiles
20% $22.08 $34.26 $19.45 $20.26 $15.12
25% $22.85 $35.21 $20.17 $21.00 $15.93
30% $23.51 $36.23 $20.75 $21.61 $16.61
35% $24.01 $37.65 $21.21 $22.08 $16.82
40% $24.49 $38.15 $21.61 $22.50 $16.97
45% $25.11 $40.38 $22.22 $23.12 $17.14
50% $25.70 $40.81 $22.78 $23.69 $18.02
55% $26.37 $41.94 $23.39 $24.32 $18.07
60% $26.98 $42.76 $23.94 $24.88 $18.36
65% $27.57 $43.26 $24.45 $25.42 $18.86
70% $28.29 $44.05 $25.08 $26.07 $19.11
75% $29.31 $45.88 $26.09 $27.08 $20.00
80% $30.11 $47.89 $26.74 $27.79 $20.61
Average $26.31 $40.97 $23.37 $24.28 $18.32
Compa-Ratio
-11.4% +2.7% 0.0% 0.0% -4.5%
90
Library
Assistant II
Library
Cataloger
Library
Director
Licensing
Admin.
Maint.
Mechanic
Current Scale
Grade F-37.5 I-37.5 Q-37.5 F-37.5 H-40
Minimum $18.17 $22.12 $32.75 $18.17 $19.13
Midpoint $21.04 $25.63 $38.77 $21.04 $22.15
Maximum $23.90 $29.14 $44.79 $23.90 $25.17
Market Percentiles
20% $19.35 $23.38 $34.84 $18.36 $20.82
25% $20.07 $24.18 $35.73 $19.06 $22.01
30% $20.66 $24.88 $36.84 $19.62 $22.63
35% $21.11 $25.41 $36.93 $20.05 $23.04
40% $21.51 $25.91 $37.40 $20.43 $23.35
45% $22.12 $26.55 $38.37 $21.03 $24.34
50% $22.68 $27.15 $39.67 $21.57 $25.68
55% $23.29 $27.85 $40.86 $22.17 $26.44
60% $23.83 $28.49 $41.87 $22.68 $26.59
65% $24.34 $29.11 $43.26 $23.17 $26.59
70% $24.97 $29.88 $44.86 $23.76 $26.79
75% $25.97 $30.90 $45.38 $24.76 $26.94
80% $26.62 $31.78 $48.41 $25.35 $27.43
Average $23.27 $27.77 $41.35 $22.16 $24.37
Compa-Ratio
-7.2% -5.6% -2.3% -2.5% -13.7%
91
Maint.
Supervisor
Manager’s
Office
Assistant
Mechanic II Mechanical
Electrician
Media
Specialist
Current Scale
Grade K-40 G-37.5 I-40 H-40 E-37.5
Minimum $23.28 $19.66 $20.69 $19.13 $17.49
Midpoint $26.96 $22.78 $23.95 $22.15 $19.81
Maximum $30.63 $25.90 $27.21 $25.17 $22.12
Market Percentiles
20% $26.34 $20.46 $22.58 $20.82 $18.21
25% $27.20 $21.21 $23.37 $21.57 $18.91
30% $27.99 $21.82 $24.04 $22.20 $19.45
35% $28.57 $22.29 $24.55 $22.68 $19.88
40% $29.15 $22.72 $25.04 $23.12 $20.26
45% $29.80 $23.34 $25.67 $23.73 $20.86
50% $30.45 $23.91 $26.26 $24.31 $21.40
55% $31.20 $24.55 $26.94 $24.95 $21.99
60% $31.93 $25.11 $27.57 $25.53 $22.50
65% $32.62 $25.66 $28.16 $26.08 $22.99
70% $33.50 $26.32 $28.91 $26.76 $23.57
75% $34.54 $27.33 $29.93 $27.77 $24.57
80% $35.58 $28.04 $30.76 $28.50 $25.15
Average $31.09 $24.51 $26.88 $24.91 $21.98
Compa-Ratio
-11.5% -4.7% -8.8% -8.9% -7.5%
92
Network
Admin. I
Network
Admin. II
Operations
Supervisor
Outreach
Librarian
Park Ranger
Recreation
Supervisor
Current Scale
Grade I-37.5 J-37.5 J-40 F-37.5 D-37.5
Minimum $22.12 $23.02 $21.52 $18.17 $16.20
Midpoint $25.63 $26.64 $24.92 $21.04 $18.32
Maximum $29.14 $30.26 $28.32 $23.90 $20.44
Market Percentiles
20% $22.01 $24.97 $27.69 $20.90 $18.63
25% $22.78 $26.30 $28.58 $21.65 $19.34
30% $23.44 $26.80 $29.40 $22.27 $19.90
35% $23.94 $27.59 $30.01 $22.75 $20.34
40% $24.42 $28.26 $30.62 $23.20 $20.72
45% $25.04 $29.39 $31.28 $23.82 $21.33
50% $25.63 $30.13 $31.95 $24.39 $21.87
55% $26.30 $30.59 $32.73 $25.03 $22.47
60% $26.91 $30.77 $33.49 $25.61 $22.99
65% $27.49 $30.77 $34.21 $26.17 $23.49
70% $28.21 $31.20 $35.14 $26.85 $24.09
75% $29.23 $33.40 $36.19 $27.86 $25.09
80% $30.03 $33.74 $37.31 $28.60 $25.70
Average $26.24 $30.13 $32.60 $24.99 $22.46
Compa-Ratio
0.0% -11.6% -22.0% -13.8% -16.2%
93
Parks & Rec
Deputy
Director
Parks & Rec
Director
Parks
Operations
Manager
Payroll &
Finance
Specialist
Police
Admin.
Info. Asst.
Current Scale
Grade O-37.5 S-37.5 L-40 G-37.5 G-37.5
Minimum $30.26 $36.81 $24.24 $19.66 $19.66
Midpoint $35.84 $44.61 $28.05 $22.78 $22.78
Maximum $41.41 $52.40 $31.85 $25.90 $25.90
Market Percentiles
20% $30.88 $37.14 $27.76 $22.02 $19.95
25% $31.83 $37.72 $28.64 $22.52 $20.68
30% $32.75 $38.07 $29.47 $22.83 $21.28
35% $33.42 $38.47 $30.08 $23.44 $21.74
40% $34.11 $38.96 $30.70 $24.53 $22.16
45% $34.79 $39.14 $31.36 $24.53 $22.77
50% $35.50 $41.39 $32.02 $25.01 $23.33
55% $36.34 $42.07 $32.80 $26.04 $23.96
60% $37.19 $42.84 $33.56 $26.70 $24.51
65% $38.00 $44.32 $34.29 $27.02 $25.04
70% $39.04 $44.91 $35.23 $27.75 $25.69
75% $40.10 $45.04 $36.27 $28.15 $26.70
80% $41.40 $46.73 $37.39 $28.21 $27.38
Average $36.17 $41.38 $32.67 $25.50 $23.93
Compa-Ratio
+1.0% +7.8% -12.4% -8.9% -2.4%
94
Police Chief Police
Custodian
Production
Technician
Property
Appraiser
Public
Works
Director
Current Scale
Grade S-40 E-40 C-37.5 I-37.5 S-40
Minimum $34.43 $16.35 $15.51 $22.12 $34.43
Midpoint $41.73 $18.52 $17.21 $25.63 $41.73
Maximum $49.03 $20.69 $18.91 $29.14 $49.03
Market Percentiles
20% $41.70 $16.47 $14.44 $22.00 $38.98
25% $42.49 $17.14 $15.06 $22.07 $39.47
30% $44.38 $17.63 $15.50 $22.12 $40.01
35% $45.02 $18.03 $15.86 $24.22 $41.84
40% $46.07 $18.36 $16.14 $24.26 $42.79
45% $47.28 $18.95 $16.72 $25.47 $42.99
50% $47.30 $19.47 $17.21 $25.63 $43.03
55% $48.12 $20.03 $17.72 $27.15 $43.46
60% $48.60 $20.49 $18.13 $27.36 $45.82
65% $48.88 $20.93 $18.52 $28.50 $46.95
70% $49.55 $21.45 $18.97 $29.14 $47.28
75% $50.84 $22.44 $19.95 $29.42 $47.87
80% $52.19 $22.93 $20.32 $29.44 $48.63
Average $47.30 $20.04 $17.77 $26.70 $44.17
Compa-Ratio
-11.8% -4.9% 0.0% 0.0% -3.0%
95
Public
Works Supt.
Purchasing
Agent
Benefits
Recreation
Coordinator
Recreation
Manager
Recreation
Operations
Manager
Current Scale
Grade O-40 K-37.5 F-37.5 J-37.5 L-37.5
Minimum $28.32 $24.88 $18.17 $23.02 $25.90
Midpoint $33.54 $28.82 $21.04 $26.64 $29.97
Maximum $38.76 $32.75 $23.90 $30.26 $34.04
Market Percentiles
20% $28.97 $26.00 $19.00 $25.49 $24.72
25% $30.19 $26.85 $21.01 $26.96 $25.90
30% $30.98 $27.62 $21.01 $27.92 $29.41
35% $31.03 $28.20 $21.01 $27.92 $29.50
40% $31.49 $28.77 $21.04 $27.92 $29.97
45% $33.40 $29.42 $22.16 $27.99 $31.14
50% $34.27 $30.06 $22.23 $28.72 $31.33
55% $35.15 $30.81 $23.78 $29.71 $32.90
60% $35.39 $31.52 $23.90 $30.56 $33.92
65% $38.59 $32.21 $24.50 $31.89 $34.04
70% $39.20 $33.08 $24.70 $34.07 $35.80
75% $41.18 $34.11 $27.23 $37.19 $36.30
80% $43.06 $35.13 $27.37 $39.10 $36.59
Average $36.47 $30.70 $23.71 $31.70 $31.46
Compa-Ratio
-2.1% -4.1% -5.4% -7.2% -4.3%
96
Safety
Coordinator
School Age
Site Leader
Senior CAD
Operator
Senior
Clerk
Cashier
Sewer
Maint.
Worker I
Current Scale
Grade H-37.5 C-37.5 L-40 E-37.5 F-40
Minimum $20.44 $15.51 $24.24 $17.49 $16.99
Midpoint $23.69 $17.21 $28.05 $19.81 $19.68
Maximum $26.93 $18.91 $31.85 $22.12 $22.37
Market Percentiles
20% $22.09 $14.44 $24.49 $17.39 $19.47
25% $22.86 $15.06 $25.31 $18.08 $19.56
30% $23.52 $15.50 $26.04 $18.60 $19.63
35% $24.03 $15.86 $26.59 $19.02 $19.67
40% $24.50 $16.14 $27.12 $19.37 $19.95
45% $25.13 $16.72 $27.76 $19.97 $20.33
50% $25.72 $17.21 $28.39 $20.50 $20.41
55% $26.38 $17.72 $29.10 $21.07 $20.55
60% $27.00 $18.13 $29.78 $21.56 $21.60
65% $27.58 $18.52 $30.42 $22.02 $22.49
70% $28.30 $18.97 $31.24 $22.57 $22.94
75% $29.32 $19.95 $32.26 $23.57 $23.65
80% $30.13 $20.32 $33.20 $24.11 $24.67
Average $26.33 $17.77 $29.01 $21.07 $21.88
Compa-Ratio
-7.9% 0.0% -1.2% -3.4% -3.6%
97
Sewer
Maint.
Worker II
SoPo Unite
Drug
Coalition
Station
Coordinator
Station
Coordinator
(Supervisor)
Stormwater
Coordinator
Current Scale
Grade H-40 J-40 G-37.5 H-37.5 K-40
Minimum $19.13 $21.52 $19.66 $20.44 $23.28
Midpoint $22.15 $24.92 $22.78 $23.69 $26.96
Maximum $25.17 $28.32 $25.90 $26.93 $30.63
Market Percentiles
20% $22.61 $25.03 $19.45 $20.26 $24.94
25% $23.40 $25.86 $20.17 $21.00 $25.77
30% $24.08 $26.61 $20.75 $21.61 $26.52
35% $24.59 $27.17 $21.21 $22.08 $27.07
40% $25.08 $27.72 $21.61 $22.50 $27.62
45% $25.70 $28.36 $22.22 $23.12 $28.26
50% $26.30 $28.99 $22.78 $23.69 $28.89
55% $26.98 $29.72 $23.39 $24.32 $29.61
60% $27.61 $30.41 $23.94 $24.88 $30.30
65% $28.20 $31.07 $24.45 $25.42 $30.96
70% $28.95 $31.90 $25.08 $26.07 $31.79
75% $29.97 $32.93 $26.09 $27.08 $32.82
80% $30.80 $33.90 $26.74 $27.79 $33.78
Average $26.92 $29.62 $23.37 $24.28 $29.52
Compa-Ratio
-15.8% -14.0% 0.0% 0.0% -6.7%
98
Sustain
Director
Sustain
Program
Coordinator
Tax/
Treasury
Specialist
Teen Center
Coordinator
Teen Center
Program
Assistant
Current Scale
Grade N-37.5 G-37.5 I-37.5 C-37.5 A-37.5
Minimum $27.99 $19.66 $22.12 $15.51 $13.83
Midpoint $33.15 $22.78 $25.63 $17.21 $15.32
Maximum $38.30 $25.90 $29.14 $18.91 $16.81
Market Percentiles
20% $29.62 $21.01 $22.01 $14.16 $12.74
25% $30.55 $21.76 $22.78 $14.78 $13.33
30% $31.43 $22.39 $23.44 $15.21 $13.72
35% $32.07 $22.87 $23.94 $15.56 $14.05
40% $32.74 $23.32 $24.42 $15.83 $14.28
45% $33.41 $23.94 $25.04 $16.41 $14.85
50% $34.10 $24.51 $25.63 $16.90 $15.32
55% $34.92 $25.16 $26.30 $17.41 $15.80
60% $35.73 $25.74 $26.91 $17.81 $16.16
65% $36.51 $26.30 $27.49 $18.19 $16.51
70% $37.51 $26.99 $28.21 $18.63 $16.89
75% $38.56 $28.00 $29.23 $19.61 $17.86
80% $39.78 $28.74 $30.03 $19.97 $18.15
Average $34.76 $25.12 $26.24 $17.45 $15.86
Compa-Ratio
-2.8% -7.1% 0.0% +1.8% 0.0%
99
Trans.
Coord.
Admin Asst
Trans
Evening
Coordinator
Treasury
Accountant
Treatment
Plant
Operator
Treatment
Systems
Manager
Current Scale
Grade H-40 G-40 F-37.5 G-40 P-40
Minimum $19.13 $18.41 $18.17 $18.41 $29.42
Midpoint $22.15 $21.33 $21.04 $21.33 $34.85
Maximum $25.17 $24.24 $23.90 $24.24 $40.27
Market Percentiles
20% $20.39 $19.47 $20.10 $22.55 $29.46
25% $21.13 $20.19 $20.83 $23.25 $29.59
30% $21.74 $20.78 $21.44 $23.65 $30.19
35% $22.21 $21.23 $21.90 $23.90 $31.21
40% $22.64 $21.64 $22.32 $24.02 $32.83
45% $23.26 $22.25 $22.94 $24.19 $34.68
50% $23.83 $22.80 $23.50 $24.42 $35.09
55% $24.46 $23.42 $24.13 $24.60 $35.35
60% $25.02 $23.96 $24.69 $24.64 $35.59
65% $25.57 $24.48 $25.22 $24.74 $35.99
70% $26.23 $25.11 $25.88 $25.23 $36.81
75% $27.24 $26.11 $26.88 $26.56 $38.01
80% $27.95 $26.77 $27.58 $27.02 $39.67
Average $24.42 $23.40 $24.10 $24.49 $34.36
Compa-Ratio
-7.0% -6.5% -10.5% -12.7% -0.7%
100
Vehicle
Maint.
Mechanic
Water
Resource
Director
WRP Civil
Transport
Engineer
Youth
Services
Assistant
Current Scale
Grade H-40 U-40 N-40 F-37.5
Minimum $19.13 $38.67 $26.15 $18.17
Midpoint $22.15 $46.89 $31.00 $21.04
Maximum $25.17 $55.11 $35.84 $23.90
Market Percentiles
20% $21.38 $40.07 $33.94 $19.35
25% $22.02 $42.66 $35.44 $20.07
30% $22.47 $44.89 $35.91 $20.66
35% $22.97 $44.89 $36.53 $21.11
40% $25.01 $44.89 $38.08 $21.51
45% $25.08 $45.49 $38.46 $22.12
50% $25.35 $46.89 $38.46 $22.68
55% $26.13 $47.54 $38.65 $23.29
60% $26.52 $47.91 $39.30 $23.83
65% $26.61 $48.76 $40.56 $24.34
70% $27.28 $53.70 $42.81 $24.97
75% $29.50 $56.10 $44.62 $25.97
80% $29.92 $57.10 $46.75 $26.62
Average $26.35 $47.47 $39.52 $23.27
Compa-Ratio
-12.6% 0.0% -19.4% -7.2%
101
Proposed Salary Schedules
A recommended salary scale for all employees is shown in Table 23 on an annualized basis.
The equivalent hourly values for 37.5-hr employees is presented in Table 24 and for 40-hr
employees in Table 25.
It is recommended that the minimum rate of pay for full-time 40-hr employees be
equivalent to the 2020 minimum wage for Maine of $12.00.
The spread between the minimum and maximum salary was set to 45%, as this spread
amount was common at comparator organizations. The spread was divided into 30 equal
steps of constant dollar amounts.
The number of pay grades was set to 19 to accommodate the range of CFS Scores. The
Ladders, i.e., the distance between grades, was set to be 7.5%. Larger Ladders were included
to increase the incentive for employees to seek positions of greater responsibility and to
make it financially beneficial.
The General Employee category is comprised of job titles that are assigned grades between
SP01 and SP13. Merit steps begin at step 25 for employees in this group. Managerial level
positions are those that are assigned grades SP14 through SP16. Merit steps begin at step
16 for employees in this group. Executive level job titles are those assigned grades SP17
through SP19. Merit steps begin at step 7 for employees in this group. Merit steps for all
three categories are earned based up merit considerations, rather than longevity, using
criteria established by the City. For example, an employee with a job title under the General
Employee category would normally progress from step 1 through step 24. However,
steps 25 through 30 would only be achieved based upon merit considerations. For job titles
in the Managerial Employee category and Executive Employee category, the start of the
merit threshold starts earlier in the step progression.
102
Table 23 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Annual
Grade Step Annual
Min
Annual
Mid
Annual
Max
SP01 $387 $24,960 $30,576 $36,192
SP02 $416 $26,832 $32,869 $38,906
SP03 $448 $28,844 $35,334 $41,824
SP04 $481 $31,008 $37,984 $44,961
SP05 $517 $33,333 $40,833 $48,333
SP06 $556 $35,833 $43,896 $51,958
SP07 $598 $38,521 $47,188 $55,855
SP08 $643 $41,410 $50,727 $60,044
SP09 $691 $44,516 $54,532 $64,548
SP10 $743 $47,854 $58,621 $69,389
SP11 $798 $51,443 $63,018 $74,593
SP12 $858 $55,302 $67,744 $80,187
SP13 $922 $59,449 $72,825 $86,201
SP14 $992 $63,908 $78,287 $92,666
SP15 $1,066 $68,701 $84,159 $99,616
SP16 $1,146 $73,854 $90,471 $107,088
SP17 $1,232 $79,393 $97,256 $115,119
SP18 $1,324 $85,347 $104,550 $123,753
SP19 $1,424 $91,748 $112,391 $133,035
103
General Employees
Grade Step 01 Step 02 Step 03 Step 04 Step 05
SP01 $24,960 $25,347 $25,735 $26,122 $26,509
SP02 $26,832 $27,248 $27,665 $28,081 $28,497
SP03 $28,844 $29,292 $29,740 $30,187 $30,635
SP04 $31,008 $31,489 $31,970 $32,451 $32,932
SP05 $33,333 $33,851 $34,368 $34,885 $35,402
SP06 $35,833 $36,389 $36,945 $37,501 $38,057
SP07 $38,521 $39,119 $39,716 $40,314 $40,912
SP08 $41,410 $42,052 $42,695 $43,338 $43,980
SP09 $44,516 $45,206 $45,897 $46,588 $47,279
SP10 $47,854 $48,597 $49,339 $50,082 $50,825
SP11 $51,443 $52,242 $53,040 $53,838 $54,636
SP12 $55,302 $56,160 $57,018 $57,876 $58,734
SP13 $59,449 $60,372 $61,294 $62,217 $63,139
Grade Step 06 Step 07 Step 08 Step 09 Step 10
SP01 $26,897 $27,284 $27,671 $28,058 $28,446
SP02 $28,914 $29,330 $29,747 $30,163 $30,579
SP03 $31,082 $31,530 $31,977 $32,425 $32,873
SP04 $33,414 $33,895 $34,376 $34,857 $35,338
SP05 $35,920 $36,437 $36,954 $37,471 $37,988
SP06 $38,613 $39,170 $39,726 $40,282 $40,838
SP07 $41,509 $42,107 $42,705 $43,303 $43,900
SP08 $44,623 $45,265 $45,908 $46,550 $47,193
SP09 $47,969 $48,660 $49,351 $50,042 $50,732
SP10 $51,567 $52,310 $53,052 $53,795 $54,537
SP11 $55,435 $56,233 $57,031 $57,829 $58,628
SP12 $59,592 $60,450 $61,308 $62,167 $63,025
SP13 $64,062 $64,984 $65,907 $66,829 $67,752
104
Grade Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15
SP01 $28,833 $29,220 $29,608 $29,995 $30,382
SP02 $30,996 $31,412 $31,828 $32,245 $32,661
SP03 $33,320 $33,768 $34,215 $34,663 $35,111
SP04 $35,819 $36,300 $36,782 $37,263 $37,744
SP05 $38,506 $39,023 $39,540 $40,057 $40,575
SP06 $41,394 $41,950 $42,506 $43,062 $43,618
SP07 $44,498 $45,096 $45,694 $46,291 $46,889
SP08 $47,836 $48,478 $49,121 $49,763 $50,406
SP09 $51,423 $52,114 $52,805 $53,495 $54,186
SP10 $55,280 $56,023 $56,765 $57,508 $58,250
SP11 $59,426 $60,224 $61,022 $61,821 $62,619
SP12 $63,883 $64,741 $65,599 $66,457 $67,315
SP13 $68,674 $69,597 $70,519 $71,442 $72,364
Grade Step 16 Step 17 Step 18 Step 19 Step 20
SP01 $30,770 $31,157 $31,544 $31,932 $32,319
SP02 $33,077 $33,494 $33,910 $34,326 $34,743
SP03 $35,558 $36,006 $36,453 $36,901 $37,349
SP04 $38,225 $38,706 $39,187 $39,669 $40,150
SP05 $41,092 $41,609 $42,126 $42,644 $43,161
SP06 $44,174 $44,730 $45,286 $45,842 $46,398
SP07 $47,487 $48,085 $48,682 $49,280 $49,878
SP08 $51,048 $51,691 $52,334 $52,976 $53,619
SP09 $54,877 $55,568 $56,259 $56,949 $57,640
SP10 $58,993 $59,735 $60,478 $61,220 $61,963
SP11 $63,417 $64,215 $65,014 $65,812 $66,610
SP12 $68,174 $69,032 $69,890 $70,748 $71,606
SP13 $73,287 $74,209 $75,132 $76,054 $76,976
105
Grade Step 21 Step 22 Step 23 Step 24 Merit
Step 25
SP01 $32,706 $33,094 $33,481 $33,868 $34,255
SP02 $35,159 $35,576 $35,992 $36,408 $36,825
SP03 $37,796 $38,244 $38,691 $39,139 $39,586
SP04 $40,631 $41,112 $41,593 $42,074 $42,555
SP05 $43,678 $44,195 $44,713 $45,230 $45,747
SP06 $46,954 $47,510 $48,066 $48,622 $49,178
SP07 $50,476 $51,073 $51,671 $52,269 $52,866
SP08 $54,261 $54,904 $55,546 $56,189 $56,831
SP09 $58,331 $59,022 $59,712 $60,403 $61,094
SP10 $62,706 $63,448 $64,191 $64,933 $65,676
SP11 $67,409 $68,207 $69,005 $69,803 $70,602
SP12 $72,464 $73,322 $74,180 $75,039 $75,897
SP13 $77,899 $78,821 $79,744 $80,666 $81,589
Grade Merit
Step 26
Merit
Step 27
Merit
Step 28
Merit
Step 29
Merit
Step 30
SP01 $34,643 $35,030 $35,417 $35,805 $36,192
SP02 $37,241 $37,657 $38,074 $38,490 $38,906
SP03 $40,034 $40,482 $40,929 $41,377 $41,824
SP04 $43,037 $43,518 $43,999 $44,480 $44,961
SP05 $46,264 $46,782 $47,299 $47,816 $48,333
SP06 $49,734 $50,290 $50,846 $51,402 $51,958
SP07 $53,464 $54,062 $54,660 $55,257 $55,855
SP08 $57,474 $58,117 $58,759 $59,402 $60,044
SP09 $61,785 $62,475 $63,166 $63,857 $64,548
SP10 $66,418 $67,161 $67,904 $68,646 $69,389
SP11 $71,400 $72,198 $72,996 $73,795 $74,593
SP12 $76,755 $77,613 $78,471 $79,329 $80,187
SP13 $82,511 $83,434 $84,356 $85,279 $86,201
106
Managerial Employees
Grade Step 01 Step 02 Step 03 Step 04 Step 05
SP14 $63,908 $64,900 $65,891 $66,883 $67,875
SP15 $68,701 $69,767 $70,833 $71,899 $72,965
SP16 $73,854 $75,000 $76,146 $77,292 $78,438
Grade Step 06 Step 07 Step 08 Step 09 Step 10
SP14 $68,866 $69,858 $70,850 $71,841 $72,833
SP15 $74,031 $75,097 $76,163 $77,229 $78,295
SP16 $79,584 $80,730 $81,876 $83,022 $84,168
Grade Step 11 Step 12 Step 13 Step 14 Step 15
SP14 $73,825 $74,816 $75,808 $76,800 $77,791
SP15 $79,362 $80,428 $81,494 $82,560 $83,626
SP16 $85,314 $86,460 $87,606 $88,752 $89,898
Grade Merit
Step 16 Merit
Step 17 Merit
Step 18 Merit
Step 19 Merit
Step 20
SP14 $78,783 $79,775 $80,766 $81,758 $82,750
SP15 $84,692 $85,758 $86,824 $87,890 $88,956
SP16 $91,044 $92,190 $93,336 $94,482 $95,628
Grade Merit
Step 21
Merit
Step 22
Merit
Step 23
Merit
Step 24
Merit
Step 25
SP14 $83,741 $84,733 $85,725 $86,716 $87,708
SP15 $90,022 $91,088 $92,154 $93,220 $94,286
SP16 $96,774 $97,920 $99,066 $100,212 $101,358
107
Grade Merit
Step 26
Merit
Step 27
Merit
Step 28
Merit
Step 29
Merit
Step 30
SP14 $88,700 $89,691 $90,683 $91,675 $92,666
SP15 $95,352 $96,418 $97,484 $98,550 $99,616
SP16 $102,504 $103,650 $104,796 $105,942 $107,088
Executive Employees
Grade Step 01 Step 02 Step 03 Step 04 Step 05
SP17 $79,393 $80,625 $81,857 $83,088 $84,320
SP18 $85,347 $86,671 $87,996 $89,320 $90,644
SP19 $91,748 $93,172 $94,595 $96,019 $97,443
Grade Step 06 Step 07 Step 08 Step 09 Step 10
SP17 $85,552 $86,784 $88,016 $89,248 $90,480
SP18 $91,969 $93,293 $94,617 $95,942 $97,266
SP19 $98,866 $100,290 $101,714 $103,137 $104,561
Grade Merit
Step 11 Merit
Step 12 Merit
Step 13 Merit
Step 14 Merit
Step 15
SP17 $91,712 $92,944 $94,176 $95,408 $96,640
SP18 $98,591 $99,915 $101,239 $102,564 $103,888
SP19 $105,985 $107,409 $108,832 $110,256 $111,680
Grade Merit
Step 16
Merit
Step 17
Merit
Step 18
Merit
Step 19
Merit
Step 20
SP17 $97,872 $99,104 $100,336 $101,568 $102,800
SP18 $105,212 $106,537 $107,861 $109,185 $110,510
SP19 $113,103 $114,527 $115,951 $117,374 $118,798
108
Grade Merit
Step 21
Merit
Step 22
Merit
Step 23
Merit
Step 24
Merit
Step 25
SP17 $104,032 $105,264 $106,496 $107,728 $108,959
SP18 $111,834 $113,158 $114,483 $115,807 $117,131
SP19 $120,222 $121,645 $123,069 $124,493 $125,916
Grade Merit
Step 26
Merit
Step 27
Merit
Step 28
Merit
Step 29
Merit
Step 30
SP17 $110,191 $111,423 $112,655 $113,887 $115,119
SP18 $118,456 $119,780 $121,105 $122,429 $123,753
SP19 $127,340 $128,764 $130,187 $131,611 $133,035
109
Hourly Rates
Table 24 – Proposed Salary Schedule – 37.5-hr Employees
Grade Hourly
Min
Hourly
Mid
Hourly
Max
SP01 $12.80 $15.68 $18.56
SP02 $13.76 $16.86 $19.95
SP03 $14.79 $18.12 $21.45
SP04 $15.90 $19.48 $23.06
SP05 $17.09 $20.94 $24.79
SP06 $18.38 $22.51 $26.65
SP07 $19.75 $24.20 $28.64
SP08 $21.24 $26.01 $30.79
SP09 $22.83 $27.96 $33.10
SP10 $24.54 $30.06 $35.58
SP11 $26.38 $32.32 $38.25
SP12 $28.36 $34.74 $41.12
SP13 $30.49 $37.35 $44.21
SP14 $32.77 $40.15 $47.52
SP15 $35.23 $43.16 $51.09
SP16 $37.87 $46.40 $54.92
SP17 $40.71 $49.87 $59.04
SP18 $43.77 $53.62 $63.46
SP19 $47.05 $57.64 $68.22
110
Table 25 – Proposed Salary Schedule – 40-hr Employees
Grade Hourly
Min
Hourly
Mid
Hourly
Max
SP01 $12.00 $14.70 $17.40
SP02 $12.90 $15.80 $18.71
SP03 $13.87 $16.99 $20.11
SP04 $14.91 $18.26 $21.62
SP05 $16.03 $19.63 $23.24
SP06 $17.23 $21.10 $24.98
SP07 $18.52 $22.69 $26.85
SP08 $19.91 $24.39 $28.87
SP09 $21.40 $26.22 $31.03
SP10 $23.01 $28.18 $33.36
SP11 $24.73 $30.30 $35.86
SP12 $26.59 $32.57 $38.55
SP13 $28.58 $35.01 $41.44
SP14 $30.72 $37.64 $44.55
SP15 $33.03 $40.46 $47.89
SP16 $35.51 $43.50 $51.48
SP17 $38.17 $46.76 $55.35
SP18 $41.03 $50.26 $59.50
SP19 $44.11 $54.03 $63.96
111
CFS Scoring by Grade
In Table 26, the correlation between CFS score and grade is presented. From this table, all
positions have been placed.
Table 26 – Proposed Salary Schedule – CFS Range
Grade Min Max
SP01 0 4.8
SP02 4.8 6.4
SP03 6.4 7.2
SP04 7.2 8.0
SP05 8.0 9.0
SP06 9.1 10.3
SP07 10.3 11.9
SP08 11.9 13.8
SP09 13.8 16.2
SP10 16.2 19.3
SP11 19.3 23.3
SP12 23.3 28.5
SP13 28.5 35.4
SP14 35.4 44.7
SP15 44.7 57.4
SP16 57.4 72.3
SP17 72.3 100.0
SP18 100.0 142.0
SP19 142.0 187.2
112
Proposed Internal Equity
In Table 27, the resulting proposed internal equity for the City is presented for Full-Time
employees.
Table 27 – Proposed Internal Equity
Grade Title
SP01 Front Desk Attendant
SP02 -
SP03 Teen Center Program Assistant
SP04
Assistant City Clerk I Customer Service Representative Head Lifeguard Library Aide I Production Technician School Age Site Leader Teen Center Coordinator
SP05 Assistant City Clerk II Custodian Police Custodian
SP06 Clerk/Cashier II
SP07
Administrative Assistant Animal Control Officer Aquatic Supervisor Bus Driver Licensing Administrator Media Specialist Park Ranger/Recreation Supervisor Senior Clerk Cashier
SP08
Assistant to Assessor IS Help Desk Technician I Library Assistant II Police Administrative Information Assistant Recreation Coordinator Sewer Maintenance Worker I Station Coordinator Transportation Evening Coordinator Treasury Accountant Youth Services Assistant
113
Grade Title
SP09
Accounts Payable Specialist IS Help Desk Technician II Maintenance Mechanic Manager’s Office Assistant Mechanical Electrician Outreach Librarian Payroll & Finance Specialist Station Coordinator (Supervisory) Sustainability Program Coordinator Transportation Coordinator/Administrative Assistant Treatment Plant Operator I
SP10
Children's Librarian Circulation Librarian Excavation/Sewer Inspector GA Social Services Support Specialist Health Inspector Human Resources Specialist/Caseworker Library Cataloger Mechanic II Network Administrator I Property Appraiser Safety Coordinator Sewer Maintenance Worker II Tax/Treasury Specialist Vehicle Maintenance Mechanic
SP11
Accountant Assistant Code Enforcement Officer/Building/Plumbing Inspector Assistant Code Enforcement Officer/Electrical Inspector Behavioral Health Liaison Cable Access Manager Compliance Administrator Executive Assistant to City Manager Network Administrator II Recreation Manager Senior CAD Operator SoPo Unite Drug Coalition Director Stormwater Coordinator
SP12
Community Planner Deputy Assessor Deputy Facilities Manager Deputy Library Director Deputy Tax Collector Maintenance Supervisor Purchasing Agent Benefits Administrator
114
Grade Title
SP13
Chief Operator Collection Systems Supervisor Deputy Code Enforcement Officer Director of Social Services Operations Supervisor Parks Operations Manager Recreation Operations Manager
SP14
Controller Deputy Fire Chief Employee Relations Manager Facilities Manager Parks & Recreation Deputy Director Public Works Superintendent Sustainability Director WRP Civil Transportation Engineer
SP15
Code Enforcement Officer/Division Director Deputy Finance Director Director of Bus Service Economic Development Director
SP16
Collection Systems Manager Deputy Police Chief Engineering Division Manager Library Director Treatment Systems Manager
SP17
Assessor Director of Planning and Development Human Resource Director IS Director Parks & Recreation Director Public Works Director
SP18
Assistant City Manager Fire Chief Police Chief Water Resource Director
SP19 Finance Director
115
Recommended Reclassifications
Career Progression Levels
The classification hierarchy can be implemented within each department to standardize
career progression and allow employees to see how they fit in the organization as a whole.
Placement on the career development chart is not in direct correlation to pay. For some
departments, like emergency services, a more industry specific generally accepted hierarchy
of positions may be appropriate.
•1 City Administration
•2 Senior Director
•3 Director
•4 Manager
•5 Supervisor
•6 Coordinator
•7 Specialist
•8 Technician
•9 Entry
116
Level Category Description
1 City
Administration Oversees all day-to-day operations within the organization.
2 Senior Director Communicates at high levels and assists with development of a long-term strategic vision for the City.
3 Director Oversees activities and operations for a department.
4 Manager Manages activities and operations for a program.
5 Supervisor Monitors, evaluates, and resolves complex internal policies with a short-term tactical approach.
6 Coordinator Facilitates planning and implements projects for the City.
7 Specialist Utilizes knowledge and experience in the application of a field to handle complex tasks.
8 Technician Applies learned skills in day-to-day tasks.
9 Entry Supports the services offered by the City.
For clarification the following provides more specific definitions of titles:
• Attendant / Aide – This position involves field specific task-oriented work.
• Assistant – This is a support position which relates to office, accounting and finance.
• Lead – This person leads by example. He or she organizes, assigns, makes decisions,
and recognizes capabilities of staff in their charge.
While the City can guide employees in their professional growth, factors such as economic
circumstances, organizational priorities, and community demands will also impact their
career path. As a general trend, employees are taking a more pro-active approach to their
own career development and will value an employer who allows for learning and training
opportunities as opposed to one that does not.
117
Table 28 – Recommended Reclassification
Current Title Classification Title Change
Economic Development Director Level 4 Economic Development Manager
Library Director Level 4 Library Manager
Director of Bus Service Level 4 Bus Service Manager
Facilities Superintendent Level 5 Facilities Superintendent
Director of Social Services Level 5 Social Services Administrator
Employee Relations Manager Level 5 Employee Relations Administrator
Sustainability Director Level 5 Sustainability Supervisor
SoPo Unit Drug Coalition Director Level 6 SoPo Unite Drug Coalition Coordinator
Parks Operations Manager Level 6 Parks Operations Coordinator
Recreation Operations Manager Level 6 Recreation Operations Coordinator
Operations Supervisor Level 6 Bus Operations Coordinator
Collection Systems Supervisor Level 6 Collection Systems Coordinator
Deputy Library Director Level 6 Assistant Library Manager
Maintenance Supervisor Level 6 Maintenance Coordinator
Deputy Facilities Manager Level 6 Assistant Facilities Superintendent
Purchasing Agent Benefits Administrator
Level 6 Purchasing Agent Benefits Coordinator
Cable Access Manager Level 6 Cable Access Coordinator
Recreation Manager Level 6 Recreation Coordinator
Transportation Coordinator/ Administrative Assistant
Level 7 Transportation Dispatcher/ Administrative Assistant
Safety Coordinator Level 7 Safety Specialist
IS Help Desk Technician II Level 7 IS Help Desk Specialist II
Station Coordinator (Supervisory) Level 7 Station Specialist II
Recreation Coordinator Level 7 Recreation Specialist
118
Current Title Classification Title Change
Transportation Evening Coordinator
Level 7 Transportation Evening Dispatcher
IS Help Desk Technician I Level 7 IS Help Desk Specialist I
Park Ranger/Recreation Supervisor
Level 7 Park Ranger/Recreation Specialist
Aquatic Supervisor Level 8 Aquatic Technician
Licensing Administrator Level 8 Licensing Technician
Media Specialist Level 8 Media Technician
Production Technician Level 9 Production Operator
Teen Center Coordinator Level 9 Teen Center Programmer
