Yucaipa City Council
January 27, 2025

CITY of
Item No. 6

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: January 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phil White, Director of Finance (9
Cortney McRae, Human Resources Manager aA
SUBJECT: Classification and Compensation Study
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive and file the City of Yucaipa Classification and Compensation Study, as presented by Evergreen Solutions, LLC.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

The purpose of a Classification and Compensation Study (Study) is to evaluate the City's positions and compensation to ensure that jobs are classified appropriately, and pay is competitive and equitable. The Study can help ensure that jobs with similar responsibilities and qualifications are grouped together in the compensation plan, and that salary ranges are competitive with the market. The Study can also help identify ways to improve the City's classification structure, address recruitment and retention needs, and update classifications as responsibilities change. The most recent Study conducted for the City of Yucaipa was in 2010. Since that time, the City's classification plan has undergone numerous updates, resulting in reorganizations and position creations/eliminations.

The adopted 2023 City Council Goals directed staff to have a Study conducted. Specifically, the objectives of the Study was to gather information to allow the City to:

A. Attract and retain qualified employees;
B. Provide salaries commensurate with assigned duties;
C. Maintain equitable internal relationships among employees; D. Comply with state and federal laws and regulations;
E. Review the City's organizational structure for efficiency and effectiveness; F. Maintain a competitive position with other comparable government entities similar to the City of Yucaipa.

The City conducted a competitive procurement and entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Evergreen Solutions, LLC in November 2023 to conduct the Study.

Over the next several months, Evergreen Solutions, LLC gathered information and conducted interviews with each City employee to understand both the title and function of each position. The data was then compared to other similar organizations.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC is at the City Council meeting to answer questions and present the results of the Study.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The recommendation does not result in a fiscal impact.

Attachment(s):

1. City of Yucaipa Classification and Compensation Study (available under separate cover) Approved by:

ATTACHMENT 1

Amended Agenda Item 06 - Attachment 1

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Table of Contents
PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Study Methodology............................................................................................1-1

1.2 Report Organization..........................................................................................1-3

2.0 SUMMARY OF EMPLOYEE OUTREACH..................................................................... 2-1

2.1 General Feedback .................. ...... ....................................... . .... ..... --- ....... ...2-1

2.2 Compensation and Classification.....................................................................2-2

2.3 Market Peers.....................................................................................................2-5

2.4 Summary............................................................................................................2-5

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS............................................................... 3-1

3.1 Analysis of Pay Plans.........................................................................................3-1

3.2 Grade Placement Analysis................................................................................3-4

3.3 Quartile Analysis ..... ................... ........................................................................3-6

3.4 Compression Analysis.................................................................................... 3-10

3.5 Summary .........................................................................................................3-15

4.0 MARKET SUMMARY................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Market Data......................................................................................................4-4

4.2 Salary Survey Results.......................................................................................4-6

4.3 Salary Survey Conclusion..................................................................................4-7

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Classification Recommendations.....................................................................5-1

5.2 Compensation Recommendations...................................................................5-2

5.3 Compensation and Classification System Administration..............................5-5

5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................5-7 r

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 1 - Introduction
The leadership of City of Yucaipa, CA (the "City") in keeping with its commitment to attracting and retaining the employees necessary to provide high quality services determined that its current compensation and classification systems and structures needed to be updated to better reflect best practices. Evergreen Solutions, LLC ("Evergreen") was selected by the City during November of 2023 as its partner to in order to accomplish this goal. This engagement sought to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the City's current systems, conduct a job and pay grade analysis to study internal equity, collect peer salary data to study external equity, and adjust the current compensation and classification systems to better reflect the market. This study and the analysis contained within provides City leadership with valuable information related to their employee demographics, opinions, and market data, as well as internal and external equity.

Internal equity relates to the fairness of an organization's compensation practices among its current employees. Specifically, by reviewing the skills, responsibilities, and duties of each position, it can be determined whether similar positions are being compensated in an equitable manner within the organization. External equity relates to the differences between how an organization's classifications are valued and the compensation available in the marketplace forthe same skills, responsibilities, and duties. This component of the study aims to address how the City is positioned in the market relative to other local area government organizations with similar positions and to develop recommendations that allow the City to recruit and retain quality employees. The classification component of this study resolves any inconsistencies related to job requirements or job titles and ensures that all jobs are appropriately categorized and aligned with the work currently performed.

1.1 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Evergreen combines qualitative and quantitative data analysis to produce recommendations that maximize the fairness and competitiveness of an organization's compensation structure and practices. It is important to note that the data utilized in the study represents a snapshot in time. As market conditions can change rapidly, it is important for the City to conduct regular market surveys to ensure their external market position does not decay. A full compensation and classification review is recommended approximately every three to five years. Some examples of project activities included:
• Conducting a project kick-off meeting
• Presenting orientation sessions to employees
• Facilitating focus group sessions with employees
• Conducting an external market salary survey
Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 1- Introduction
Classlflcatton and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucalaa. CA
• Developing recommendations for compensation management • Revising classification descriptions based on employee JAT feedback • Developing recommendations for compensation and classification changes • Creating draft and final reports
Kickoff Meeting
The kickoff meeting provided an opportunity to finalize th collection process. Data collection included the gathering including existing pay plans, organization charts, policies, classification specifications, and other pertinent material.

Employee Outreach
e work plan and begin the data
of relevant background material
procedures, training materials,
Through the orientation sessions, Evergreen consultants briefed employees on the purpose and major processes of the study. This process addressed employee questions in an effort to resolve misconceptions about the study and related tasks and explained the importance of employee participation in the JAT process.

In addition, employees participated in focus group sessions designed to gather input from their varied perspectives as to the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. Feedback received from employees in this context was helpful in highlighting aspects of the organization which needed particular attention and consideration. This information provided some basic perceptional background, as well as a starting point for the research process.

Job Assessment Tool© (JAT) Classification Analysis
Employees were asked to complete individual JAT surveys, where they shared information pertaining to their work in their own words. These JATs were analyzed and compared to the current classification descriptions, and classifications were individually scored based on employee responses to five compensable factor questions. Each of the compensable factors — Leadership, Working Conditions, Complexity, Decision Making, and Relationships —were given weighted values based on employee responses, resulting in a point factor score for each classification. The rank order of classes by JAT scores was used to develop a rank order of classes within the proposed compensation structure. Combined with market data, this information formed the foundation of the combined recommendations. The nature of each compensable factor is described below:
• Leadership -relates to the employee's individual leadership role, be it as a direct report of others who have leadership responsibilities, or as an executive who has leadership over entire departments or the City as a whole.
• Working Conditions - deals with the employee's physical working conditions and the employee's impact on those conditions, as well as the working conditions' impact or potential impact on the employee.

Complexity - describes the nature of work performed and includes options ranging from entry-level manual or clerical tasks up to advanced scientific, legal, or executive management duties.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 1- Introduction
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucaipa. CA
Decision Making - deals with the individual decision -making responsibility of the employees. Are decisions made on behalf of the employee or is the employee making autonomous decisions that impact the individual, other employees, or even the entire organization?
Relationships -deals with organizational structure and the nature of the employee's working relationships. Responses range from employees who work primarily alone, those who work as members of a team, those who oversee teams, and those who oversee the organization as a whole.

Salary Survey
The external market for this study was defined as identified local government organizations with similar positions as well as similar characteristics, demographics, and service offerings.

Specific benchmark positions in the City were surveyed, although not all positions had matching positions at the peer organizations. The data were then analyzed comparing City classifications to the jobs performing the same duties at peer organizations to gain a fuller understanding of their market position.

Recommendations
Evergreen developed recommendations for the City to consider in order to help maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of its current compensation and classification structure.

Evergreen provided the City with a variety of recommendations for the future at various costs.

Plans ranged from minor tweaks to the current compensation and classification system to wholesale changes to the entire organizational structure. These plans were designed to fix the issues identified in this report, while continuing to build on the strengths the City currently exhibits.

1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report includes the following additional chapters:
• Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach
• Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions
• Chapter 4 - Market Summary
• Chapter 5 - Recommendations
Chapter 2 - Summary of Outreach
Outreach was conducted by two Evergreen consultants. The consultants met with City employees and explained the process of the study and fielded questions that employees had aboutthe study. Focus groups were conducted to solicit information from employeesthat gave Evergreen solid information to begin researching. Employees provided Evergreen their opinions on classifications that were outdated, behind market, or had trouble retaining employees.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 1- Introduction Classlflcatlon and Compensation Study for the ON of Yucaloa. CA
Information was also provided on the employees' opinions of the biggest competitors to the City. Finally, employees provided information on all the positive aspects of employment with the City. Evergreen used employee opinions as a starting point for some data collection, but everything that was used in the course of this study was independently verified by Evergreen.

A full summary of the outreach can be found in Chapter 2 of this report.

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions
An assessment of current conditions was conducted to help Evergreen better understand the current standing of the City pay plans, demographics, and compensation structures. This assessment should be considered a snapshot in time and is reflective of the conditions present within the City upon the commencement of this study. By leveraging this information, Evergreen was able to gain a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current compensation system. When combined with the market results, the Assessment of Current Conditions helped provide a basis for recommendations. A full summary of the Assessment of Current Conditions can be found in Chapter 3 of this report.

Chapter 4 - Market Summary
A salary survey was designed by Evergreen and approved by the City's Human Resources department. After the results were received, the data were analyzed to compare the City to the overall results. Combined with the Assessment of Current Conditions, the market survey gave Evergreen the information needed to understand the City's position relative to its labor market. A full summary of the market results can be found in Chapter 4 of this report.

Chapter 5 - Recommendations
During the recommendations phase, Evergreen provided several solution options to place employees into the proposed pay structure, which aligns the compensation plan with the market. A full explanation of the recommendations can be found in Chapter 5 of this report. .;41 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 1-4

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 2-Summary of Employee
Outreach
Between January 22 - 23, 2024, Evergreen consultants conducted orientation sessions and focus groups for the City. Orientation sessions were conducted in order to inform employees about the purpose of the study, while also giving employees information about the different ways they would be asked to participate in the study. Focus groups were designed to solicit open feedback from employees concerning a number of topics related to compensation and classification. Overall, the goal of these groups was to gauge the general employee sentiment towards the current compensation and classification structures of the City, while also gathering specific concerns employees had.

The observations in this chapter are a generalized summary of opinions, general themes, and trends expressed by employees who either participated in a focus group or provided direct feedback to Evergreen. Information that may identify the commenter has been removed.

Additionally, Evergreen facilitated a virtual survey for employees, enabling them to provide anonymous feedback. The exhibits from the virtual survey are included in this chapter. It is important to note that the views shared in this summary are perceptional in nature and may not necessarily reflect actual conditions in the City.

Comments are separated by the following four categories below:

2.1 General Feedback

2.2 Compensation and Classification

2.3 Market Peers

2.4 Summary

2.1 GENERAL FEEDBACK
The primary focus of this study is to address the City's compensation and classification structures. However, it is important to understand how employees currently view employment at large within the City, and as a result, general feedback was sourced from employees on what brought them to work for the City and what were the primary factors that led to their continued employment. These elements are important to highlight, as compensation, while an important factor, is often not the sole determination for where employees wish to work.

The responses varied from the location, potential for growth, and benefits, including health insurance and time off. Exhibit 2A includes the responses provided on the virtual survey.

Overall, personnel revealed that the City is a wonderful and unique place to work with a number of distinct advantages in place for employees.
4�1
Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucaipa, CA
EXHIBIT 2A
Why have you remained employed with the City?
aJ 0¢c�SZS °�Jc`�`eS c°�°`��sS e° y°�°� re`\s`h¢c5
�s�'\� s'r 5� aS c�tia 'c
Qe 09
�° Aso - C cy R y��r osQ'a
tia es Q e
. ,re Lase Qua .\Oc5 �`cr
Q- 0

2.2 COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION
■ Responses
As the main focus of this study, feedback on compensation and classification was solicited from employees. Employees were asked to identify any concerns, challenges, or limitations observed with how the City currently compensates and classifies its positions. It is important to note that the perceptions of employees listed below do not necessarily reflect or align with the data collected in the market survey, found in Chapter 4.

Specific feedback shared by employees related to compensation practices included the following:
• External Equity - The feedback regarding the competitiveness of pay varied. Many employees indicated that they are satisfied with their pay and believe they are compensated appropriately for the work they do. However, some mentioned discrepancies with market rates, particularly considering the broad spectrum of work they complete.
• Internal Equity - A number of employees mentioned that the step plan is too narrow, making it common for employees to max out at the top of the pay scale relatively quickly. Some suggested the implementation of a longevity incentive for long -serving City employees, as they perceive limited opportunities for upward movement within the pay scale otherwise.
• Turnover - Overall, many employees reported minimal turnover within their departments. However, a handful of positions were noted to experience extended vacancies or turnover. These positions include:

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-2

Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach
- Office Assistants
- Senior Maintenance Workers
- Entry level employees in Public Works
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucaipa, CA
Feedback was provided by employees on how they believe the City could be more competitive with the market in terms of compensation. Exhibit 26 displays the responses.

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
EXHIBIT 2B
What do you believe the City needs to do to be more competitive with the market, if anything?
Increase pay grade ranges Increase individual pay of Provide additional cost of offer more robust remote Compensation at the City is (minimums and maximums) employees living adjustments work opportunities already at or above the market rate for my position
Apart from compensation -related issues, Evergreen sought input from employees regarding any concerns they had regarding classification, encompassing job titles and job descriptions.

The following insights were shared by employees:
• Job Descriptions - Evergreen received varied feedback concerning the accuracy of job descriptions within the City. Some employees noted that classification descriptions were overly broad and could benefit from being more specific. Conversely, many others indicated satisfaction, believing their job descriptions accurately capture their duties, as seen in Exhibit 2C.
*t
Evergreen Solutions, LLC

■ Responses

Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%
30 00°/
Classification and Compensation Study
for the Citv of Yucaipa. CA
EXHIBIT 2C
Please select the answer that best applies to
you with respect to your current position.
® Responses

20.00% - -_ _

10.00% ---- - — -- —-- - . .

0.00°o -- ---- -- - --- - -_
My job description My job description does I am not familiar with my accurately describes the not accurately describe the job description. work I perform. work I perform.
• Career Advancement - Some employees felt that the current structure did not offer sufficient room for career growth and expressed a desire for a clearly defined progression path, such as an established career ladder. As seen in Exhibit 21), there were still several employees who felt that they had enough levels for career advancement in their current role.

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
EXHIBIT 2D
Please select the answer that best
applies to you with respect to your current
position.

There are enough levels for There are not enough levels for advancement in my current career advancement in my current career path. path.
■ Responses
441 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 2-4

Chapter 2 - Summary of Employee Outreach Classltication and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA

2.3 MARKET PEERS
Focus group participants were asked to name organizations they considered to be both local and regional market peers, who they believe have similar characteristics to the City.

Participants named the following organizations with some frequency as the City's primary competitors in terms of employee compensation and classification:
• City of Diamond Bar
• City of Fontana
• City of Glendora
• City of Moreno Valley
• City of Murrietta
• City of Palm Springs
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
• City of Riverside
• City of San Bernardino
• City of Temecula

2.4 SUMMARY
The feedback received by Evergreen served as a robust basis for formulating recommendations for the City. Employees generally conveyed enthusiasm about their roles, expressing a strong sense of fulfillment while working for the City. They highlighted numerous advantages associated with City employment, which they believe contribute to the attraction and retention of high -quality staff. Despite identifying some potential challenges, many of these issues are commonly encountered across other public -sector municipalities.

Overall, City employees demonstrate pride in their work and dedication to making meaningful contributions both within their organization and to the broader community. The Evergreen Team utilized the insights gathered from employees throughout the remainder of the study to craft suitable recommendations for the City.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current
Conditions
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a statistical analysis of the compensation and classification system in place at the City at the start of this study. The assessment is divided into the following sections:

3.1 Analysis of Pay Plans

3.2 Grade Placement Analysis

3.3 Quartile Analysis

3.4 Compression Analysis

3.5 Summary
The analysis represented in this chapter represents a snapshot in time - this chapter was built off of employee information collected in December of 2023. Every organization changes continuously, so this chapter is not meant to be a definitive statement on continuing compensation practices at the City. Rather, this AOCC is meant to represent the conditions that were in place when this study began. The data contained within provide the baseline for analyses through the course of this study but are not sufficient cause for recommendations in isolation. By reviewing employee data, Evergreen gained a better understanding of the structure and methods in place and identified issues for both further review and potential revision.

3.1 ANALYSIS OF PAY PLANS
The purpose of analyzing the pay plans used within the City is to help gain an overview of the compensation philosophy as it existed when the study began. The City used numeric pay grades to represent classifications of varying level and responsibility. The General Unit and Management, Supervisory, Confidential pay plans follow a 10-step pay plan. The steps have been converted to pay ranges to provide a wholistic view of the ranges available to employees.

Exhibit 3A displays the City's full-time General Unit pay plan, and Exhibit 36 displays the Mangement, Supervisory, Confidential pay plan. The exhibits provide the name; each pay grade on the plan; the value of each pay grade at minimum, midpoint, and maximum; the range spread for each pay grade - which is a measure of the distance between the minimum and maximum of the grade; the midpoint progression between grades; and the number of employees per pay grade.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-1

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensatlon Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA

EXHIBIT
3A

FULL-TIME
PAY

PLAN SUMMARY
- GENERAL
UNIT
Plan
General Unit
Grade
10 Minimum
$ 48,678
MidpointPay
$ 54,735
$ 60,792
Spread
25%
Progression
-
. .
7 General Unit
11 $ 49,895
$ 56,103
$ 62,312
25%
3%
0 General Unit
12 $ 51,142
$ 57,506
$ 63,870
25%
2%
0 General Unit
13 $ 52,421
$ 58,943
$ 65,466
25%
3%
0 General Unit
14 $ 53,731
$ 60,417
$ 67,103
25%
2%
7 General Unit
15 $ 55,074
$ 61,927
$ 68,780
25%
3%
0 General Unit
16 $ 56,451
$ 63,476
$ 70,500
25%
2%
0 General Unit
17 $ 57,863
$ 65,063
$ 72,263
25%
2%
2 General Unit
18 $ 59,309
$ 66,689
$ 74,069
25%
3%
2 General Unit
19 $ 60,792
$ 68,356
$ 75,921
25%
3%
0 General Unit
20 $ 62,312
$ 70,065
$ 77,819
25%
3%
9 General Unit
21 $ 63,870
$ 71,817
$ 79,764
25%
2%
5 General Unit
22 $ 65,466
$ 73,612
$ 81,758
25%
2%
0 General Unit
23 $ 67,103
$ 75,453
$ 83,802
25%
2%
2 General Unit
24 $ 68,780
$ 77,339
$ 85,897
25%
3%
0 General Unit
25 $ 70,500
$ 79,272
$ 88,045
25%
3%
3 General Unit
26 $ 72,263
$ 81,254
$ 90,246
25%
2%
3 General Unit
27 $ 74,069
$ 83,286
$ 92,502
25%
2%
4 General Unit
28 $ 75,921
$ 85,368
$ 94,815
25%
3%
5 General Unit
29 $ 77,819
$ 87,502
$ 97,185
25%
3%
0 General Unit
30 $ 79,764
$ 89,689
$ 99,615
25%
2%
0 General Unit
31 $ 81,758
$ 91,932
$ 102,105
25%
2%
2 General Unit
32 $ 83,802
$ 94,230
$ 104,658
25%
2%
0 General Unit
33 $ 85,897
$ 96,586
$ 107,274
25%
3%
2 General Unit
34 $ 88,045
$ 99,000
$ 109,956
25%
3%
1 General Unit
35 $ 90,246
$ 101,475
$ 112,705
25%
2%
1 Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA

EXHIBIT
3B

FULL-TIME PAY PLAN SUMMARY
- MANAGEMENT,

SUPERVISORY,

CONFIDENTIAL
Plan
Grade
Minimum
MidpointPay
Spread
Progression
, .

Management, Supervisory, Confidential
21 $ 66,064
$ 74,284
$ 82,505
25%
-
5 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
22 $ 67,716
$ 76,142
$ 84,568
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
23 $ 69,409
$ 78,045
$ 86,682
25%
3%
2 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
24 $ 71,144
$ 79,996
$ 88,849
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
25 $ 72,922
$ 81,996
$ 91,070
25%
3%
3 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
26 $ 74,745
$ 84,046
$ 93,347
25%
2%
3 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
27 $ 76,614
$ 86,147
$ 95,680
25%
3%
4 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
28 $ 78,529
$ 88,301
$ 98,072
25%
2%
5 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
29 $ 80,493
$ 90,508
$ 100,524
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
30 $ 82,505
$ 92,771
$ 103,037
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
31 $ 84,568
$ 95,090
$ 105,613
25%
2%
2 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
32 $ 86,682
$ 97,468
$ 108,254
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
33 $ 88,849
$ 99,904
$ 110,960
25%
2%
2 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
34 $ 91,070
$ 102,402
$ 113,734
25%
3%
1 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
35 $ 93,347
$ 104,962
$ 116,577
25%
3%
1 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
36 $ 95,680
$ 107,586
$ 119,492
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
37 $ 98,072
$ 110,276
$ 122,479
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
38 $ 100,524
$ 113,033
$ 125,541
25%
3%
1 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
39 $ 103,037
$ 115,858
$ 128,679
25%
3%
1 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
40 $ 105,613
$ 118,755
$ 131,896
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
41 $ 108,254
$ 121,724
$ 135,194
25%
2%
3 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
42 $ 110,960
$ 124,767
$ 138,574
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
43 $ .113,734
$ 127,886
$ 142,038
25%
2%
4 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
44 $ 116,577
$ 131,083
$ 145,589
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
45 $ 119,492
$ 134,360
$ 149,229
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
46 $ 122,479
$ 137,719
$ 152,959
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
47 $ 125,541
$ 141,162
$ 156,783
25%
2%
3 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
48 $ 128,679
$ 144,691
$ 160,703
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
49 $ 131,896
$ 148,309
$ 164,721
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
50 $ 135,194
$ 152,016
$ 168,839
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
51 $ 138,574
$ 155,817
$ 173,060
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
52 $ 142,038
$ 159,712
$ 177,386
25%
2%
1 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
53 $ 145,589
$ 163,705
$ 181,821
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
54 $ 149,229
$ 167,798
$ 186,366
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
55 $ 152,959
$ 171,992
$ 191,025
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
56 $ 156,783
$ 176,292
$ 195,801
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
57 $ 160,703
$ 180,700
$ 200,696
25%
2%
4 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
58 $ 164,721
$ 185,217
$ 205,713
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
59 $ 168,839
$ 189,847
$ 210,856
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
60 $ 173,060
$ 194,594
$ 216,128
25%
3%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
61 $ 177,386
$ 199,459
$ 221,531
25%
2%
0 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
62 $ 181,821
$ 204,445
$ 227,069
25%
3%
1 Management, Supervisory, Confidential
63 $ 186,366
$ 209,556
$ 232,746
25%
3%
1 _;4 Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-3

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA

3.2 GRADE PLACEMENT ANALYSIS
The Grade Placement Analysis examines how employee salaries are distributed throughout the pay grades. This can help identify salary progression issues, which are usually accompanied by employee salaries that are clustered in segments of the pay grades.

A clustering of employee salaries in the lower part of ranges can indicate a lack of salary progression for employees or a high level of employee turnover. A clustering of employee salaries in the high end of pay ranges can be a sign of high employee tenure or a sign that the pay ranges are behind market, forcing the organization to offer salaries near the maximum of the range to new hires. With regard to minimum and maximum salaries, employees at the grade minimum are typically newer to the organization or to the classification, while employees at the grade maximum are typically highly experienced and highly proficient in their classification. The Grade Placement Analysis examines how salaries compare to pay range minimums, midpoints, and maximums. Only pay grades on the full-time schedule with at least one incumbent are included in this analysis.

Exhibit 3C displays the percentage and number of employees compensated at their pay grade minimum and pay grade maximum. The percentages presented are based on the total number of employees in that grade. As can be seen in the exhibit, 22 percent (18 total) of all employees are compensated at their pay grade's minimum. A slightly larger percentage of employees, 30.5 percent (25 total), are compensated at their pay grade's maximum.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-4

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
EXHIBIT 3C

EMPLOYEES AT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM BY GRADE
. Plan
Grade
Employees
10 7
6 85.7%
0 0.0%
14 7
0 0.0%
5 71.4%
17 2
1 50.0%
1 50.0%
18 2
0 0.0%
1 50.0%
20 9
3 33.3%
0 0.0%
21 5
1 20.0%
1 20.0%
General Unit
23 2
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
25 3
0 0.0%
3 100.0%
26 3
0 0.0%
1 33.3%
27 4
0 0.0%
2 50.0%
31 2
0 0.0%
1 50.0%
35 21
1 5
0 1

0.0%

20.0%
0 1

0.0%

20.0%
26 3
0 0.0%
1 33.3%
28 5
1 20.0%
2 40.0%
33 2
0 0.0%
1 50.0%
34 1
0 0.0%
1 100.0%
38 1
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
Management,
39 1
1 100.0%
0 0.0%
Supervisory,
41 3
1 33.3%
0 0.0%
Confidential
43 4
1 25.0%
0 0.0%
47 3
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
52 1
0 0.0%
1 100.0%
57 4
2 50.0%
1 25.0%
62 1
0 0.0%
1 100.0%
63 1
0 0.0%
1 100.0%
Total
82 18

22.0%
25 30.5%
In addition to assessing the number of employees at minimum and maximum, an analysis was conducted to determine the number of employees below and above pay grade midpoint.

The percentages refer to the percentage of employees in each pay grade that are above and below midpoint. Exhibit 3D displays the results of this analysis: a total of 40 employees are compensated below their pay grade midpoint -which is 48.8 percent of all employees for the City. There are 42 employees compensated above the midpoint of their pay grade, which is

51.2 percent of all employees.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
EXHIBIT 31)

EMPLOYEES ABOVE AND BELOW MIDPOINT BY PAY GRADE
Pay Plan
Grade
Employees
10 7
7 100.0%
0 0.0%
14 7
1 14.3%
6 85.7%
17 2
1 50.0%
1 50.0%
18 2
0 0.0%
2 100.0%
20 9
7 77.8%
2 22.2%
21 5
3 60.0%
2 40.0%
General Unit
23 2
0 0.0%
2 100.0%
25 3
0 0.0%
3 100.0%
26 3
1 33.3%
2 66.7%
27 4
0 0.0%
4 100.0%
31 2
1 50.0%
1 50.0%
35 21
1 5
1 3
100.0%

60.0%
0 2

0.0%

40.0%
26 3
1 33.3%
2 66.7%
28 5
2 40.0%
3 60.0%
33 2
1 50.0%
1 50.0%
34 1
0 0.0%
1 100.0%
38 1
1 100.0%
0 0.0%
Management,
39 1
1 100.0%
0 0.0%
Supervisory,
41 3
2 66.7%
1 33.3%
Confidential
43 4
4 100.0%
0 0.0%
47 3
1 33.3%
2 66.7%
52 1
0 0.0%
1 100.0%
57 4
2 50.0%
2 50.0%
62 1
0 0.0%
1 100.0%
63 1 1
1 0
1 0.0%
1 100.0 0
82 1 40
1 48.8%
1 42
1 51.2 /
Total

3.3 QUARTILE ANALYSIS
The last part of the Grade Placement Analysis is a detailed look at how salaries are distributed through pay grades, through a quartile analysis. Here, each pay grade is divided into four segments of equal width, called quartiles. The first quartile represents the first 25 percent of the pay range; the second quartile represents the part of the range above the first quartile up to the mathematical midpoint; the third quartile represents the part of the range from the midpoint to 75 percent of the pay range; and the fourth quartile represents the part of the range above the third quartile up to the pay range maximum. Employees are assigned to a quartile within their pay range based on their current salary. 4Ye
Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
The quartile analysis is used to determine the location of employee salary clusters. Quartile analysis helps identify whether clusters exist in specific quartiles of pay grades. Additionally, the amount of time the employee has spent at the organization is also analyzed, in order to observe any relationship between organizational tenure and salary progression. This information, while not definitive alone, can shed light on any root issues within the current compensation and classification plan when combined with market data and employee feedback.

Exhibit 3E shows the number of employees that are in each quartile of each grade, as well as the average overall tenure (i.e. how long an employee has worked for the City) by quartile.

Overall, data provide that 34.2 percent of employees fall into Quartile 1 of their respective grade; 14.6 percent fall into Quartile 2; 12.2 percent fall into Quartile 3; and 39.0 percent fall into Quartile 4. The average tenure in Quartile 1 is 2.4 years; in Quartile 2 is 3.4 years; in Quartile 3 is 3.5 years; and in Quartile 4 is 11.6 years.

Exhibit 3F displays a graphical representation of the data contained in Exhibit 3E. Each pay grade is divided into up to four sections representing the percentage of employees, in that pay grade, who belong in each quartile. For example, pay grade 63 has zero employees in Quartiles 1, 2, or 3. That pay grade is represented by a 100 percent green bar, showing that 100 percent of grade 63 employees are in Quartile 4.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-7

r
M3
U
Lq Lr! OO N l0 V N .--1 o0 � of M LD
' m ' o0 tD I� l.fl ' W I' O QD ' O Ql 1-4Ql to
N O r-I m lD N
�--I c-I c-I c-1 .-I .ti '-I c-1 'y c-i .-1 e-L
O lD rl N O O ati ci M c-1 rl O O c-1 O - a-i i-1 c-I c-I M M 1p M O M LD O cY N LA
i i fV I� O tV O ^ N i i i i fh
O O O O N .--I .ti O O O O O O O .--i O O O
M 0l M M �q c� M V
i i i i i i
N M fV .--I M N .--I m N Lfl W m
c-I c-I O O 0 0. O O O c-1 O O O r-1 O N O O O O 'N-I
Ln M O1 O M O M O n L.f) M oo d'
c4 O - fV (V . . . . . m Q1 Q1 .-4 p fV
lD O c-I O L>t N O O O O O c-I N O N O O .-L r-i a-1 C O O N O O N lD I, N � l0 l.l1 M lD l N Ql M Ll) L O , V O M N O M M N M .--I o0 M lV lD .-4 N L` lD o0 M LD t\ 4 �4 W of Ql L i .4 I� lD of c N LD cM-I
n n N N M L N M M V tV c L M L N a a M C' M

N N N N N M N N
c't-I a^ -I 14 M N M M M V V V Ln LLn lND ID
to
G1
O
.0
C O
M
o c
y
v
La a w
c
c o_ c
0 n o
00 M
b�q
a

W
Q
a
LLm
CM
H Z
m w
W
�S g
a
w
J
H
Q
a
U
M N r� N n M N 0) W V' M 00 lD � M .-I r� lD lf) M N 0 00 r� Vl O lD lC) L(1 Lll V' r V" M M M M N fV N M M N N (V N N N � H .-i c-i C�
O
0 w
0 v
w
w
d
a
0 z
N
■
.,

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA

3.4 COMPRESSION ANALYSIS
Pay compression can be defined as the lack of variation in salaries between employees with significantly different levels of experience and responsibility. Compression can be seen as a threat to internal equity and morale. Two common types of pay compression can be observed when the pay of supervisors and their subordinates are too close, or the pay of highly tenured staff and newly hired employees in the same job are too similar.

According to the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), specific examples of actions that may cause pay compression include the following:
• Reorganizations change peer relationships and can create compression if jobs are not reevaluated.
• In some organizations, certain departments or divisions may be relatively liberal with salary increases, market adjustments, and promotions —while others are not. • Some employers have overlooked their Human Resources policies designed to regulate pay, paying new hires more than incumbents forsimilarjobs underthe mantra of "paying what it takes to get the best talent."
• Many organizations have found it easy to hire people who had already done the same work for another organization, eliminating the need for training. Rather than hiring individuals with high potential and developing them for the long term, they have opted for employees who could "hit the ground running"regardless of their potential.

Exhibit 3H indicates the ratio of subordinate to supervisor salaries by grade graphically and Exhibit 31 displays these results numerically. Employees were grouped into categories reflecting whether their actual salary was less than 80 percent, less than 95 percent, or greater than 95 percent of their supervisor's salary. Less than 80 percent would indicate that the ratio of an employee's salary to his supervisor's salary would yield a result of less than

0.8. For example, an employee with a salary of $79,000.00 and a supervisor with a salary of $100,000.00 would yield a ratio of 0.79 and be placed into the Less than 80 percent category.

An analysis of the data would quickly reveal that the majority of positions in the City are in a great position, with plenty of space between employee and supervisor salaries. There is, however, one employee in grade 62 making greater than 95 percent of his/her supervisor's salary, as indicated by the red bar on the graph. This warrants a further examination of supervisor vs. employee salary.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

M
�}
a
N
Ln
CU
C �
t0 ,o
G
m
U
m
m
o
m
0 8
0 m
tF
Q
`v
d
m■
m
vm
O
00 NQ
U
O
_
T }
D
N
v
v
Ln
Ln
LL
�O
m
/
cy
Ln
0�
V
m
v
�uj
A
N
co
�
OL
r
W
kD
N
g
W
co
J
a
n�i
Y
W
N
■
y
G
O
v
N
U
c4
'�
c
o
N
vi
U
�
C
�
M
W
a
co
r
8 Ol 00 D LA C m N

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classiflcation and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
EXHIBIT 31

EMPLOYEE TO SUPERVISOR SALARY RATIO BY PAY GRADE
Pay Plan
Grade
:0
:O
00 00
10 7
0 0
0 14
7 0
0 0
17 2
0 0
0 18
2 0
0 0
20 8
1 0
0 General Unit
21 5
0 0
0 23
2 0
0 0
25 3
0 0
0 26
3 0
0 0
27 4
0 0
0 31
2 0
0 0
35 21
1 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
26 3
0 0
0 28
4 1
0 0
33 2
0 0
0 34
1 0
0 0
Management,
38 1
0 0
0 Supervisory,
39 1
0 0
0 Confidential
41 3
0 0
0 43
3 1
0 0
47 2
1 0
0 52
1 0
0 0
57 1
2 0
0 62
1 0
1 0
1 1
1 0
Totals
1 73
1 6
1 1
1 0
Exhibit W and Exhibit 3K showcase the actual vs. projected salaries of City employees, sorted by pay grade. Projected salary is calculated using a 10-year progression assumption for employees, as employees are expected to move one step per year on the step -scale. For example, an employee who had worked at their position for 5 years would be projected to be at the grade midpoint, while an employee with 10 or more class years would be projected to be at the grade maximum. An important distinction between this compression table and the quartile analysis: this compression table utilizes class years, while the Quartile analysis uses tenure. Class years are differentiated from tenure by using the date that you started working in your current classification as the start date, instead of the date you first were hired by the City. To illustrate, if an employee had been an accountant for ten years, and then was promoted last year to Accountant Supervisor that employee would have ten years of tenure, but only one class year.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-12

Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
On Exhibit 3K, it is easy to discern that the majority of City employees are being paid wages that are within five percent of what they would be projected to receive, based on their class years. This would seem to indicate that most employees are actively progressing through the steps each year. There are also several employees that are making greater than 10 percent of what they would expect to receive. This could be due to promotion and advancement through the pay grades, meriting a higher salary increase. When an employee has advanced to near the top of his pay range and receives a promotion, he will often not start at his new pay grade minimum. An employee will not accept a pay decrease, so that employee is therefore started above the minimum of his new pay grade. That puts him above his "expected pay", by definition. He has zero class years, but his pay is above the minimum. Then, if he advances exactly at the speed expected for the rest of his career, he will always remain above his "expected" pay. While the truth likely lies somewhere in between these examples, a definitive answer cannot be determined without more data.

EXHIBIT 3J
ACTUAL VS. PROJECTED SALARY
Pay Plan
Grade
Less than 0.
10 0
0 7
0 0
14 1
0 2
2 2
17 0
0 1
0 1
18 0
0 0
0 2
20 0
0 7
1 1
General Unit
21 0
0 2
2 1
23 0
0 0
0 2
25 0
0 2
1 0
26 0
0 2
0 1
27 0
1 0
0 3
31 0
0 2
0 0
35 21
0 0
0 0
1 2
0 2
0 1
26 0
0 2
0 1
28 0
0 2
1 2
33 0
0 1
0 1
34 0
0 0
0 1
38 0
0 1
0 0
Management,
39 0
0 1
0 0
Supervisory,
41 0
0 2
0 1
Confidential
43 0
0 4
0 0
47 0
0 1
1 1
52 0
0 0
0 1
57 0
0 2
1 1
62 0
0 0
0 1
63 0
0 0
0 1
Totals
1 1
1 44
11 25
_4411 Evergreen Solutions, LLC

r,
v a
c
� L
d
m a,
oo ■
m
a
m
v
v
X
a
v
M �
Q
Ln
W
■
Y
M
U
o
�—
LU
°
N V
m
O
V
2 C
N
ua ?
�
mrn
>
o
a
M V
X
L
^ V
U
N O
a
� .

N
Lf1
N
N
m
N N
N
d
J
■
N
o
c
6 Chapter 3 - Assessment of Current Conditions Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA

3.5 SUMMARY
There were many observations made with respect to the City's compensation system in place at the beginning of the study.
• A little less than half of employees (39 percent) are in Quartile 4 of their pay grade. • Most City employees are paid less than 80.0 percent of their supervisors' salaries. This is a good indication that there are not widespread salary compression issues between employees and their supervisors.

The majority of employees are paid within five percent of what they would expect to receive, based on a 10-year progression.

This analysis acts as a starting point for the development of recommendations in subsequent chapters of this report. Paired with market data, Evergreen is able to make recommendations that will ensure that the City's compensation system is structurally sound in terms of best practice, competitive with the market, and treats all employees equitably moving forward.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 3-15

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 4 - Market Summary
The purpose of the market summary chapter is to benchmark the City's compensation practices against that of its market peers, in order to establish how competitive the City is with the market. To complete this market study, Evergreen compared pay ranges of select benchmark positions that the City possesses against the compensation of positions performing those same duties within peer organizations. By aggregating the differences in pay ranges across all the positions, a reasonable determination is made as to the City's competitive position within the market.

It is important to note that individual salaries are not analyzed in this methodology, since individual compensation can be affected by a number of variables such as experience and job performance. For this reason, Evergreen looked at average pay ranges across the entire classification to make the most accurate comparison. The results of this market study should be considered reflective of the current state of the market at the time of this study, however, market conditions can change rapidly. Consequently, it is necessary to perform market surveys of peer organizations at regular intervals in order for an organization to consistently monitor its position within the market. Furthermore, the market results detailed in this chapter provide a foundation for understanding the City's overall structural standing to the market, and the rates reflected in this chapter, while an important factor, are not the sole determinant for how classifications were placed into the proposed salary ranges outlined in Chapter 5.

Evergreen conducted a comprehensive market salary survey for the City, which included soliciting 27 target peer organizations for 48 benchmark positions. Target peers were selected based on a number of factors, including geographic proximity, resource level, job overlap, and size. Target organizations were also identified for their competition to the City for employee recruitment and retention efforts. The list of targets that provided data for the purpose of this study are included in Exhibit 4A.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 4 - Market Summary
EXHIBIT 4A

RESPONDENT MARKET PEERS
City of Banning
City of Beaumont
City of Calimesa
Cathedral City
City of Colton
City of Diamond Bar
City of Fontana
City of Glendora
City of Hemet
City of Highland
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Loma Linda
City of Montclair
City of Moreno Valley
City of Murrieta
City of Ontario
City of Palm Springs
City of Perris
City of Pomona
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Redlands
City of Rialto
City of Riverside
City of San Bernardino
City of San Dimas
City of Temecula
San Bernardino County
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucalna. CA
Because the data collected for the market survey was from various regions, it was necessary to adjust peer responses relative to the City based on cost -of -living. For all organizations that fell outside the City's immediate region, a cost -of -living adjustment was applied to the reported pay ranges to ensure a market average was attained in terms of the spending power an employee would have in the City's local area. Evergreen utilizes cost -of -living index information from the Council for Community and Economic Research. The cost -of -living index figures for the City and each of the respondent market peers are located in Exhibit 4B. *; k�l Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 4-2

Chapter 4 - Market Summary
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucaipa, CA
EXHIBIT 4B

RESPONDENTS WITH COST -OF -LIVING ADJUSTMENTS
City of Yucaipa
128.0
City of Banning
129.1
City of Beaumont
129.1
City of Calimesa
129.1
Cathedral City
129.1
City of Colton
128.0
City of Diamond Bar
162.7
City of Fontana
128.0
City of Glendora
167.2
City of Hemet
129.1
City of Highland
128.0
City of Lake Elsinore
129.1
City of Loma Linda
128.0
City of Montclair
128.0
City of Moreno Valley
129.1
City of Murrieta
129.1
City of Ontario
128.0
City of Palm Springs
129.1
City of Perris
129.1
City of Pomona
162.7
City of Rancho Cucamonga
128.0
City of Redlands
128.0
City of Rialto
128.0
City of Riverside
129.1
City of San Bernardino
128.0
City of San Dimas
162.7
City of Temecula
129.1
San Bernardino Countv
128.0
L- Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page g 4-3

Chapter 4 - Market Summary

4.1 MARKET DATA
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucaipa, CA
The results of the market study are displayed in Exhibit 4C, which presents the 75t" percentile of the market. The exhibit includes the benchmark job titles and the market average salaries for each position at the minimum, midpoint, and maximum points of the pay ranges. Also included within the exhibit are the percent differentials of the City's pay ranges at each respective point, relative to the market average pay. A positive percent differential is indicative of the City's pay range exceeding that of the average of its market peers; alternatively, a negative percent differential indicates the City's compensation for a given position lagging behind the average of its peers. For those classifications where no differential is shown, this is due to the City not possessing a pay range for comparison to the market. The exhibit also includes the average pay range for the market respondents for each position, as well as how many responses each benchmark received.

While all benchmarks are included in the survey, not every peer organization possesses an appropriate match. Consequently, the benchmarks receive varying levels of response. For the purpose of this study, all positions that received fewer than five matches from market peers were not considered in establishing the City's competitive position. The rationale behind these positions being excluded is that insufficient response can lead to unreliable averages that may skew the aggregated data, blurring the reality of the City's actual position in the market.

Of the 48 positions surveyed, 46 had a sufficient response for inclusion. *tl
Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 4 - Market Summary
I
EXHIBIT 4C
MARKET SURVEY RESULTS - 75TH PERCENTILE
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucaipa, CA
Average
F. Diff
Average
% Ditt
Average
% -1
--
1 Accountant
$74,389.31
-0.4%
$83,898.42
-0.7%
$95,194.16
-2.9%

29.9%
24 2
Accountant (Confidential)
$74,389.31

0.5%
$83,898.42

0.2%
$95,194.16
-2.0%

29.9%
24 3
Accounting Assistant
$55,090.25

4.8%
$64,204.74

1.3%
$70,977.44

1.8%

26.3%
24 4
Accounting Manager
$119,516.88
-8.7%
$132,412.86
-7.1%
$145,308.84
-5.8%

27.7%
13 5
Administrative Assistant
$56,969.20

10.8%
$63,664.74

11.4%
$71,207.31

10.7%

28.3%
24 6
Administrative Technician
$68,820.00

4.8%
$76,236.00

6.2%
$84,864.00

6.0%

27.6%
5 7
Assistant City Engineer
$138,417.23
-0.8%
$163,246.95
-5.7%
$189,477.13
-10.5%

32.2%
6 8
Assistant City Manager
$201,383.78
-11.8%
$240,397.02
-18.7%
$281,274.07
-25.0%

35.0%
20 9
Assistant Engineer
$84,012.42

2.2%
$95,722.62

0.9%
$106,862.35

0.4%

26.5%
18 10
Assistant Planner
$72,707.19

11.1%
$81,732.35

11.1%
$93,753.06

8.2%

29.1%
23 11
Associate Engineer
$99,116.46

5.3%
$113,158.57

3.8%
$126,699.35

3.1%

28.5%
22 12
Associate Planner
$82,725.04

8.3%
$93,435.01

7.9%
$104,146.94

7.6%

27.6%
23 13
Code Enforcement Officer
$63,708.51

14.0%
$73,218.15

12.1%
$80,811.07

12.6%

27.8%
21 14
Community Services Coordinator
$63,270.67
-1.5%
$70,423.78
-0.5%
$78,971.40
-1.5%

26.6%
9 15
Community Services Recreation Superintendent
$109,504.00
-4.6%
$127,240.53
-8.1%
$147,677.55
-13.0%

33.8%
9 16
Community Services Specialist
$52,569.53
-8.0%
$60,293.40
-10.2%
$68,017.28
-11.9%

28.5%
7 17
Community Services Supervisor
$78,015.95

0.7%
$88,946.02
-0.7%
$99,876.09
-1.8%

29.2%
9 18
Construction Engineer
$97,092.72

0.1%
$115,193.00
-5.4%
$136,812.59
-12.7%

38.7%
6 19
Deputy City Clerk/Deputy Rent Administrator/Records Technician (Confidential) $89,125.07

10.5%
$105,511.84

5.8%
$119,500.92

3.9%

32.3%
15 20
Deputy Director of Community Development/ City Planner
$139,590.89
-15.0%
$157,306.37
-15.3%
$176,498.09
-16.4%

26.8%
12 21
Deputy Director of Finance
$136,742.87
-12.7%
$166,079.55
-21.7%
$190,108.85
-25.4%

30.7%
15 22
Deputy Director of Public Works
$151,597.91
-24.9%
$175,987.88
-29.0%
$194,122.98
-28.1%

29.0%
10 23
Development Services Technician
$63,521.41

5.3%
$71,069.58

5.8%
$78,618.83

6.2%

24.7%
6 24
Director of Community Services
$179,356.26
-15.4%
$207,171.22
-18.6%
$235,255.33
-21.2%

32.1%
11 25
Director of Development Services / City Engineer
$176,957.27
-0.7%
$207,246.45
-4.9%
$227,408.37
-3.6%

30.6%
23 26
Director of Finance
$177,692.95
-14.4%
$207,564.00
-18.8%
$227,760.00
-17.4%

33.6%
21 27
Director of General Services / City Clerk
$149,508.52

3.8%
$172,537.19

1.2%
$196,589.96
-1.3%

33.9%
18 28
Director of Governmental Affairs / PIO
$113,545.33

26.9%
$125,780.77

28.0%
$138,016.22

28.9%

30.3%
6 29
Geographic Information Systems Technician
$67,968.44
-6.4%
$77,418.54
-7.8%
$86,868.64
-8.9%

27.3%
15 30
Housing& Economic Development Analyst
$79,044.00
-0.7%
$92,741.80
-5.0%
$107,181.16
-9.3%

32.1%
6 31
Human Resources Assistant (Confidential)
$63,315.45

4.2%
$70,138.04

5.6%
$78,428.41

4.9%

30.5%
19 32
Human Resources Manager
$127,246.30
-11.9%
$140,954.31
-10.2%
$154,662,32
-8.9%

28.4%
15 33
Information Technology Manager
$127,612.71
-16.1%
$144,806.80
-17.1%
$161,370.35
-17.5%

26.2%
14 34
Information Technology Technician
$64,045.21
-31.6%
$73,125.75
-33.6%
$83,259.74
-37.0%

28.9%
14 35
Maintenance Worker 1
$46,866.07

3.7%
$53,855.80

1.6%
$61,383.62
-1.0%

28.9%
26 36
Maintenance Worker II
$51,150.43

4.8%
$59,144.76

2.1%
$66,325.25

1.2%

26.4%
21 37
Management Analyst (Confidential)
$84,457.99

4.9%
$94,186.78

5.7%
$105,758.96

4.7%

29.0%
18 38
Network Administrator
$96,408.00
-33.4%
$106,818.40
-31.5%
$118,941.84
-31.8%

29.6%
13 39
Office Assistant 1
$43,852.95

9.9%
$50,126.51

8.4%
$55,578.23

8.6%

28.5%
18 40
Office Assistant11
$46,043.21

14.3%
$54,897.82

9.1%
$61,164.00

8.9%

27.9%
13 41
Park Ranger
$55,403.87

21.4%
$63,906.60

19.4%
$71,496.56

18.8%

29.5%
7 42
Public Safety Manager
$113,474.31

0.2%
$125,701.53

1.7%
$146,949.16
-3.5%

28.6%
9 43
Public Works Analyst
$67,645.30

13.9%
$80,918.07

8.4%
$94,190.83

4.0%

34.3%
3 44
Senior Administrative Assistant
$64,661.37

3.6%
$73,942.91

2.0%
$81,612.60

2.6%

30.1%
12 45
Senior Code Enforcement Officer
$74,870.69

8.4%
$84,270.08

8.3%
$93,408.54

8.5%

24.9%
15 46
Senior Development Services Technician
$75,132.85
-6.6%
$85,121.34
-7.4%
$95,109.83
-8.0%

25.0%
2 47
Senior Executive Assistant
$104,516.21
-14.8%
$125,819.54
-22.9%
$147,122.86
-29.4%

28.9%
5 48
1 Senior Maintenance Worker
$58,550.10

1.3%
$67,382.33
-1.0%
$75,581.75
-2.0%
1 27.6%
23 Overall Average
-M%
-2.8%
-4.3% 29.4% 14.2
Outliers Removed
-1.0%
-2.9%
-4.4% 29.4%
Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 4 - Market Summary

4.2 SALARY SURVEY RESULTS
Market Minimums
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucaipa, CA
It is important to assess where an organization is relative to its market minimum salaries, as they are the beginning salaries of employees with minimal qualifications for a given position.

Organizations that are significantly below market may experience recruitment challenges with entry-level employees. As seen in Exhibit 4C, the City is currently 1.0 percent below the market average minimum, when considering positions with sufficient responses. The City's benchmark positions ranged from 33.4 percent below to 26.9 percent above at the market minimum.

The following points are regarding the City's position relative to the market average minimum:

Of these 46 positions, 20 were below market, averaging 11.7 percent below. These 20 classifications represent roughly 43 percent of the surveyed positions receiving sufficient response.

Of these 46 positions, 26 were above market, averaging 7.1 percent above. These 26 classifications represent roughly 57 percent of the surveyed positions receiving sufficient response.

Market Midpoints
The market midpoint is exceptionally important to analyze, as it is often considered the closest estimation of market average compensation. As seen in Exhibit 4C, the City is currently 2.9 percent below the market average midpoint, when considering positions with sufficient responses. The City's benchmark positions ranged from 33.6 percent below to 28.0 percent above at the market midpoint.

The following points are regarding the City's position relative to the market average midpoint:

Of these 46 positions, 23 were below market, averaging 12.8 percent below. These 23 classifications represent roughly 50 percent of the surveyed positions receiving sufficient response.

Of these 46 positions, 23 were above market, averaging 6.9 percent above. These 23 classifications represent roughly 50 percent of the surveyed positions receiving sufficient response.

Market Maximums
The pay range maximum averages, and how they compare to the City's, are also detailed in Exhibit 4C. The City is currently 4.4 percent below the market average maximum, when considering positions with sufficient responses. The City's benchmark positions ranged from

37.0 percent below to 28.9 percent above at the market maximum.

The following points are regarding the City's position relative to the market average maximum:

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 4 - Market Summary
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucaipa, CA
Of these 46 positions, 27 were below market, averaging 13.0 percent below. These 27 classifications represent roughly 59 percent of the surveyed positions receiving sufficient response.

Of these 46 positions, 19 were above market, averaging 7.8 percent above. These 19 classifications represent roughly 41 percent of the surveyed positions receiving sufficient response.

4.3 SALARY SURVEY CONCLUSION
The standing of individual classifications pay range relative to the market should not be considered a definitive assessment of actual employee salaries being similarly above or below the market; however, such differentials can, in part, explain symptomatic issues with recruitment and retention of employees.

The main summary points of the market study are as follows:
• The City's pay ranges are approximately 1.0 percent below the market minimum. • The City's pay ranges are approximately 2.9 percent below the market midpoint. • The City's pay ranges are approximately 4.4 percent below the market maximum. • The City's pay range spread is approximately 24.9 percent, while its peers' pay range spread is 29.4 percent.

The results of the market summary chapter are pivotal in the formulation of recommendations by Evergreen. By establishing the City's market position relative to its peers, Evergreen is better able to propose recommendations that enable the City to occupy its desired competitive position.
* te
Evergreen Solutions, LLC

EVERGREEN SOLUTIONS, LLC
Chapter 5 - Recommendations
After reviewing the information provided in the preceding sections of this report, Evergreen developed recommendations for the City to utilize during negotiations regarding its compensation and classification system. The recommendations, as well as the findings that led to each recommendation, are discussed in detail in this section. The recommendations are organized into three sections: classification, compensation, and administration of the system.

5.1 CLASSIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS
An organization's classification system establishes how its human resources are employed to perform its core services. The classification system consists of the titles and descriptions of the different classifications, or positions, which define how work is organized and assigned. It is essential that the titles and descriptions of an organization's classifications accurately depict the work being performed by employees in the classifications in order to ensure equity within the organization and to enable comparisons with positions at peer organizations. The purpose of a classification analysis is to identify such issues as incorrect titles, outdated job descriptions, and inconsistent titles across departments. Recommendations are then made to remedy the identified concerns based on human resources best practices.

In the analysis of the City's classification system, Evergreen collected classification data through the Job Assessment Tool (JAT) process. The JATs, which were completed by employees and reviewed by their supervisors, provided information about the type and level of work being performed for each of the City's classifications. Evergreen reviewed the data provided in the JATs and used the information as the basis for classification recommendations.

FINDING
The classification system being utilized by the City was generally accurate, with most titles accurately reflecting the work performed by employees. However, some classifications do not fully align with the actual duties carried out by employees, indicating a need for title revisions.

Additionally, several of the City's classifications require some modification to better describe the work being performed. Current job descriptions and corresponding Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemption status require review, updates and revisions.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Adopt a new classification system for all employees.

Evergreen has developed a new proposed classification system for the City's consideration.

The foundation for these recommendations was the work performed by employees in these classifications as described in their JATs and best practices among the City's peers. By Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 5 - Recommendations Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
organizing highly similar work performed by different positions under a singular title, the City will have a more organized system of grouping types of work performed, and better be able to track and ensure internal equity between positions within the City.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Update existing class description to reflect the new classification system and review all updated descriptions for FLSA status.

In conjunction with the City making the proposed title changes, Evergreen will provide the City with updated classification descriptions to ensure that they accurately reflect the work being carried out by employees. These are being provided under separate cover. Upon completion and approval of the proposed class descriptions, Evergreen will further recommend an updated FLSA status for the roles based on the new, updated content contained within the description.

5.2 COMPENSATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The compensation analysis consisted of two parts: an external market assessment and an internal equity assessment. During the external market assessment, the City's compensation for selected benchmark classifications was compared to average compensation offered in the market the City competes for employees in. The external assessment consisted of comparing the City against its peer organizations within its market, and revealed that the City is currently leading the market.

During the internal equity assessment, consideration of the relationships between and the type of work being performed by the City's employees in their classifications was reviewed and analyzed. Specifically, a composite score was assigned to each of the City's classifications that quantified the classification's level of five separate compensatory factors. The level for each factor was determined based on responses to the JAT.

FINDING
The City currently maintains an organized and defined overall pay plan. The range spread and midpoint progression are consistent across the various pay grades on the plan.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Adopt a new, market responsive compensation structure and assign all positions to it equitably.

Evergreen has developed a revised pay plan for the City's consideration. The new structure mirrors the previous step plan, maintaining 63 unique pay grades with a 2.5 percent progression through each grade and step. However, pay ranges have been updated to align with the 75th percentile of the market in order to model that prospective market positioning for the City. The details of the proposed plan are located in Exhibit 5A . *; k, Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-2

Chapter 5 - Recommendations
EXHIBIT 5A

PROPOSED PAY PLAN
Classification and Compensation Study
for the City of Yucaipa, CA
Grade
101
Step I
$ 41,600.00
Step 2
$ 42,640.00
Step 3
$ 43,706.00
Step 4
$ 44,798.66
Ste!" 5
$ 45,918.62
Step 6
$ 47,066.58
Stu 7
$ 48,243.25
Stop 8
$ 49,449.33
Step 9
$ 50,685.56
step 10
$ 51,952.70
102
$ 42,640.00
$ 43,706.00
$ 44,798.65
$ 45,918.62
$ 47,066.58
$ 48,243.25
$ 49,449.33
$ 50,685.56
$ 51,952.70
$ 53,251.52
103
$ 43,706.00
$ 44,798.65
$ 45,918.62
$ 47,066.58
$ 48,243.25
$ 49,449.33
$ 50,685.56
$ 51,952.70
$ 53,251.52
$ 54,582.80
104
$ 44,798.65
$ 45,918.62
$ 47,066.58
$ 48,243.25
$ 49,449.33
$ 50,685.56
$ 51,952.70
$ 53,251.52
$ 54,582.80
$ 55,947.38
105
$ 45,918.62
$ 47,066.58
$ 48,243.25
$ 49,449.33
$ 50,685.56
$ 51,952.70
$ 53,251.52
$ 54,682.80
$ 65,947.38
$ 57,346.06
106
$ 47,066.58
$ 48,243.25
$ 49,449.33
$ 50,685.56
$ 51,952.70
$ 53,251.52
$ 54,582.80
$ 55,947.38
$ 57,346.06
$ 58,779.71
107
$ 48,243.26
$ 49,449.33
$ 50,685.56
$ 51,952.70
$ 53,251.52
$ 54,582.80
$ 55,947.38
$ 57,346.06
$ 58,779.71
$ 60,249.20
108
$ 49,449.33
$ 50,685.56
$ 51,952.70
$ 53,251.52
$ 54,582.80
$ 55,947.38
$ 57,346.06
$ 58,779.71
$ 60,249.20
$ 61,755.43
109
$ 50,685.56
$ 51,952.70
$ 53,251.52
$ 64,58180
$ 55,947.38
$ 57,346.06
$ 58,779.71
$ 60,249.20
$ 61,755.43
$ 63,299.32
110
$ 51,952.70
$ 53,251.52
$ 54,582.80
$ 55,947.38
$ 57,346.06
$ 58,779.71
$ 60,249.20
$ 61,755.43
$ 63,299.32
$ 64,881.80
111
$ 53,251.52
$ 54,582.80
$ 55,947.38
$ 57,346.06
$ 58,779.71
$ 60,249.20
$ 61,755.43
$ 63,299.32
$ 64,881.80
$ 66,503.85
112
$ 54,582.80
$ 55,947.38
$ 57,346.06
$ 58,779.71
$ 60,249.20
$ 61,755.43
$ 63,299.32
$ 64,881.80
$ 66,503.85
$ 68,166.44
113
$ 55,947.38
$ 57,346.06
$ 58,779.71
$ 60,249.20
$ 61,755.43
$ 63,299.32
$ 64,881.80
$ 66,503.85
$ 68,166.44
$ 69,870.61
114
$ 57,346.06
$ 58,779.71
$ 60,249.20
$ 61,755.43
$ 63,299.32
$ 64,881.80
$ 66,503.85
$ 68,166.44
$ 69,870.61
$ 71,617,37
115
$ 58,779.71
$ 60,249.20
$ 61,755.43
$ 63,299.32
$ 64,881.80
$ 66,503.85
$ 68,166.44
$ 69,870.61
$ 71,617.37
$ 73,407.80
116
$ 60,249.20
$ 61,755.43
$ 63,299.32
$ 64,881.80
$ 66,503.85
$ 68,166.44
$ 69,870.61
$ 71,617.37
$ 73,407.80
$ 75,243.00
117
$ 61,755.43
$ 63,299.32
$ 64,881.80
$ 66,503.85
$ 68,166.44
$ 69,870.61
$ 71,617.37
$ 73,407.80
$ 75,243.00
$ 77,124.07
118
$ 63,299.32
$ 64,881.80
$ 66,503.85
$ 68,166.44
$ 69,870.61
$ 71,617.37
$ 73,407.80
$ 75,243.00
$ 77,124.07
$ 79,052.18
119
$ 64,881.80
$ 66,503.85
$ 68,166.44
$ 69,870.61
$ 71,617.37
$ 73,407.80
$ 76,243.00
$ 77,124.07
$ 79,052.18
$ 81,028.48
120
$ 66,503.85
$ 68,166.44
$ 69,870.61
$ 71,617.37
$ 73,407.80
$ 75,243.00
$ 77,124.07
$ 79,052.18
$ 81,028.48
$ 83,054.19
121
$ 68,166.44
$ 69,870.61
$ 71,617.37
$ 73,407.80
$ 75,243.00
$ 77,124.07
$ 79,052.18
$ 81,028.48
$ 83,054.19
$ 85,130.55
122
$ 69,870.61
$ 71,617.37
$ 73,407.80
$ 75,243.00
$ 77,124.07
$ 79,052.18
$ 81,028.48
$ 83,054.19
$ 95.130.55
$ 87,258.81
123
$ 71,617.37
$ 73,407.80
$ 75,243.00
$ 77,124.07
$ 79,052.18
$ 81,028.48
$ 83,054.19
$ 85,130.65
$ 87,258.81
$ 89,440.28
124
$ 73,407.80
$ 75,243.00
$ 77,124.07
$ 79,052.18
$ 81,028.48
$ 83,054.19
$ 95,130.55
$ 87,258.81
$ 89,440.28
$ 91,676.29
125
$ 75,243.00
$ 77,124.07
$ 79,052.18
$ 81,028.48
$ 83,054.19
$ 95,130.55
$ 87,258.81
$ 89,440.28
$ 91,676.29
$ 93,968.20
126
$ 77,124.07
$ 79,052.18
$ 81,028.48
$ 83,054.19
$ 85,130.55
$ 87,258.81
$ 89,440.28
$ 91,676.29
$ 93,968.20
$ 96,317.40
127
$ 79,052.18
$ 81,028.48
$ 83,054.19
$ 85,130.55
$ 87,258.81
$ 89,440.28
$ 91,676.29
$ 93,968.20
$ 96,317.40
$ 98,725.34
128
$ 81,028.48
$ 83,054.19
$ 85,130.55
$ 87,258.81
$ 89,440.28
$ 91,676.29
$ 93,968.20
$ 96,317.40
$ 98,725.34
$101,193.47
129
$ 83,054.19
$ 85,130.55
$ 87,258.81
$ 89,440.28
$ 91,676.29
$ 93,968.20
$ 96,317.40
$ 98,725.34
$101,193.47
$103,723.31
130
$ 85,130.55
$ 87,258.81
$ 89,440.28
$ 91,676.29
$ 93,968.20
$ 96,317.40
$ 98,725.34
$101,193.47
$103,723.31
$106,316.39
131
$ 87,258.81
$ 89,440.28
$ 91,676.29
$ 93,968.20
$ 96,317.40
$ 98,725.34
$101,193.47
$103,723.31
$106,316.39
$108,974.30
132
$ 89,440.28
$ 91,676.29
$ 93,968.20
$ 96,317.40
$ 98,725.34
$101,193.47
$103,723.31
$106,316.39
$108,974.30
$111,698.66
133
$ 91,676.29
$ 93,968.20
$ 96,317.40
$ 98,725.34
$101,193.47
$103,723.31
$106,316.39
$108,974.30
$111,698.66
$114,491.12
134
$ 93,968.20
$ 96,317.40
$ 98,725.34
$101,193.47
$103,723.31
$106,316.39
$108,974.30
$111,698.66
$114,491.12
$117,353.40
135
$ 96,317.40
$ 98,725.34
$101,193.47
$103,723.31
$106,316.39
.$308,974.30
$111,698.66
$114,491.12
$117,353.40
$120,287.24
136
$ 98,725.34
$101,193.47
$103,723.31
$106,316.39
$108,974.30
$111,698.66
$114,491.12
$117,353.40
$120,287.24
$123,294.42
137
$101,193.47
$103,723.31
$106,316.39
$108,974.30
$111,698.66
$114,491.12
$117,353.40
$120,287.24
$123,294.42
$126,376.78
138
$103,723.31
$106,316.39
$108,974.30
$111,698.66
$114,491.12
$117,353.40
$120,287.24
$123,294.42
$126,376.78
$129,536.20
139
$106,316.39
$108,974.30
$111,698.66
$114,491.12
$117,353.40
$120,287.24
$123,294.42
$126,376.78
$129,536.20
$132,774.60
140
$108,974.30
$111,698.66
$114,491.12
$117,353.40
$120,287.24
$123,294.42
$126,376.78
$129,536.20
$132,774.60
$136,093.97
141
$111,698.66
$114,491.12
$117,353.40
$120,287.24
$123,294.42
$126,376.78
$129,536.20
$132,774.60
$136,093.97
$139,496.31
142
$114,491.12
$117,353.40
$120,287.24
$123,294.42
$126,376.78
$129,536.20
$132,774.60
$136,093.97
$139,496.31
$142,983.72
143
$117,363.40
$120,287.24
$123,294.42
$126,376.78
$129,536.20
$132,774.60
$136,093.97
$139,496.31
$142,983.72
$146,558.32
144
$120,287.24
$123,294.42
$126,376.78
$129,536.20
$132,774.60
$136,093.97
$139,496.31
$142,983.72
$146,558.32
$150,222.27
145
$123,294.42
$126,376.78
$129,536.20
$132,774.60
$136,093.97
$139,496.31
$142,983.72
$146,558.32
$150,222.27
$153,977.83
146
$126,376.78
$129,536.20
$132,774.60
$136,093.97
$139,496.31
$142,983.72
$146,558.32
$160,222.27
$153,977.83
$157,827.28
147
$129,536.20
$132,774.60
$136,093.97
$139,496.31
$142,983.72
$146,568.32
$150,222.27
$153,977.83
$157,827.28
$161,772.96
148
$132,774.60
$136,093.97
$139,496.31
$142,983.72
$146,558.32
$150,222.27
$153,977.83
$157,827.28
$161,772.96
$165,817.28
149
$136,093.97
$139,496.31
$142,983.72
$146,558.32
$150,222.27
$153,977.83
$157,827.28
$161,772.96
$165,817.28
$169,962.71
150
$139,496.31
$142,983.72
$146,558.32
$150,222.27
$153,977.83
$157,827.28
$161,772.96
$165,817.28
$169,962.71
$174,211.78
1,91
$142,983.72
$146,558.32
$150,222.27
$163,977.83
$157,827.28
$161,772.96
$165,817.28
$169,962.71
$174,211.78
$178,567.08
152
$146,558.32
$150,222.27
$153,977.83
$157,827.28
$161,772.96
$165,817.28
$169,962.71
$174,211.78
$178,567.08
$183,031.25
153
$150,222.27
$153,977.83
$157,827.28
$161,772.96
$165,817.28
$169,962.71
$174,211.78
$178,567.08
$183,031.25
$187,607.03
154
$153,977.83
$157,827.28
$161,772.96
$165,817.28
$169,962.71
$174,211.78
$178,567.08
$183,031.25
$187,607.03
$192,297.21
155
$157,827.28
$161,772.96
$165,817.28
$169,962.71
$174,211.78
$178,567.08
$183,031.25
$187,607.03
$192,297.21
$197,104.64
156
$161,772.96
$165,817.28
$169,962.71
$174,211.78
$178,567.08
$193,031.25
$187,607.03
$192,297.21
$197,104.64
$202,032.26
157
$165,817.28
$169,962.71
$174,211.78
$178,567.08
$183,031.25
$187,607.03
$192,297.21
$197,104.64
$202,032.26
$207,083.06
158
$169,962.71
$174,211.78
$178,567.08
$183,031.25
$187,607.03
$192,297.21
$197,104.64
$202,032.26
$207,083.06
$212,260.14
159
$174,211.78
$178,567.08
$183,031.25
$187,607.03
$192,297.21
$197,104.64
$202,032.26
$207,083.06
$212,260.14
$217,566.64
160
$178,567.08
$183,031.25
$187,607.03
$192,297.21
$197,104.64
$202,032.26
$207,083.06
$212,260.14
$217,566.64
$223,005.81
161
$183,031.25
$187,607.03
$192,297.21
$197,104.64
$202,032.26
$207,083.06
$212,260.14
$217,566.64
$223,005.81
$228,580.95
162
$187,607.03
$192,297.21
$197,104.64
$202,032.26
$207,083.06
$212,260.14
$217,566.64
$223,005.81
$228,580.95
$234,295.48
163
$192,297.21
$197,104.64
$ 202,032.26
$ 207,083.06
$ 212,260.14
$ 217,566.64
$ 223,005.81
$ 228,580.95
$ 234,295.48
$ 240,162.87
UNG
Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page g 5-3

Chapter 5 - Recommendations Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
Implementation of the new compensation structure requires two steps. First, all positions were assigned to an appropriate pay grade within the overall plan. To determine what pay grade each position was assigned, Evergreen used the following factors: the results of the JAT analysis, the results of the market study, as well as consideration for both existing and newly created internal relationships between classifications. Assigning pay grades to classifications requires a balance of internal equity and desired market position, and recruitment and retention concerns also played a role in the process. Thus, the market results discussed in Chapter 4 were not the sole criteria for the proposed pay ranges.

The recommendations provided are available for utilization by the City during negotiations, should they desire. Due to the competitive nature of the City's current compensation structure, it was found that several positions' pay ranges were above the market average. After discussion with City leadership, the recommendations put forward will align job classifications with market conditions.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Evergreen recommends the City adopt a methodology to transition employee salaries into the proposed pay plan that aligns with its established compensation philosophy and meets the available financial resources of the organization.

The second step of implementing the proposed structure is to transition employee salaries into their new recommended pay ranges. This step can be done via a variety of methods, each with their own strengths and drawbacks. Several methods of implementation were presented, and after discussion with City leadership, the following options are recommended.

Bring to Minimum
This option consists of placing employees into the proposed pay ranges and raising the wage of any employee who is below the minimum of their recommended pay range up to the minimum of their pay range. If an employee's current salary is higher than their pay range minimum, no adjustment is made. The estimated cost for this adjustment is $110,367, affecting a total of 52 employees.
10-Year Hybrid Parity (No Salary Decreases)
This option consists of placing employees into their proposed pay ranges based on how long employees have been with the organization. The parity effectively divides the pay range by 10, and places employees within their range based on their class time. Additionally, employees are given partial credit for anytime they have spent at the organization outside of their current classification at half credit. For example, an employee who has been in their classification for three years, and had four years with the organization overall, would be placed at the midpoint of the range, due to their receiving three years of class time at straight credit, and the remaining years of experience at half credit, for a total of 5 years of credit. If an employee's current salary is higher than their hybrid parity projected salary, no adjustment is made, and as such no salaries are decreased as part of this adjustment. This methodology seeks to re- align employee salaries on the basis of years in classification, while also giving credit for additional organizational experience, and can space out compressed employee salaries along the range based on this factor. This approach does not take employee performance and *4s Evergreen Solutions, LLC Page 5-4

Chapter 5 - Recommendations Classlflcation and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
productivity into account. The estimated cost for this adjustment is $245,121, affecting a total of 52 employees.
10-Year Hybrid Parity (Salary Decreases)
This option mirrors the hybrid approach mentioned above, but it involves reducing employee salaries to align with the updated salary ranges. This approach also does not take employee performance and productivity into account. While this approach is mathematically valid, this approach is limited by the information available to utilize for each employee in the model. The City should consider the potential legal and political implications associated with salary reductions before pursuing this option. The estimated total decrease in salaries is $240,856, impacting 57 employees.

5.3 COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION Any organization's compensation and classification system will need periodic maintenance.

The recommendations provided in this chapter were developed based on conditions at the time the study was conducted. Without proper upkeep of the system, the potential for recruitment and retention issues may increase as the compensation and classification system becomes dated and less competitive.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Conduct small-scale salary surveys as needed to assess the market competitiveness of hard -to -fill classifications and/or classifications with retention issues and make adjustments to pay grade assignments if necessary.

While it is unlikely that the pay plan as a whole will need to be adjusted for several years outside of COLAs to keep pace with the market, a small number of classifications' pay grades may need to be reassigned more frequently. If one or more classifications are exhibiting high turnover or are having difficulty with recruitment, the City should collect salary range data from peer organizations to determine whether an adjustment is needed for the pay grade of the classification(s).

RECOMMENDATION 6: Conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study every three to five years.

While small-scale salary surveys can improve the market position of specific classifications, it is recommended that a full classification and compensation study be conducted every three to five years to preserve both internal and external equityforthe City. Changesto classification and compensation do occur, and while the increments of change may seem minor, they can compound overtime. A failure to react to these changes quickly has the potential to place the City in a poor position for recruiting and retaining quality employees.

While the previous two recommendations intend to maintain the competitiveness over time of the classification and compensation structure as a whole, it is also necessary to establish procedures for determining equitable pay practices for individual employees.

Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 5 - Recommendations Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
RECOMMENDATION 7: Revise policies and practices for moving employees' salaries through the pay plan, including procedures for determining salaries of newly hired employees and employees who have been promoted, demoted, or transferred to a different classification.

The method of moving salaries through the pay plan and setting new salaries for new hires, promotions, demotions, and transfers depends largely on an organization's compensation philosophy. However, it is important for the City to have established guidelines for each of these situations, and that they are followed consistently for all employees. Common practices for progressing and establishing employee salaries are outlined below.

Salary Progression
As outlined above, Evergreen recommends City enact the second phase of implementing the new pay plan which would involve a one-time salary adjustment for employees to ensure they are placed in the proper step of their pay grade. While this major adjustment should be performed when the City has the financial resources to do so, the City should continue to adjust salaries annually when financially feasible. Based on the feedback from employees and City leadership, Evergreen recommends that the basis of salary adjustment in the future be done at three distinct levels.
• Structural: Adjustment to the ranges should be done annually and with the aim of adjusting for the changes in cost of living. Evergreen recommends the City tie the annual compensation structure movement to the local change in the Consumer -Price - Index (CPI). This annual adjustment will ensure the City's pay ranges do not rapidly fall out of line with that of its peers; however, when conducting the small-scale surveys referenced above, the City should also collect pay plan movement and anticipated movement from its peers to gauge if market movement is keeping pace with CPI movement.
• Classification: As a result of the market surveys, the City may identify classifications or job families that are experiencing considerable market movement and as a result, reassignment of the pay grades should be considered when this occurs. Alternatively, if the City identifies classifications that have become hard to recruit and retain, pay grade reassignment should also be considered to ensure the City is competitive for both recruiting new talent and retaining existing employees. • Individual: To tie into the adjustment of the structure, Evergreen recommends the City adjust employee salaries annually for Cost -of -living adjustment (COLA). This adjustment would be done for all employees who receive a satisfactory performance evaluation, and the adjustment would need to be at least one step in addition to the compensation structure movement in order to allow for employee progression into the steps.

New Hires
A new employee's starting salary largely depends on the amount of education and experience the employee possesses beyond the minimum requirements for the job. Typically, an employee holding only the minimum education and experience requirements for a Evergreen Solutions, LLC

Chapter 5 - Recommendations Classification and Compensation Study for the City of Yucaipa, CA
classification is hired at or near the classification's pay grade minimum. An upper limit to the percentage above the minimum that can be offered to a new employee with only the minimum requirements should be established, where approval is needed to offer a starting salary that is a higher step above minimum. Another threshold should be established as the maximum starting salary possible without approval for new employees with considerable experience and/or education above the requirements for the position. It is common for the middle step (step 5) to be used as the maximum starting salary for most classifications. Once the City has performed the initial implementation adjustmentfor current employee salaries, new employee starting salaries should take into consideration internal equity, meaningthat new hires should be offered comparable salaries to existing employees in the classification with similar levels of education and experience.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Evergreen recommends the City adopt a hiring grid that aligns with its selected implementation methodology.

Dependent upon which route the City elects to transition employees into the new salary ranges, a hiring grid should be adopted that provides guidance where new employee salaries should be set. The adoption of a new hiring grid should be done after an implementation methodology is selected in order to ensure alignment of salary placement between current employees and new hires, and to prevent new compression issues from arising both within classifications and departments, as well as throughout the City as a whole.

RECOMMENDATION 9: Evergreen recommends the City update its policy regarding promotions/demotions to align with its new compensation structure.

Promotions/Demotions
When an employee is promoted to a new classification, it is important to have guidelines for calculating the employee's new salary that rewards the employee for their new responsibilities, moves the salary into the new pay grade, and ensures internal equity in the new classification. It is common for organizations to establish a minimum step increase that depends on the increase in pay grade as a result of the promotion. Regardless of the minimum step increase, the employee's new salary should be within the new pay grade's range, and internal equity of salaries within the classification should be preserved.

5.4 SUMMARY
The City should be commended for its desire and commitment to provide equitable compensation for its employees. The recommendations in this report establish a new market - aligned pay plan, externally and internally equitable classification titles and pay grade assignments, and system administration practices that will provide the City with a responsive compensation and classification system for years to come. While the upkeep of this recommended system will require concrete effort, the City will find that having a compensation and classification system that encourages strong recruitment and employee retention is worth this commitment.
.;4 Evergreen Solutions, LLC