Claremont, New Hampshire Pay and Classification Study ...

Claremont, New Hampshire

Pay and Classification Study Update

Paypoint HR, LLC

695 Santa Maria Lane

Davidsonville, MD 21035

(443) 336 - 4272

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Major Milestones for the Project .............................................................................................................. 5

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Scope of Services ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Benefit Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 10

The City of Claremont’s Current Benefit Offering ............................................................................ 11 Benefit Survey Responses ....................................................................................................................... 12

Cost of Benefits ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Major Medical, Dental, and Vision Benefits ..................................................................................... 14 Co-pays, Deductibles, and Out-of-Pocket Maximums (OOP) ........................................................ 16 Retirement ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Other Employee Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 16 Leave Types ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Clothing Allowance ............................................................................................................................... 18 Across the Board Pay Adjustments ................................................................................................... 18 Health Savings Account (HSA) Contributions ................................................................................. 18

Focus Groups .................................................................................................................................................. 19

Employee Focus Group Responses: ...................................................................................................... 20

1. General Trends .................................................................................................................................. 21 2. City of Claremont Competitors for Labor ................................................................................... 29 3. Difficult to Retain, Develop, Motivate, and Recruit Positions ................................................. 30 4. Compensation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 32 5. Employee Ideas .................................................................................................................................. 34

Comparators ................................................................................................................................................... 37

Sample Calculation ................................................................................................................................... 41

Benchmark Positions ..................................................................................................................................... 42 Baseline Analysis............................................................................................................................................ 45

Current Salary Schedule – Merit ............................................................................................................ 45 Current Salary Schedule – AFSCME Clerical ........................................................................................ 46 Current Salary Schedule – AFSCME DPW ............................................................................................. 47 Current Salary Schedule – IAFF .............................................................................................................. 48 Current Salary Schedule – PBA............................................................................................................... 49 Current Salary Schedule - Contract ....................................................................................................... 50 Overall Salary Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 50 Distribution Observations - Merit ......................................................................................................... 51

Compensable Factor Score from Position Vantage Point ...................................................................... 53 External Market Comparison ....................................................................................................................... 54 Proposed Salary Schedules .......................................................................................................................... 74

Proposed Salary Schedule – AFSCME DPW .......................................................................................... 74 Proposed Salary Schedule – AFSCME Clerical ..................................................................................... 74

2

Proposed Salary Schedule – PBA ............................................................................................................ 75

Police Officers ........................................................................................................................................ 75 Police Sergeants ..................................................................................................................................... 76 Communications Specialist ................................................................................................................. 77

Proposed Salary Schedule – IAFF ........................................................................................................... 78 Proposed Salary Schedule – Contract ................................................................................................... 78 Proposed Salary Schedule – Merit ......................................................................................................... 79 Proposed Internal Equity – Merit ........................................................................................................... 80

Recommended Reclassifications ................................................................................................................ 82

List of Tables

Table 1 - Percentage of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees ............................................................... 13 Table 2 – Potential Comparators ................................................................................................................ 38 Table 3 - Economic Data of the City of Claremont and Potential Comparators .............................. 39 Table 4 – Statistics of Potential Comparators ......................................................................................... 40 Table 5 – Benchmark Positions – AFSCME Clerical ................................................................................. 42 Table 6 – Benchmark Positions – AFSCME DPW ...................................................................................... 42 Table 7 – Benchmark Positions – Merit ..................................................................................................... 43 Table 8 – Benchmark Positions – IAFF ....................................................................................................... 44 Table 9 – Benchmark Positions – PBA ....................................................................................................... 44 Table 10 – Benchmark Positions – Contract............................................................................................. 44 Table 11 – Current Salary Schedule - Merit .............................................................................................. 45 Table 12 – Current Spread and Ladders - Merit ...................................................................................... 46 Table 13 – Current Salary Schedule – AFSCME Clerical ......................................................................... 46 Table 14 – Current Spread and Ladders – AFSCME Clerical ................................................................. 47 Table 15 – Current Salary Schedule – AFSCME DPW .............................................................................. 47 Table 16 – Current Spread and Ladders – AFSCME DPW ...................................................................... 48 Table 17 – Current Salary Schedule – IAFF ............................................................................................... 48 Table 18 – Current Spread and Ladders – IAFF ....................................................................................... 49 Table 19 – Current Salary Schedule – PBA ................................................................................................ 49 Table 20 – Current Spread and Ladders – PBA ........................................................................................ 49 Table 21 – Employees Near Min/Max......................................................................................................... 51 Table 22 – Employees Near Midpoint ........................................................................................................ 52 Table 24 – Full-Time Positions Substantially Below Market (% Diff< -10%) ....................................... 54 Table 25 – Full-Time Positions Below Market (-10% < % Diff < -5%) .................................................... 55 Table 26 – Full-Time Positions Near Market (-5% < % Diff < +5%) ....................................................... 55 Table 27 – Full-Time Positions Above Market (+5% < % Diff < +10%) ................................................. 55 Table 28 – Full-Time Positions Substantially Above Market (% Diff > +10%) .................................... 55 Table 29 – External Market Comparison - IAFF ....................................................................................... 56 Table 30 – External Market Comparison - Contract ............................................................................... 57 Table 31 – External Market Comparison – AFSCME DPW ...................................................................... 58 Table 32 – External Market Comparison – AFSCME Clerical................................................................. 60 Table 33 – External Market Comparison – PBA ....................................................................................... 63

3

Table 34 – External Market Comparison – Merit ....................................................................................... 64 Table 35 – Proposed Salary Schedule – AFSCME DPW ............................................................................. 74 Table 36 – Proposed Salary Schedule – AFSCME Clerical ........................................................................ 75 Table 37 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Police Officer ............................................................................. 76 Table 38 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Police Sergeant .......................................................................... 76 Table 39 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Communications Specialist .................................................... 77 Table 40 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Firefighter ................................................................................... 78 Table 41 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Fire Department Lieutenant ................................................... 78 Table 42 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Merit ............................................................................................ 79 Table 44 – Proposed Internal Equity – Merit .............................................................................................. 80 Table 45 – Recommended Reclassification ................................................................................................ 84

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Salary Distribution........................................................................................................................ 50

4

Executive Summary

Paypoint HR is pleased to present this comprehensive Pay and Classification Study to the

City of Claremont, New Hampshire. The study began with initial kick-off meeting with the

City Manager, Finance Director, and Human Resources Manager on January 30, 2020. The

Final Report was completed for presentation to the City Council in November 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 to the City of Claremont. 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. Claremont 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 205 employees within roughly 80 distinct classifications.

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 Claremont 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.

5

Major Milestones for the Project

Initial kick-off meetings with the City Manager, Finance Director, and Human Resources

Manager on January 30th.

Employee Briefing Sessions were held onsite over a two-day period on March 5th and 6th

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 97 completed PVP’s for managers to

review. (Additional surveys were filled out for employees occupying multiple positions and

for future positions). 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 Claremont to ensure validity. In order to

identify relevant and comparable organizations we restricted our search to a 100-mile

radius.

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 24 comparator organizations and

responses from 23 participants were collected. Typical surveys of this type yield a 5-10%

response rate. The City of Claremont’ study response rate is considered excellent at 96%.

Respondents included the following organizations:

6

Respondents (23/24)

Conway Derry Dover

Durham Exeter Franklin

Goffstown Hampton Hooksett

Hudson Keene Laconia

Lebanon Londonderry Merrimack

Milford New Market Pelham

Portsmouth Raymond Rochester

Salem Somersworth

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 10 remote focus groups with approximately 49 employees from all

departments. The Consultants met with employees by their peer categories over a two-day

period on June 10th and 12th. 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.

7

Recommendations

The fiscal impact of the recommendations listed below are approximate costs for salary

adjustments. The fiscal impact does not factor in associated costs for employee related

benefits.

1. Raise the salary of 161 positions that are substantially below market, first, at a cost

of $1,233,370.

• 1 Accounts Payable/Payroll Clerk,

• 1 Accreditation Coordinator,

• 1 Assessing Technician,

• 1 Assistant Director DPW,

• 1 Business Development Specialist,

• 1 Center Coordinator,

• 1 Chief Building and Code,

• 1 Children's Librarian,

• 2 Children's Library Clerks,

• 1 Circulation Clerk,

• 1 City Clerk & Tax Collector,

• 1 City Manager,

• 1 City Planner,

• 1 Communication/Records Manager,

• 2 Communications Specialists 2,

• 1 Custodian B,

• 1 Customer Service/Program Leader,

• 1 Deputy Fire Chief,

• 1 Deputy Tax Collector 2,

• 1 Executive Assistant/Clerk to Council,

• 1 Farmers Market,

• 1 Finance Director,

• 4 Fire Captains,

• 1 Fire Chief/Director,

• 3 Fire Department Lieutenants,

• 9 Firefighters/EMT,

• 9 Fitness Instructors,

• 20 Front Desk Staff,

• 1 General Foreman/DPW,

• 3 Gym Monitors,

• 1 Human Resources Manager,

• 1 Information Systems I,

• 1 Librarian/Director,

• 2 Library Circulation Librarians,

• 1 Library Page,

8

• 29 Lifeguards,

• 1 Maintenance Supervisor,

• 1 Mechanic/DPW,

• 1 Network Administrator,

• 1 Office Manager/DPW,

• 1 P&D Administrative Assistant,

• 2 Park Maintenance/CSBCC 2,

• 1 Planning and Development Director,

• 1 Police Administrative Assistant,

• 1 Police Captain,

• 1 Police Chief/Director,

• 1 Police Detective/Prosecutor,

• 17 Police Officers,

• 5 Police Sergeants,

• 1 Project Manager,

• 1 Public Works Director,

• 5 Seasonal 1,

• 1 Seasonal 2,

• 1 Shop Inventory Clerk,

• 1 Superintendent of Parks & Facilities,

• 1 Superintendent of Recreational Programs,

• 1 Treasurer/Assistant Finance Director,

• 1 Welfare Director, and

• 5 Working Foremen/DPW.

2. Raise the salary of 17 positions that are below market, second, at a cost of $51,093.

• 2 DPW Skilled Laborers/Truck Drivers 12,



• 5 Heavy Equipment Operators,

• 5 Medium Equipment Operators, and

• 1 Parks and Recreation Director.

3. Adjust the salaries of positions that are near market with normal base-salary and

tenure adjustments.

4. Discontinue making base-salary adjustments to the salaries of positions that are

above or substantially above market until compensation is near market.

9

Scope of Services

A. Participate as requested in one (1) strategic planning session to identify and

synthesize the City’s overall intended compensation philosophies;

B. Analyze survey data collected, factoring out, from the data received, both the

highest and lowest data extremes;

C. Provide a current market analysis and recommendations to the City Manager or

his/her designee;

D. Review and recommend a wage and classification structure for the City’s

approximate seventy-five, non-union positions considering both the market analysis,

and internal equity, and including the recommended assignment of each position

within the classification structure utilizing a standard rating system that analyzes

each position against multiple evaluation criteria.

E. Provide a salary classification manual which can be used by the City of Claremont to

evaluate new or revised position descriptions following the conclusion of this study.

The manual shall describe the methodology used by the consultant to undertake this

study and how it is recommended to be used by the City in the future, including the

detailed rating structure and evaluation criteria. The manuals should be presented

to the City Manager and Human Resources Manager in hard copy as well as in

electronic format using Word, Excel and PDF.

F. Once the market analysis, classification plan, and recommended salary ranges have

been finalized, the consultant will be expected to make a final presentation to the

City Council, City Manager, Human Resources Manager and Personnel Advisory

Committee.

G. Any resulting reclassifications should have a minimum contemplative effective life

of not less than ten (10) years.

10

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 medical premiums, workers’

compensation premiums and pension contributions will automatically increase as

pay increases. Responsible employers will consider the additional costs related to

these changes.

11

Questions included in the External Benefit Survey addressed the following:

1. What do benefits cost the organization in relation to the total compensation? For

example, Salaries/Benefit ratio 68/32. What benefits are included in your calculation?

2. Do you offer major medical, dental & vision benefits? What are the employer/employee

contributions to premiums?

3. What are the co-pays, deductibles, and out of pocket maximums for the health

insurance?

4. Do you offer a defined benefit pension plan? What is the formula you use for matching?

What employee contributions, if any, do you require?

5. What other employer sponsored benefits do you offer? Do you offer life insurance,

AD&D, Short-term/Long-term Disability etc.?

6. What voluntary benefits are available to employees? For example, critical illness,

accident, and hospitalization?

7. What leave benefits do you offer (vacation, holiday, sick, PTO, Extended Illness Accrual

Bank (EIAB), and comp-time?

8. What clothing or uniform allowances do you offer? Do you offer winter outerwear,

safety shoes, protective eyewear, jeans, plain clothes for police for example?

9. When were your most recent across the board changes to pay? What was it based on?

For example, market adjustment, COLA, performance, longevity?

10. Do you have any future plans for across the board adjustments? What will that be

based on?

11. Do you offer employer paid HSA contributions for employees?

The City of Claremont’s Current Benefit Offering

The City of Claremont posts information regarding employee benefits on its website at

http://www.claremontnh.com/residents/departments/human-resources/default.aspx. The

content of the City of Claremont’s Human Resources website includes information on the

current Schedule of Benefits for the health, prescriptions, and dental plans. Also available is

information on the Flexible Benefits Plan, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care

Act (PPACA).

Information specific to one of the four collectively bargained benefits packages are available

through this same link under “Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) & Merit Plan.” The

City has union agreements with employees under the following groups:

• Clerical Employees through the American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) Local 1348

• Department of Public Works through the AFL-CIO AFSCME Council 93 Local 1348

• Claremont Firefighters IAFF Local 1571

• New England Police Benevolent Association Local 217

http://www.claremontnh.com/residents/departments/human-resources/default.aspx

12

List of Employee Benefits Sponsored by the City of Claremont for Eligible Employees

Health Insurance –Per their respective CBA’s employees hired after their negotiated date in

2017, receive health benefits with the City’s contribution amount at 80% of premiums for all

levels. The City pays anywhere from 88% to 95% for Eligible employees hired prior to that

date. There are 5 employees who, based on tenure, qualify for a modified plan.

Dental Insurance – The City pays 100% of individual level dental premiums. Employees are

responsible for the additional cost of a two-person or family plan.

Holiday Leave – All eligible employees receive 11 paid Holidays per year

Sick Leave – All eligible employees earn 12 days of Sick Leave per year. Maximum carryover

is 45 days except for Fire employees who may carry over as many as 450 hours per year.

CBAs determine the amount of carry over and payout terms. Employees who do not use

their Sick leave may earn an additional 2 days of Vacation except Clerical employees and

Communication Specialists who may earn $100 to $600 in Sick Bonus Incentive.

Vacation Leave –Eligible employees receive the equivalent of 11 to 27 days per year for

vacation leave.

Personal Leave – Eligible employees receive 2 Personal leave days per year

Short-Term Disability - After 2 years of employment, eligible personnel will receive Short-

term disability coverage provided by the City.

Life Insurance –Life insurance paid for by the City after 1 year of employment.

Longevity Pay – Eligible employees may receive annual Longevity pay that ranges by CBA

and tenure from $275 to $700 per year.

New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS)– Eligible employees participate in this

contributory defined benefit pension plan qualified under 401(a) IRS code.

Education – The City will reimburse employees for tuition, education, and books depending

on certain criteria defined in CBAs. The amount ranges from $275 to $1,500.

Uniform Pay – According to CBAs, the public works staff receive $150 per year for boots;

Police - Detective Division: receive $600.00 for initial issue and $33.00/month for duration

of assignment after 18 months.

Benefit Survey Responses

The chart below provides counts and percentage breakdowns of the market peers and

Claremont’s full-time and part-time employees. The market comparator organizations were

made up of, on average, 83% full-time employees and 17% part-time employees. For

Claremont, this percentage was 52% full-time, and 48% 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.

13

Table 1 - Percentage of Full-Time and Part-Time Employees

Personnel Count Market Average Claremont

Full-Time Employees 187 83% 109 52%

Part-Time Employees 40 17% 102 48%

Total 227 100% 211 100%

Cost of Benefits

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).

Benefits Included in Calculation of Costs as a % of Total Compensation

Benefit Type

Reported as Included in Employer Costs by

Respondents

Claremont Included

Cost

Health Insurance 100% √

Dental Insurance 78% √

Disability Insurance 0% √

Vision Insurance 22%

FICA 44% √

Life Insurance 78% √

Pension/Retirement 67% √

HSA 33%

Tuition 33% √

Workers’ Comp 33% √

Longevity Pay 0% √

Leave Pay 0% √

14

This study asked respondents to state what they calculated towards benefits. Generally,

benefits they cited included health, dental, and vision premiums; life insurance; workers’

compensation; pension; and FICA, though organizations may calculate this number

differently.

Claremont’s cost of benefits as a percent of total compensation was roughly 42%. This

included health & dental premiums, employer paid STD, employer paid AD&D, New

Hampshire Retirement System contributions, FICA, Life insurance, tuition, worker's

compensation, longevity pay, and leave pay. The external market comparator average was

36.4%. The national average for the cost of benefits as a percent of total compensation is

between 30 and 35% for non-union employee groups and 40 and 45% for union employee

groups. The study did not ask respondents to disclose the union presence or prevalence

within their organization. Also, it is common for benefit contributions to vary depending on

the compensation practices of the organization and the relative cost of benefits.

Major Medical, Dental, and Vision Benefits

100% of respondents stated they offer medical, and dental insurance to their staff. Vision

benefits were reported as offered by roughly 50% of employers though some stated it was

part of their medical plan. Analysis from the benefit survey findings yielded the following

results on the amount employers contributed towards medical premiums.

Medical Benefits

Individual Level

• 50% of respondents contributed 100% of premiums for individual employee level

medical coverage

• The average percent paid by the responding employers for individual level

medical premiums was 90%.

• The City of Claremont pays 80% of employee level premiums for new hires.

Family Level

• The average percent paid by the respondents for family level medical premiums

was 67%

• The City of Claremont pays 80% of family level medical premiums for new hires.

Dental

Individual Level

• 88% of respondents reported paying 90% to 100% of individual level dental

premiums.

• The average percent paid by the responding employers for individual level dental

premiums was 97%.

• Claremont pays 100% of employee level premiums.

15

Family Level

• The average percent paid by the responding employers for family level dental

premiums was 76%.

• Claremont does not contribute to family level dental premiums.

Vision

Individual Level

• 72% of respondents reported paying 0% to 9% of individual vision premiums.

• The average percent paid by the responding employers for individual level vision

premiums was 19%.

• Claremont pays 0% of employee level premiums.

Family Level

• The average percent paid by the responding employers for individual level vision

premiums was 0%.

• Claremont pays 0% of family level premiums.

As coverage and deductibles vary, caution should be practiced when comparing premiums.

Employer Contributions to Premiums Reported by Survey Participants

Medical

Dental

Vision

Premium Contribution

% Single Level Single Level Single Level

90% to 100% 50% 88% -

80% to 89% 50% 12% 14%

70% to 79% - - -

60% to 69% - - -

50% to 59% - - 14%-

40% to 49% - - -

30% to 39% - - -

20% to 29% - - -

10% to 19% - - -

0% to 9% - - 72%

Total 100% 100% 100%

16

Co-pays, Deductibles, and Out-of-Pocket Maximums (OOP)

Co-pays reported by respondents ranged from $5 to $20. Deductibles for single level

ranged from $250 to $2,500 and $750 to $5,000 for family level. The range for OOP costs

for single level coverage In-Network was $1.100 to $5,000 and for family $2,200 to $10,000.

Claremont’s health plan has a $20 Copay for both primary care physician visit and specialty

visits. The Claremont’s plan has a $0 deductible. The City’s Out-of-Pocket Limit was

$3,000 for singles level and $6,000 for family level. The Copay is in line with what others

are offering, deductibles are extremely low and OOP maximums are in line with market

findings.

Retirement

100% of respondents reported participating in the New Hampshire Retirement System

(NHRS). Limited information was collected regarding the employee contribution amounts.

Employee contribution amounts ranged from 7% to 11.8% depending on the employee group

with emergency services employee’s contribution amounts being higher.

Other Employee Benefits

Additional employer paid benefits offered by respondents but not included costs of benefit

calculations were the following: life insurance, deferred compensation plans, disability insurance,

tuition, voluntary cancer & critical care insurances, and computer lease programs.

Leave Types

Holiday Pay

The City of Claremont offers employees 11 paid Holidays per year.

Claremont’s comparators offer 11 paid Holidays annually on average. 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.

Vacation Pay

Claremont Fire employees receive between 14 to 34 days per year for Vacation Leave.

All other eligible employees receive 11 to 27 days per year for Vacation.

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

https://www/

17

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.

BLS data was not available for Vacation Leave carry-over.

Paid Time Off (PTO)

Claremont does not offer PTO.

Roughly 22% of respondents reported offering PTO.

Sick Leave

Claremont offers employees 12 days of Sick Leave per year.

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.

Not enough information was collected from respondents on the number of days of Sick

Leave they provide to offer analysis.

Personal Leave

Claremont offers employees 2 Personal Days per year.

Roughly 67% of respondents reported offering personal leave to employees.

Leave Reported by Respondents

Leave Type

Reported as Offered in

by Respondents

Claremont Leave

Vacation 100% √

Holiday 89% √

Sick 100% √

Personal 67% √

PTO 22% -

Extended Illness Bank 0% -

Comp Time 67% -

https://www/

https://www/

18

Clothing Allowance

100% of respondents reported offering clothing allowances to employees. The dollar

amounts ranged from $100 to $900 per year. The amounts varied at organizations based on

union representation and function of employees.

Across the Board Pay Adjustments

Respondents reported making pay adjustments based on collective bargaining agreements,

merit plans, and cost of living adjustments. Adjustments reported had been made as far

back as 2014 for a group of non-represented staff with most adjustments being made

within the last 3 years.

Health Savings Account (HSA) Contributions

Roughly 37.5% of respondents reported offering HSA contributions for employees. The

amount of employer contributions reported ranged from $1,250 to $2,500 for single level

and $2,500 to $5,000 for family level.

Claremont does not offer HSA contributions.

19

Focus Groups

The purpose of the focus groups was to have employees share valuable firsthand knowledge

and opinions of the existing City of Claremont 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 five questions. While the main point of the employee feedback was centered

on classification and compensation, these topics naturally open discussion to a number of

other factors. This was a normal communication pattern, and the report addresses the

topics as they presented themselves in the discussion. The City may want to further

consider exploring issues raised during the study focus groups.

On June 10 and 12, 2020 Paypoint HR held 10 virtual focus group sessions with employees.

All employees were invited to attend the focus group sessions and actual attendance was

approximately 49 employees in total. Participation was strongly encouraged but voluntary.

Employees who attended were given an acknowledgment form to sign that explained the

ground rules for focus groups.

A copy of the list of questions was shown below:

1. What general trends/forces impact your and Claremont’s success? a. Economic b. Regulatory c. Cultural d. Technology e. Organizational structure f. Demographics g. Political h. Natural environment

2. Who are the City’s competitors for labor? Who are industry leaders and what

contributes to their success? Who are key sources of employees for Claremont? Any recommendations?

3. Has the City had difficulty retaining, developing, motivating, and recruiting

competent performers for any particular positions? 4. Do you understand your 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?

5. What recommendations for improvements do you have?

20

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. 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 Claremont had several areas where it stood out.

The City of Claremont is set in the scenic New Hampshire countryside. The majestic beauty

of nearby mountains and rivers is showcased in Claremont’s many parks and extensive trail

system. The staff shared that they are proud of the area and believe the natural beauty of

western New Hampshire to be one of the community’s greatest assets.

Despite some economic setbacks caused by departing industry several decades ago, the City

has been slowly but surely recovering and has recently enjoyed increased development and

redevelopment. This includes the repurposing of the Historic Sugar River Mill District.

Employees of the City of Claremont are particularly proud of their new community center,

an asset all residents can use. The Community Center, Library, and other public spaces

provide many resources to all members of the community.

Claremont is recognized in New Hampshire and beyond as an exceptionally safe

community, with crime rates far below state and national averages.

The staff of the City of Claremont genuinely enjoy the work they do as they provide

essential services to the residents. Many of the attendees referred to the close-knit, family

atmosphere in their workplace and said they appreciate the ability to work together as a

team to accomplish common goals for their community.

21

1. General Trends

a. Economic

• Employees reported that the City was primarily funded by property taxes. The City’s

property taxes were said to be known as the highest property tax rates in the state.

However, it was discussed that the rate is high, in large part, due to the need to

provide services to a community with relatively low property values. Further, staff

explained that a large portion of these funds go towards the schools and not City

government. They said some residents have questioned their own ability to pay their

taxes, because the median income was 30 percent below state levels. Employees

made the connection that City funding is impacted by the residents’ ability (or

inability) to pay their assessed property taxes.

• Participants said people had been starting to move to the area and that had resulted

in a small reduction in the tax rate. They said the area has had the addition of a few

good-paying jobs that would attract new families.

• Staff said they had experienced few economic changes since the pandemic started.

They said many residents had benefited from the federal stimulus and, aside from a

loss of expected revenue from the closed community center, other payments to the

City were still being made. They said they thought there may still be some negative

impact from the pandemic in the future.

• Employees mentioned Claremont had been economically dependent on mills that

had left in the ’70s and ’80s. They said that since then a few smaller businesses had

moved into town, some with 100 to 200 employees.

• Participants observed there had been a great deal of commercial development and

redevelopment in the last decade, including converting the mill district to

restaurants and hotels. They said the City’s economic future may be in smaller

industry, housing investors, and some manufacturing.

• Several of the staff believed there were good things happening in Claremont. The

example they provided was the Claremont Development Authority working with two

non-profits to build a new dental clinic and a culinary incubator. They said this had

been an effort to help people and to revitalize the area from Main Street to Pleasant

Street.

• A few employees noted the Parks Department had done a great job of staying on

budget, but that there may be more opportunities to address issues in the

community with grants and other funding sources.

• Several participants thought divisions like Streets and Roads and the Cemetery had

to be more mindful of spending than other departments. They said this was possible

because those departments were funded solely by property taxes. Staff said those

22

employees had intentionally tried to conserve department resources and had been

concerned about layoffs and budget approvals.

b. Regulatory

• Staff said that unfunded mandates had affected nearly every department, and that it

had been challenging to keep up with ever-changing regulations. They said they had

done their best to stay informed and follow best practices.

• A few employees added that the state had cut back their administrative support

significantly and had encouraged municipalities to pick up the slack but had not

offered additional funding sources for the additional work required to meet

compliance standards.

• Participants believed Claremont had done a good job of making the permit process

easy for businesses, more so than other surrounding cities like Lebanon.

• Some staff said social media had been used to keep the public informed about

changing regulations, but that taxpayers had still felt inconvenienced by additional

rules. They said that only about half of the public had seemed supportive of their

efforts, and that the public’s negativity on social media had hurt morale.

• Employees believed the City had done a good job complying with ADA requirements

but that there were still non-ADA compliant portions facilities and public access

ways.

• Participants reported that COVID-related rules and regulations had impacted most

parts of the City government, including some new enforcement responsibilities for

the police.

• Police staff said their Department had first been certified by the Commission on

Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) ten years ago, and that they

were reassessed to meet those standards every three years. They said they were one

of only 11 departments in New Hampshire with that certification.

• A few employees also noted that the Police Department had moved to e-ticketing

and e-filing as mandated by the state of New Hampshire.

• Participants from the Fire Department reported that the City had failed to meet the

minimum standard for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines for

fire protection staffing. They said low staffing levels posed a physical risk to the

firefighters and increased the liability of the City and the community.

• Some of the staff mentioned that unfunded mandates for water and sewer had

forced the City to raise rates. They expected the new MS4 regulations to further

23

impact Water and Street and Roads. They said that the Environmental Protection

Agency had added more and more water and wastewater regulations.

• Employees thought Streets and Roads had a huge workload, and that regulations had

only increased that load. They said there had been some cases where they had gone

above and beyond the regulations in the interest of the public and overall

infrastructure. They noted that enforcing regulations on property owners would

alleviate workloads. Staff hoped the City would do more to enforce ordinances even

though it would not be popular, it would put the responsibility on the appropriate

entity.

c. Cultural

• Participants believed the current City Manager had worked hard to improve culture.

Most agreed that the City’s culture had been improving for the better, but that low

morale due to high workload levels and low staffing numbers had continued to be

an issue.

• Many of the staff reported several departments had a great culture where people

wanted to go to work, enjoyed their coworkers, and worked in a fun environment

where professional courtesy was encouraged.

• Staff said that while they do receive appreciation from locals for doing their jobs, in

general employees mentioned there had been a lot of negativity in the community.

They said when problems had come up, residents had referenced the high taxes.

They noted that in a recent survey, residents had said they weren’t proud of the

community which was disheartening to staff as they work hard to make it a great

place to live and work.

• Staff said there had been efforts to educate residents about what the City does. They

said that while some residents were never happy, others were extremely grateful for

the work they do and even write thank you notes and bring treats during

snowstorms.

• A few participants mentioned they would like to receive more recognition from City

Hall for a job well done.

o They said the Paypoint study was a good first step to connecting management

and staff.

o Several employees said they missed the group events, like celebrating birthdays,

cookouts, and weekly meetings, that had been done away with due to finances,

scheduling, and other conflicts.

o They also said they missed the recognition pins for anniversary milestones that

used to be awarded.

24

o They said small gestures of acknowledgement for efforts and team-building

gatherings had made employees feel valued.

• Employees believed contract negotiations had hurt morale in the past. They said the

relationship between the union and management hadn’t been positive and had led to

arguments and confrontations. They said they believed there was room for

compromise.

• A few members of the Police Department observed that even though much was

expected from them, they have the best department culture in decades. They said

with the current staff interactions with the community had been effective. They also

said that the staff in dispatch was extremely close and like family to each other.

• Participants from the Police Department appreciated the care taken during COVID-

19. They said they had been allowed to take a paid time for self-quarantine for two

to three weeks if they had underlying health conditions.

• Staff from Fire reported they had a family-style culture and felt appreciated by the

residents. They said that because they were a full-time department and cost the

taxpayers money, they had experienced some negativity from residents.

• Employees from Public Works reported that there had been some cultural

differences between front line staff and management. They said that the differences

had caused important communications from management to be lost in translation.

o Public Works participants said they had experienced major leadership turnover

twice. They said long-term employees had not been happy with how the changes

had been managed.

o Staff shared that there had been some fragmentation between certain divisions

within Public Works, but that generally the employees have had each other's

backs. They said that the Foremen had usually worked well with each other but

interactions between Foreman and the Directors were typically strained.

o Employees reported priorities in Public Works had been in a constant state of

flux, effectively pitting divisions against each other while demanding more work

without more pay. They said the Public Works staff was overloaded and always

playing catch up which did not give them a sense of job satisfaction or a feeling

of accomplishment.

• Participants shared that the Planning and Development Department had a great

culture. They said employees had good relationships with their leadership and

enjoyed a positive, team atmosphere.

25

d. Technology and Tools

• Staff agreed the City’s IT professionals had been quick to get staff up and running

remotely and that they were very grateful for their hard work before and during the

pandemic. They said that they appreciated the City hiring an additional IT

professional and thought the team was helpful and responsive.

• Staff said there was always a need for new equipment, and that some departments

were able to get hardware and software they require more easily. They said this

depended on the head of the department. In general staff felt additional funding for

equipment was necessary.

• Employees specifically mentioned there was a need for updated software—especially

MuniSmart. They said existing programs don’t integrate well and investing in better

software would save money in the long run. They said there had been plans to

upgrade some software programs before the pandemic

• Employees expressed gratitude that the City had, for the most part, prioritized

purchasing equipment for safety. A few participants noted their jobs exposed them

to chemicals, and that they would appreciate additional protective gear to account

for potential exposures.

• A few participants thought the investment in technology had increased their

efficiency but said more training for new and existing employees on how to use

these new tools and equipment was needed. Many noted that the move to new

technology had been challenging for older staff.

• Employees said that the City’s technology infrastructure had been improved for

residents. They said residents can pay their utility bills online, file complaints

through the website and communicate with City employees when needed.

• Staff mentioned the City had an award-winning website but that it needed updated

and there were still things they could do to make it more user friendly for residents.

They said they were looking forward to the launch of the new site in the coming

weeks.

• Staff from the Police Department reported they were on a three to four-year

replacement schedule and were pleased to have laptops in all cruisers.

o They said they had body and cruiser cams, which is on pace with industry

standards, but that there were issues with connectivity. They said the body cams

had not always activated when the blue lights come on.

o Staff reported that they had experienced issues with battery life and that the

solution had been to keep cruisers running 24/7.

26

o They also mentioned that the radios had been a serious concern and could put

officer safety at risk. They said they had been working with the Chief and an

excellent IT staff member to replace the radio system.

• Participants from the Fire Department expressed the requirement to carry pagers

was outdated when they have both smartphones and the software to receive calls on

them.

o They said there was neither Wi-Fi nor enough computers to complete basic work

in their station.

o Fire Department staff also mentioned the policy preventing them from carrying

personal cell phones at work. They said this was a dangerous practice as they

had not been able to access information, such as dosage amounts, that they had

needed. They mentioned that the policy implied they would lack the

professionalism to manage their personal cell phone use appropriately.

o Fire Department participants added their dispatch software was police-based

with fire as an add-on which made even simple reporting inefficient. They said

this had increased their administrative duties, and that they had missed out on

grant opportunities as a result.

• Dispatch employees reported they could run three channels, but since all calls had

to be recorded only one channel could be used. They said this had caused delays in

response when a nearby station has needed backup or when they’ve received a

mayday call.

• Staff thought Public Works had done a good job of making sure employees had the

tools they needed to perform their jobs well, including laptops for fieldwork. They

believed this equipment had saved them time and had increased their efficiency.

• Employees from the Library reported that they had a need for computers, phones,

and updated software.

e. Organizational Structure

• Staff thought the flow of communication had not been optimal, and that it would be

helpful if all employees adhered to the same communications standards to ensure

important messages were received by relevant staff.

• Employees felt some departments had good organizational structure and

communications standards, but that these had been constantly changing.

o They said this was because Directors had not usually stayed in the position for

long, and that every new Director had changed the flow. They said that as a

result staff in their departments have had to frequently start over.

27

o Staff added that every department was different, and some were better at taking

employees’ opinions into account more than others.

• Participants reported three rounds of layoffs in 20 years. As a result, some positions

had been moved to departments where they didn’t belong. Based on this, they said

they thought the City could benefit from a reorganization.

• Staff expressed a desire to play a more active role in decision making from the top-

down, because many top-level decisions impacted rank-and-file employees directly.

They said the best ideas came from those who did the work and felt the current

decision-making processes took too long.

• Employees recalled that in the past there had been some conflicts between Directors

and Foremen. They said that Foremen should be given more of a stake in decision

making because of their experience and subject-matter expertise.

• A few participants thought the City should hire a contractor for the extra work in

Streets and Roads. They said existing staff had been overwhelmed, and that they

needed additional help.

• Staff mentioned that occasionally projects and other structured tasks had been

derailed by requests from the City Manager or Mayor based on agendas that changed

with who was in the position. They said these changes had made their jobs more

challenging and had prevented them from completing important work.

• Police participants thought they were well organized when they had one Chief, two

Captains, lieutenants, and sergeants. They said that a few key positions had been

vacant for a while which had resulted in a roster with too many sergeants and not

enough lieutenants.

f. Demographics

• Staff reported an aging demographic in the City. They said some retirees sought to

live in Claremont due to the low cost of property but that most disliked the high

taxes.

• Employees said there were many areas with low-income housing, and that 65 percent

of students qualified for free or reduced lunch. They mentioned this was

significantly higher than the New Hampshire average of 22 percent.

• Participants said that the economic demographics in the City ranged from homeless

to millionaires, but that most residents struggled with poverty because the median

income was below the state average.

28

• Staff noted that the four homeless shelters in Claremont were usually full. They

mentioned they had a concern about the possibility of an increase in homelessness

because of the pandemic. They said many of the residents who used these shelters

had mental health issues and needed additional support.

• Some participants believed the City’s demographics had been changing. They said

there were fewer students in the schools, but that some younger couples had moved

into the area.

• Employees from the Police Department reported they had been called more often for

common crimes like domestics, assaults, and drug-related offenses. They said the

opioid epidemic had a significant impact on the community.

• Participants said New Hampshire was the fifth-safest state, and that Claremont was

the safest city in the state. They said they were way below the national average for

serious bodily injury crimes.

g. Political

• Staff thought the City Manager, who came to the City in September of 2019, had

formed a good relationship with the City Council and unions. They said the most

recent union negotiations had been the smoothest in recent memory.

• Employees noted there had been four or five City Managers and six or seven Public

Works Directors in recent years. They said these changes, which had usually been

related to politics, had impacted employees’ day-to-day work environments

significantly.

• Participants thought the City Council was split between members who wanted more

information before making most decisions and others who were simply opposed to

spending more money. They said the City Council takes its time to make most

decisions.

• Staff mentioned that some work was directly driven by the Mayor or City Council,

depending on their goals. They said their regular work and priorities had been put to

the side when working on projects prioritized by City Hall.

• A few employees observed that the effects of local politics had been dependent on

who was running for office and what their motivations were. They said the tax rate

had always been a big rallying cry during election season.

• Participants shared that residents had routinely complained about the high tax rate,

even though most funds had been controlled and used by the school. They said

political efforts had been made to reduce the tax, but that it had been at the expense

of the school and City employees, specifically the Fire Department.

29

• Employees thought Claremont had often been neglected by the state government in

terms of resources. They said that they thought this was because the city is on the

western side of the state.

h. Natural Environment

• Participants said Claremont was one of the only towns for miles and the only

incorporated City in Sullivan County.

• Staff mentioned that Claremont was situated among beautiful trees and mountains

with stunning views of Mount Ascutney and the Sugar and Connecticut Rivers.

• Participants said they had a nice community center and more than 500 acres of

parks, including trails. They also noted the many outdoor activities available.

• Most employees thought the natural environment was the best part of where they

live, but some said the snowy weather posed a nuisance at times.

• Some staff said that parking downtown was sometimes difficult.

2. City of Claremont Competitors for Labor

• Participants listed these entities as the main competitors for labor:

○ City of Lebanon (some current employees lived there)

○ City of Hanover

○ City of Keene

○ Town of Hillsborough

○ Town of Newport

○ Rockingham County

○ Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center

○ Crown Point Cabinetry

○ Red River Computer Company

○ Whelan Emergency Lights

○ Hypertherm

○ Various construction firms

• Staff noted they had few industrial competitors.

• Most employees cited that better pay, benefits, and work environment had been the

primary reasons for staff leaving to pursue careers with competing employers.

30

• Participants said other cities had stolen away highly trained Claremont staff by

offering better pay, more resources, and less stress. They said because other

municipalities pay more, Claremont had often invested in training entry-level staff

and then had lost them to a competing town or city after a few years.

• Most of the staff believed the Cities of Lebanon and Hanover paid employees more.

They said the starting pay for Directors in Lebanon was $10,000 more than

Claremont and that for other municipality Directors’ starting pay was $15,000 to

$18,000 more than rank-and-file employees. They felt this encouraged a person to

be willing to take on a position with more responsibility.

• Employees noted that Claremont had recently doubled the training budget and the

staff was grateful for the additional education. They said they hoped it made more

people want to stay with the City.

• Participants said the City had started to hire outside their usual pool of candidates

and that had worked well with the right training. They said they appreciated the

additional flexibility in hiring. They noted that in the past, candidates had

sometimes seen the minimum requirements and not even applied.

• Police Department staff said officers had left for cities who offered better pay, more

benefits, and less stress. They said other cities that allowed two officers per squad

car, overtime pay, K-9-unit assignments and bike patrol were attractive to most

officers. They suggested recruiting new officers by recruiting criminal justice majors

at local colleges.

• Fire Department employees said they recruit through the state test. They said that

they also had lost good employees to other municipalities who offered better pay,

more benefits, and less stress. They said in a small department there had been little

opportunity for advancement, and that the best way for firefighters to grow their

careers had been through lateral moves to other cities.

• Participants noted it had been challenging to find part-time staff for the Library and

Parks and Rec. They said people qualified for those positions had been able to make

more money in retail and fast food work. They also said potential employees in that

field had expressed interested in working where there were more opportunities for

advancement.

3. Difficult to Retain, Develop, Motivate, and Recruit Positions

• Staff universally agreed they felt they were expected to do more work for less money

than their counterparts in neighboring cities and towns.

• They said there had been instances of non-union staff going to City Council

meetings to show they were committed to the City and didn’t want to be overlooked

31

with regards to pay. It was felt that non-represented staff were overlooked as

compared to union represented workers.

• Employees felt the City hadn’t been clear about pay range expectations in

communications with prospective employees. They said this could deter experienced

professionals from applying to Claremont or encourage turnover once the employee

realized the issue.

• Participants thought job roles often hadn’t been made clear, and that staff had

frequently been asked to do work beyond their job title which in some cases was

seen as an opportunity except when they had not been trained in that work. They

said this had caused frustration and had made staff feel not supported.

• Staff said they were afraid of the loss of older staff, through normal attrition, who

had a great deal of institutional knowledge. They said this had already happened

when people had left for better opportunities, and that the lack of succession

planning had made recovering from those losses challenging.

• Employees noted that the stringent and unrealistic state guidelines had made hiring

a challenge. For example, they said a position in the Assessing Department and

many CDL jobs in Claremont had been left vacant, because with fewer restrictions

quality applicants had been hired more easily in Vermont.

• Participants reported professional positions like the Assessor, Building Inspector,

City Planner and Attorney had been hard to recruit. They said the positions of

Assessor and Attorney had been contracted out, because the City hadn’t been able to

pay market rate for specialized full-time staff.

• Staff observed that hiring laborers and entry-level positions had been challenging,

because many applicants failed to make it past the screening tests, and that only a

handful would make it to the final portion of the test. They stated that these types

of tests were not required by most retail and fast food employers.

• Police Department employees believed it had been a challenge to find qualified

candidates because of screening diligence and pay. They said candidates had to

complete a written exam, physical fitness evaluation, polygraph, and background

test, and that this had made it difficult to find candidates.

• Participants from the Fire Department said they hadn’t had trouble finding

candidates, but that they had struggled to keep those candidates. They said many

good firefighters had eventually left to go to a community with more acitivity and

better pay. They added that their pay was tens of thousands less than their

counterparts in other cities within a 30-mile radius.

• Staff from the Fire Department shared that last year they had more calls than ever

before, yet they had fewer team members than less active neighboring towns. They

32

said the low staffing levels had posed a threat to health and safety and had made

recruiting difficult.

• Fire Department employees added that they offered mutual aid to Newport and

Ascutney, VT. They noted that the low staffing levels had made balancing providing

that support with responding to calls in their own coverage area at a moment’s

notice a challenge but attainable.

• Parks and Recreation participants expressed that staff retention had been difficult

for them. They said they that they needed enough work to keep everyone busy but

not so busy that they had to pay overtime.

• Staff mentioned the high full-time employee retention the Community Center has

had since opening in 2013. They said they had only replaced one full-time position

in seven years, and that this was because the community center was a desirable

place to work.

• Public Works employees thought most of their positions had been hard to recruit,

because few people had been seeking that type of work. They said the benefits and

time off had been attractive to candidates, but low pay was a barrier.

• Participants said the hiring process seemed political, and that the testing and other

entry-level criteria, like requiring a CDL Class-A instead of Class-B, had eliminated

good candidates in the past. They said some employees had been hired for their

professional licensures and certifications—even if they weren’t a good fit for

department culture.

• Staff reported that the City had hired some non-certified staff and then had paid to

get their licenses and training . They said hiring this way had been cheaper up front

but that the turnover low pay has caused is more expensive than paying

appropriately due to training costs and down time.

4. Compensation Plan

a. Is it motivating/fair?

• Employees noted there was a significant pay disparity between managers and front-

line staff. They said Directors and Assistant Directors had made between $85,000 to

$90,000 while drivers had struggled to make more than $40,000 annually including

overtime.

• Participants observed that most employees had maxed out their pay grade but

weren’t offered Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs). They added that many

employees had been asked to do more work without more compensation.

33

• Staff said they were aware pay cannot be increased without also increasing taxes.

They also said that because benefits go up every year, their rates of pay simply are

not keeping pace.

• Employees thought the compensation plan was inconsistent because some

employees were on the merit plans while others weren’t. They said this had also

been impacted by union negotiations. They said that sometimes new hires were

given starting pay that was more than their tenured counterparts.

• Participants said they felt the current union agreement had been good and was an

improvement. They said the current pay plan had no incentive for completing extra

work or for completing work early.

• Union Staff said they were grateful to be part of the union so that they were at least

given some sort of guarantee and structure for compensation.

• Employees cited a similar compensation study that had been completed for the City

and said that the results hadn’t been sustainable or affordable. They said they were

afraid the same would happen to the Paypoint HR study.

b. Is it in-line with the City’s goals?

• Participants said the City lacked clear goals, but leadership was aware and had been

working on a plan to create goals. They said each department should create a

strategic plan and that they would like to see the City create one as well.

• Staff mentioned the City had wanted to reduce the cost of benefits, because they

increase every year. Staff feared this may eliminate one of the only attractive things

about remaining with Claremont—a good healthcare plan.

c. Does it use the right metrics?

• Employees believed hiring had been too focused on the type of license or certificate

an employee had rather than finding the right person for the right job. They said

some people who had certifications and licenses that over-qualify them for certain

tasks were held back from advancement because of the type of work the City has

had to offer.

• Participants said there were some job requirements that should only apply to certain

jobs in certain divisions. They said requiring staff to have training and certifications

for every little task could be seen as a waste of resources.

34

d. Does it allow for advancement in your career ladder?

• Staff from the Fire Department said Lieutenants hadn’t been encouraged to seek

promotion for the pay. They also noted that a first-year firefighter makes the same

as a twenty-year veteran. They said that as a result the City had been discouraging

self-growth, because there has been no way for an employee going above and beyond

to be rewarded monetarily.

• Fire Department employees reported that Captains had been given the incentive to

complete education in the form of tuition pay and annual payout but had not been

given a corresponding raise in pay. They added that advancement hadn’t always

been possible since they were in a small city government with limited positions and

resources.

e. Is it competitive?

• Participants said that the compensation plan wasn’t competitive, because there were

no planned step increases or accountability to offer merit raises. They said raises

had been sporadic with pay remaining stagnant for several years, and then a

significant increase when least expected. They said overall, raises had been minimal

and pay scales limiting.

• Staff added that most employees knew they could seek comparable employment

elsewhere for more money.

f. What does it recognize? Education, tenure, performance?

• Employees mentioned they would like a performance-based compensation system.

They said they thought the City of Lebanon had a structure that incorporated a

performance element.

• Participants from the Fire Department noted that they do get an education payout

every year, although they’d like to see the payout in their hourly rate instead of a

lump sum at the end of the year.

5. Employee Ideas

a. Pay and Benefits

• Staff agreed the Paypoint HR study had been a great start to improve employee

compensation and benefits. They said they were eager for the results and hopeful

for meaningful change.

35

• Employees said they thought collective bargaining in the future should be done in

good faith to reduce an us-against-them mentality.

• Participants mentioned they would like a more competitive and fair compensation

system on par with other local municipalities. They said adding an annual COLA and

performance-based benefits consistent across-the-board would go a long way.

• Staff wanted benefits like overtime, bereavement, vacation, healthcare to be

consistent across departments and unions. They said this would increase a sense of

camaraderie among employees.

b. Communications and Leadership

• Employees thought increased transparency efforts would improve the relationship

with the public.

• Participants suggested that communication should be streamlined from the top

down. They said many important messages were shared “through the grapevine”

instead of as official communications from the top. They said they needed to know

who’s doing what and why so that everyone is on the same page while working

toward a common goal.

• Staff said they thought it would be helpful if the website had an employee intranet

for internal communications.

• Employees from Public Works felt that more frequent face-to-face meetings between

front office staff and Foremen to discuss important issues or projects would

significantly improve communication and workflow.

• Participants believed more contact across all departments would improve

communication and teamwork. They said experienced staff had a great deal of

institutional knowledge they could impart.

• Staff reported that some departments, because of poor communications, had

suffered from micromanaging. They said projects needed to be better organized

with a clear-cut chain of command and a way for employees to make meaningful

contributions.

• Employees agreed the City Manager had been doing a good job but would like to see

better leadership training to educate Directors and Managers about how the City

runs and was managed.

• Participants mentioned they would like performance evaluations tying back to the

previous year to manage progress and follow up on goals.

36

• Staff said many employees were required to live within a 30-minute drive to work,

but some upper management lives outside of town. They said they should lead by

example by living in Claremont.

c. Culture

• Employees expressed that the City would benefit from cultivating a human-centered

culture by focusing on the value employees bring to the organization. They said

expressing appreciation for tenure would be a great start.

• Participants felt employees would be very grateful for a free membership to the

community fitness center. They said it would be a good incentive to keep part-time

employees around and a nice thing to offer full-time employees to make them feel

appreciated.

d. Public Safety

• Staff from the Police Department believed the City would be better off hiring

experienced officers or paying entry-level officers a competitive wage, rather than

investing in training new officers, losing them to other location within three years

and starting over.

• Fire Department employees thought Captains should be eligible for overtime pay.

e. Facilities and Equipment

• Participants said there were several ways the City building could be improved

including repairing ripped treads, replacing the loud heating and cooling system,

fixing leaky windows and repairing a faulty garage door.

37

Comparators

Purpose

To determine economically comparable organizations for inclusion in the external market

study by comparing economic metrics of the City of Claremont to those of similar

communities.

Methodology

The goal was to understand how each of the twenty-nine (29) identified communities

compared with the City of Claremont. The 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 Claremont, for

example, the difference between the population of the City of Claremont and the City of

Lebanon. 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-nine (29) 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 Claremont – highlighted in red

below. Comparators highlighted in green were perceived by the client 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.)

38

Table 2 – Potential Comparators

Amherst Franklin Laconia Portsmouth

Bedford Goffstown Lebanon Raymond

Concord Hampton Londonderry Rochester

Conway Hanover Merrimack Salem

Derry Hooksett Milford Somersworth

Dover Hudson Newmarket Sullivan County

Durham Keene Pelham Windham

Exeter

For reference:

Population

Claremont – 13,022

New Hampshire – 1,343,620 United States – 321,368,864

Median Housing Price (MHP)

Claremont - $137,300

New Hampshire - $252,800 United States - $204,900

Median Household Income (MHI)

Claremont - $47,555

New Hampshire - $74,057 United States - $60,293

Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)

Claremont – 105.0

New Hampshire – 116.7 United States – 100

Unemployment Rate (U Rate)

Claremont – 4%

New Hampshire – 3% United States – 4%

Labor Force Participation Rate (LFP Rate)

Claremont – 64%

New Hampshire – 68% United States – 63%

39

Table 3 - Economic Data of the City of Claremont and Potential Comparators

Community Population MHP MHI COLA U Rate LFP

Rate

Claremont 13,022 $137,300 $47,555 105.0 4% 64%

Amherst 11,241 $378,000 $131,450 133.3 2% 61%

Bedford 22,388 $394,500 $131,986 137.1 2% 69%

Concord 42,634 $204,600 $57,566 113.7 3% 64%

Conway 10,078 $184,400 $60,323 98.8 1% 68%

Derry 33,515 $234,200 $71,725 114.1 4% 75%

Dover 30,750 $238,100 $63,096 116.9 4% 71%

Durham 16,440 $371,900 $75,066 118.4 3% 70%

Exeter 14,921 $274,300 $77,766 115.4 3% 67%

Franklin 8,440 $160,100 $44,490 107.1 4% 61%

Goffstown 18,062 $251,700 $85,529 113.8 3% 66%

Hampton 15,452 $360,900 $82,485 129.4 2% 68%

Hanover 11,512 $548,200 $133,672 146.1 1% 50%

Hooksett 14,221 $241,900 $83,864 116.4 3% 71%

Hudson 25,185 $279,900 $96,224 115.4 3% 73%

Keene 23,537 $183,300 $53,499 111.8 3% 63%

Laconia 16,171 $178,100 $48,893 110.0 5% 63%

Lebanon 13,528 $240,000 $56,448 116.1 2% 67%

Londonderry 25,529 $305,300 $101,500 123.0 2% 73%

Merrimack 25,815 $273,200 $103,043 121.7 3% 74%

Milford 15,569 $246,400 $77,813 114.9 4% 73%

Newmarket 9,038 $275,800 $75,290 116.3 2% 75%

Pelham 13,596 $340,600 $103,940 129.0 2% 72%

Portsmouth 21,458 $361,000 $69,664 128.8 2% 72%

Raymond 10,389 $225,400 $76,713 114.2 3% 74%

Rochester 30,052 $161,200 $50,759 108.8 4% 65%

Salem 29,133 $310,200 $83,343 123.4 3% 70%

Somersworth 11,756 $176,500 $60,943 111.3 5% 75%

Sullivan County - $174,000 $59,419 108.2 2% 63%

Windham 14,508 $420,600 $133,222 141.7 2% 70%

40

Table 4 – Statistics of Potential Comparators

Community Population MHP MHI COLA U Rate LFP

Rate

Amherst 0.21 2.56 3.15 2.59 1.92 0.54

Bedford 1.10 2.74 3.17 2.94 1.92 0.90

Concord 3.48 0.72 0.38 0.80 0.96 0.00

Conway 0.35 0.50 0.48 0.57 2.88 0.72

Derry 2.41 1.03 0.91 0.83 0.00 1.98

Dover 2.08 1.07 0.58 1.09 0.00 1.26

Durham 0.40 2.50 1.03 1.23 0.96 1.08

Exeter 0.22 1.46 1.13 0.95 0.96 0.54

Franklin 0.54 0.24 0.12 0.19 0.00 0.54

Goffstown 0.59 1.22 1.43 0.81 0.96 0.36

Hampton 0.29 2.38 1.31 2.24 1.92 0.72

Hanover 0.18 4.37 3.23 3.76 2.88 2.51

Hooksett 0.14 1.11 1.36 1.04 0.96 1.26

Hudson 1.43 1.52 1.83 0.95 0.96 1.62

Keene 1.24 0.49 0.22 0.62 0.96 0.18

Laconia 0.37 0.43 0.05 0.46 0.96 0.18

Lebanon 0.06 1.09 0.33 1.02 1.92 0.54

Londonderry 1.47 1.79 2.03 1.65 1.92 1.62

Merrimack 1.50 1.45 2.08 1.53 0.96 1.80

Milford 0.30 1.16 1.14 0.91 0.00 1.62

Newmarket 0.47 1.47 1.04 1.04 1.92 1.98

Pelham 0.07 2.16 2.12 2.20 1.92 1.44

Portsmouth 0.99 2.38 0.83 2.18 1.92 1.44

Raymond 0.31 0.94 1.10 0.84 0.96 1.80

Rochester 2.00 0.25 0.12 0.35 0.00 0.18

Salem 1.89 1.84 1.34 1.69 0.96 1.08

Somersworth 0.15 0.42 0.50 0.58 0.96 1.98

Sullivan County - 0.39 0.45 0.29 1.92 0.18

Windham 0.17 3.01 3.22 3.36 1.92 1.08

41

Sample Calculation

Sample Calculation for City of Lebanon

Population Statistic

Maximum Population = 42,634 (Concord)

Minimum Population = 8,440 (Franklin)

City of Claremont Population = 13,022

City of Lebanon Population = 13,528

Sample Average = 18,894

Sample Standard Deviation (s) = 8,504

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 =|𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡 − 𝐿𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑛|

𝑠

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 =|13,022 − 13,528|

8,504

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 = 0.06

42

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 5 through Table 10, 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 Claremont were examined.

Table 5 – Benchmark Positions – AFSCME Clerical

Gr Job Title Gr Job Title

B Custodian B III Assistant Welfare Director

B Fire Department Secretary III Bookkeeper Water and Sewer

B Technical Services/Catalog Librarian

III Deputy City Clerk/Tax Collector

I Customer Service/Program Leader

III DPW Administrative Clerk

II Deputy Tax Collector III P&D Resource Coordinator

II Office Assistant/Floating Assistant

IV Custodian IV

II P&D Administrative Assistant IV Park Maintenance/CSBCC IV

III Accounts Payable/Payroll Clerk

Table 6 – Benchmark Positions – AFSCME DPW


U12 DPW Skilled Laborer/Truck Driver 12

U16 Mechanic/DPW


U16 Shop Inventory Clerk


U17 Working Foreman/DPW

U14 Medium Equipment Operator U18 General Foreman/DPW

U15 Heavy Equipment Operator

43

Table 7 – Benchmark Positions – Merit


1 Seasonal 1 8 Information Systems I

2 Children's Library Clerk 8 Superintendent of Recreational Programs

2 Circulation Clerk 9 Chief Building and Code

2 Communications Specialist 2 9 City Clerk & Tax Collector

2 Deputy Tax Collector 2 9 Communication/Records Manager

2 Fitness Instructor 9 Fire Captain

2 Front Desk Staff 9 Human Resources Manager

2 Gym Monitor 9 Superintendent of Parks & Facilities

2 Library Page 10 City Planner

2 Lifeguard 10 Network Administrator

2 Park Maintenance/CSBCC 2 10 Police Captain

2 Seasonal 2 10 Project Manager

5 Farmers Market 10 Treasurer/Assistant Finance Director

6 Office Manager/DPW 10 Welfare Director

6 Police Administrative Assistant 11 Assistant Director DPW

7 Assessing Technician 11 Deputy Fire Chief

7 Business Development Specialist 11 Deputy Police Chief

7 Center Coordinator 11 Librarian/Director

7 Executive Assistant/Clerk to Council

11 Parks and Recreation Director

7 Library Circulation Librarian 12 Finance Director

7 Maintenance Supervisor 12 Fire Chief/Director

7 Police Detective/Prosecutor 12 Planning and Development Director

8 Accreditation Coordinator 12 Police Chief/Director

8 Children's Librarian 12 Public Works Director

44

Table 8 – Benchmark Positions – IAFF


FF Firefighter/EMT LT Fire Department Lieutenant

Table 9 – Benchmark Positions – PBA


COM Communications Specialist SGT Police Sergeant

PO Police Officer

Table 10 – Benchmark Positions – Contract


CM City Manager

45

Baseline Analysis

Current Salary Schedule – Merit

Paypoint reviewed the salary schedule for Merit Employees which is presented in Table 11.

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 11 has a consistent

spread of 52.1%, but only for grades 5 through 12, as is shown in Table 12. It is important

that the spread is consistent amongst all employees so that all positions have a relatively

equal advancement opportunity.

Table 11 – Current Salary Schedule - Merit

Current

Grade Min Mid Max

1 $7.25 $9.73 $12.20

2 $7.25 $11.28 $15.30

4-A $7.25 $7.51 -

4-C $7.69 $8.00 -

5 $12.36 $15.58 $18.80

6 $14.44 $18.21 $21.97

7 $16.26 $20.50 $24.73

8 $17.96 $22.64 $27.32

9 $20.77 $26.18 $31.59

10 $23.20 $29.24 $35.28

11 $26.19 $33.02 $39.84

12 $29.93 $37.73 $45.53

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, ranges

from 0% to 25.4%. It is recommended that the ladders be consistent between grades.

46

Table 12 – Current Spread and Ladders - Merit

Current

Grade Spread

Min

Ladder

Mid

Ladder

Max

Ladder

1 68.3% - - -

2 111.0% 0.0% 15.9% 25.4%

4-A N/A - - -

4-C N/A - - -

5 52.1% - - -

6 52.1% 16.8% 16.8% 16.9%

7 52.1% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6%

8 52.1% 10.5% 10.5% 10.5%

9 52.1% 15.6% 15.6% 15.6%

10 52.1% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7%

11 52.1% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9%

12 52.1% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3%

Current Salary Schedule – AFSCME Clerical

Paypoint reviewed the salary plan for AFSCME Clerical Employees which is presented in

Table 13. Midpoints for each salary grade have also been calculated for comparison with

external market data. Midpoints for AFSCME Clerical grades used the minimum published

rate with minimum experience and the maximum published rate with the highest number of

years of relevant experience. Employees may be compensated above these rates based on

cost of living or other adjustments.

Table 13 – Current Salary Schedule – AFSCME Clerical

Current

Grade Min Mid Max

I $7.25 $11.08 $14.90

II $7.25 $12.58 $17.90

III $8.00 $13.65 $19.30

IV $10.00 $15.35 $20.70

B $7.25 $11.58 $15.90

47

The salary schedule from Table 13 has an inconsistent spread ranging from 105.5% to

146.9% as is shown in Table 14. It is important that the spread is consistent amongst all

employees so that all positions have a relatively equal advancement opportunity.

Table 14 – Current Spread and Ladders – AFSCME Clerical

Current

Grade Spread

Min

Ladder

Mid

Ladder

Max

Ladder

I 105.5% - - -

II 146.9% 0.0% 13.5% 20.1%

III 141.3% 10.3% 8.5% 7.8%

IV 107.0% 25.0% 12.5% 7.3%

B 119.3% - - -

The ladders are inconsistent ranging between 0% to 25.0%, between consecutive minimums,

consecutive midpoints, and consecutive maximums. (Ladders are not applicable for Grade B

as job titles covered are not hierarchal.) It is recommended that the ladders be consistent

between consecutive groups of job titles.

Current Salary Schedule – AFSCME DPW

Paypoint reviewed the salary schedule for AFSCME DPW Employees which is presented in

Table 15. Midpoints for each salary grade have also been calculated for comparison with

external market data.

Table 15 – Current Salary Schedule – AFSCME DPW

Current

Grade Min Mid Max

U12 $17.23 $17.48 $17.72

U13 $18.20 $18.45 $18.69

U14 $19.18 $19.42 $19.66

U15 $20.14 $20.39 $20.63

U16 $21.12 $21.36 $21.60

U17 $22.09 $22.33 $22.57

U18 $23.54 $24.03 $24.51

48

The salary schedule from Table 15 has an inconsistent spread ranging from 2.2% to 4.1% as

is shown in Table 16. It is important that the spread is consistent amongst all employees so

that all positions have a relatively equal advancement opportunity.

Table 16 – Current Spread and Ladders – AFSCME DPW

Current

Grade Spread

Min

Ladder

Mid

Ladder

Max

Ladder

U12 2.8% - - -

U13 2.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.5%

U14 2.5% 5.4% 5.3% 5.2%

U15 2.4% 5.0% 5.0% 4.9%

U16 2.3% 4.9% 4.8% 4.7%

U17 2.2% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5%

U18 4.1% 6.6% 7.6% 8.6%

The ladders are inconsistent ranging between 4.5% to 8.6%, between consecutive minimums,

consecutive midpoints, and consecutive maximums. It is recommended that the ladders be

consistent between consecutive groups of job titles.

Current Salary Schedule – IAFF

Paypoint reviewed the salary schedule for IAFF Employees which is presented in Table 17.


market data.

Table 17 – Current Salary Schedule – IAFF

Current

Grade Min Mid Max

FF $20.02 $20.82 $21.62

LT $23.92 $24.12 $24.32

The salary schedule from Table 17 has an inconsistent spread ranging from 1.7% to 8.0% as

is shown in Table 18. It is important that the spread is consistent amongst all employees so

that all positions have a relatively equal advancement opportunity.

49

Table 18 – Current Spread and Ladders – IAFF

Current

Grade Spread

Min

Ladder

Mid

Ladder

Max

Ladder

FF 8.0% - - -

LT 1.7% 19.5% 15.9% 12.5%

The ladders are inconsistent ranging between 12.5% to 19.5%, between consecutive

minimums, consecutive midpoints, and consecutive maximums. It is recommended that the

ladders be consistent between consecutive groups of job titles.

Current Salary Schedule – PBA

Paypoint reviewed the salary schedule for PBA Employees which is presented in Table 19.


market data.

Table 19 – Current Salary Schedule – PBA

Current

Grade Min Mid Max

COM $19.18 $21.58 $23.98

PO $21.10 $24.65 $28.21

SGT $22.99 $27.29 $31.59

The salary schedule from Table 19 has an inconsistent spread ranging from 25.0% to 37.4%

as is shown in Table 20. It is important that the spread is consistent amongst all employees

so that all positions have a relatively equal advancement opportunity.

Table 20 – Current Spread and Ladders – PBA

Current

Grade Spread

Min

Ladder

Mid

Ladder

Max

Ladder

COM 25.0% - - -

PO 33.7% - - -

SGT 37.4% 9.0% 10.7% 12.0%

50

The ladders are inconsistent ranging between 0% to 25.0%, between consecutive minimums,

consecutive midpoints, and consecutive maximums. (Ladders are not applicable for

Communication Specialist as the title is not hierarchal with respect to sworn officers.) It is

recommended that the ladders be consistent between consecutive groups of job titles.

Current Salary Schedule - Contract

Not applicable as the contract does not contain a salary schedule.

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.

Figure 1 – Salary Distribution

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.

51

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.

Distribution Observations - Merit

Table 21 examines salaries of all Merit employees with respect to the maximum and

minimum of each grade. In Table 22, the distribution of salaries above or below the

midpoint of each grade is presented. (Distribution observations for compensation governed

by a collective bargaining agreement is not applicable.)

Table 21 – Employees Near Min/Max

Current

Grade

Staff

#

# near

Min

% near

Min

# near

Max

% near

Max

1 5 0 0.0% 3 60.0%

2 71 0 0.0% 2 2.8%

5 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

6 2 0 0.0% 1 50.0%

7 8 1 12.5% 2 25.0%

8 4 0 0.0% 1 25.0%

9 9 0 0.0% 6 66.7%

10 6 0 0.0% 1 16.7%

11 4 0 0.0% 1 25.0%

12 5 0 0.0% 2 40.0%

Sum 110 1 0.9% 17 15.5%

Observations

• Overall, there is not a high concentration (>20%) of salaries at either the minimum or

maximum.

• There is not a high concentration of employees near the minimum or 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.

52

• There is not a high concentration of employees below or above the midpoint of each

respective grade. This suggests the distribution of salaries is not skewed. A high

concentration of employees below the midpoint can lead to or be the cause of

systemic employment issues.

• Overall, there is not a high concentration of total number employees above or below

the midpoint (50.9% / 49.1%), that is, there is a balanced distribution of salaries.

• Four (4) employees are currently being compensated above the maximum of the

current respective grades, namely, 3 Seasonal I and 1 Office Manager/DPW. In

addition, there is one (1) employee currently compensated below the minimum of

the current respective grade, namely, 1 Library Circulation Librarian.

Table 22 – Employees Near Midpoint

Current

Grade

Staff

#

Below

Mid

Below

Mid %

Above

Mid

Above

Mid %

1 5 1 20.0% 4 80.0%

2 71 47 66.2% 24 33.8%

5 1 1 100.0% 0 0.0%

6 2 1 50.0% 1 50.0%

7 8 3 37.5% 5 62.5%

8 4 2 50.0% 2 50.0%

9 9 1 11.1% 8 88.9%

10 6 0 0.0% 6 100.0%

11 4 0 0.0% 4 100.0%

12 5 0 0.0% 5 100.0%

Sum 110 56 50.9% 54 49.1%

53

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.

Upon the conclusion of this study, the City will be able to use this customized CFS Scoring

system to analyze both new job titles and existing job titles where job duties have changed

using the same metrics used to analyze the job titles in the table below. This will allow for

all new and updated job titles to be examined fairly while also preserving internal equity at

the City.

54

External Market Comparison

A summary of the findings of the external market analysis is presented in Table 23 through

Table 27. In Table 28 and Table 33, 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. Compensation of individual employees is considered

separately.

Table 23 – Full-Time Positions Substantially Below Market (% Diff< -10%)

Accreditation Coordinator Firefighter/EMT

Assessing Technician Fitness Instructor

Assistant Director DPW Front Desk Staff

Business Development Specialist General Foreman/DPW

Center Coordinator Gym Monitor

Chief Building and Code Human Resources Manager

Children's Librarian Information Systems I

Children's Library Clerk Librarian/Director

Circulation Clerk Library Circulation Librarian

City Clerk & Tax Collector Library Page

City Manager Lifeguard

City Planner Maintenance Supervisor

Communication/Records Manager Mechanic/DPW

Communications Specialist 2 Network Administrator

Executive Assistant/Clerk to Council Office Manager/DPW

Farmers Market Park Maintenance/CSBCC 2

Finance Director Planning and Development Director

Fire Captain Police Administrative Assistant

Fire Chief/Director Police Captain

Fire Department Lieutenant Police Chief/Director

55

Police Detective/Prosecutor Shop Inventory Clerk

Police Officer Superintendent of Parks & Facilities

Police Sergeant Superintendent of Recreational Programs

Project Manager Treasurer/Assistant Finance Director

Public Works Director Welfare Director

Seasonal 1 Working Foreman/DPW

Seasonal 2

Table 24 – Full-Time Positions Below Market (-10% < % Diff < -5%)

DPW Skilled Laborer/Truck Driver 12 Heavy Equipment Operator

DPW Skilled Laborer/Truck Driver 13 Medium Equipment Operator

DPW Skilled Laborer/Truck Driver 14 Parks and Recreation Director

Table 25 – Full-Time Positions Near Market (-5% < % Diff < +5%)

Communications Specialist

Table 26 – Full-Time Positions Above Market (+5% < % Diff < +10%)

None

Table 27 – Full-Time Positions Substantially Above Market (% Diff > +10%)

None

56

Table 28 – External Market Comparison - IAFF

Firefighter Lieutenant

Current Scale

Grade FF LT

Minimum $20.02 $23.92

Midpoint $20.82 $24.12

Maximum $21.62 $24.32

Market Percentiles

20% $20.33 $25.33

25% $20.69 $26.39

30% $21.15 $27.19

35% $21.42 $27.50

40% $21.94 $27.79

45% $22.43 $28.52

50% $23.19 $29.30

55% $23.77 $29.55

60% $24.11 $30.26

65% $25.11 $30.49

70% $25.56 $30.58

75% $25.76 $30.60

80% $26.28 $31.35

Average $23.57 $28.73

Compa-Ratio

-10.2% -17.7%

57

Table 29 – External Market Comparison - Contract

Current Scale

Grade CM

Minimum

Midpoint $58.65

Maximum

Market Percentiles

20% $58.18

25% $58.65

30% $58.65

35% $60.27

40% $60.81

45% $61.58

50% $67.44

55% $70.96

60% $70.96

65% $70.97

70% $70.97

75% $71.92

80% $72.24

Average $66.74

Compa-Ratio

-13.0%

58

Table 30 – External Market Comparison – AFSCME DPW

DPW Skilled

Laborer /

Truck Drvr

DPW Skilled

Laborer /

Truck Drvr

DPW Skilled

Laborer /

Truck Drvr

General

Foreman

Heavy

Equipment

Operator

Current Scale

Grade U12 U13 U14 U18 U15

Minimum $17.23 $18.20 $19.18 $23.54 $20.14

Midpoint $17.48 $18.45 $19.42 $24.03 $20.39

Maximum $17.72 $18.69 $19.66 $24.51 $20.63

Market Percentiles

20% $16.39 $18.22 $18.62 $24.51 $19.90

25% $16.56 $18.41 $18.96 $24.96 $20.20

30% $16.96 $18.69 $19.35 $25.51 $20.65

35% $17.55 $19.32 $19.91 $26.16 $21.16

40% $17.91 $19.65 $20.29 $26.97 $21.51

45% $18.18 $19.94 $20.70 $28.30 $21.63

50% $18.46 $20.22 $21.02 $28.85 $21.71

55% $19.20 $20.63 $21.72 $28.91 $22.70

60% $19.55 $21.13 $22.09 $29.19 $23.09

65% $20.10 $21.43 $22.62 $29.94 $23.38

70% $20.63 $21.76 $23.17 $31.33 $24.27

75% $21.34 $22.71 $23.84 $32.11 $25.22

80% $21.86 $23.45 $24.38 $32.88 $25.45

Average $19.05 $20.57 $21.46 $28.69 $22.53

Compa-Ratio

-5.3% -8.8% -7.6% -16.7% -6.1%

59

Mechanic

Medium

Equipment

Operator

Shop

Inventory

Clerk

Working

Foreman

Current Scale

Grade U16 U14 U16 U17

Minimum $21.12 $19.18 $21.12 $22.09

Midpoint $21.36 $19.42 $21.36 $22.33

Maximum $21.60 $19.66 $21.60 $22.57

Market Percentiles

20% $21.36 $18.62 $21.26 $22.83

25% $22.39 $18.96 $21.79 $23.49

30% $22.78 $19.35 $22.16 $23.84

35% $23.13 $19.91 $22.69 $24.35

40% $23.18 $20.29 $23.11 $24.80

45% $23.88 $20.70 $23.66 $25.44

50% $24.19 $21.02 $24.04 $25.85

55% $25.18 $21.72 $24.68 $26.46

60% $25.79 $22.09 $25.10 $26.90

65% $26.41 $22.62 $25.60 $27.39

70% $26.83 $23.17 $26.17 $27.96

75% $27.74 $23.84 $26.79 $28.56

80% $28.00 $24.38 $27.36 $29.14

Average $25.03 $21.46 $24.31 $26.02

Compa-Ratio

-11.7% -7.6% -11.1% -13.6%

60

Table 31 – External Market Comparison – AFSCME Clerical

AP/Payroll

Clerk

Assistant

Welfare

Director

Bookkeeper

Water &

Sewer

Custodian Custodian

Current Scale

Grade III III III B IV

Minimum

Midpoint

Maximum

Market Percentiles

20% $18.08 $13.71 $13.71 $12.89 $15.36

25% $18.65 $13.67 $13.67 $12.78 $15.75

30% $18.78 $14.10 $14.10 $13.21 $16.15

35% $19.37 $14.72 $14.72 $13.85 $17.11

40% $19.92 $15.04 $15.04 $14.15 $17.49

45% $20.20 $15.16 $15.16 $14.23 $17.92

50% $20.69 $15.38 $15.38 $14.43 $18.19

55% $21.14 $16.17 $16.17 $15.24 $18.73

60% $21.50 $16.49 $16.49 $15.55 $18.97

65% $22.11 $17.06 $17.06 $16.12 $19.66

70% $22.68 $17.58 $17.58 $16.64 $20.11

75% $23.02 $18.33 $18.33 $17.41 $20.69

80% $23.68 $18.83 $18.83 $17.89 $21.38

Average $20.83 $16.14 $16.14 $15.25 $18.19

Compa-Ratio

61

Customer

Service

Leader

Deputy City

Clerk/Tax

Collector

Deputy Tax

Collector

DPW

Admin.

Clerk

Fire

Department

Secretary

Current Scale

Grade I III II III B

Minimum

Midpoint

Maximum

Market Percentiles

20% $12.93 $13.71 $13.13 $14.63 $12.89

25% $12.83 $13.67 $13.04 $14.65 $12.78

30% $13.26 $14.10 $13.47 $15.07 $13.21

35% $13.90 $14.72 $14.11 $15.69 $13.85

40% $14.20 $15.04 $14.41 $16.02 $14.15

45% $14.28 $15.16 $14.50 $16.19 $14.23

50% $14.48 $15.38 $14.71 $16.43 $14.43

55% $15.29 $16.17 $15.52 $17.21 $15.24

60% $15.60 $16.49 $15.82 $17.53 $15.55

65% $16.17 $17.06 $16.40 $18.09 $16.12

70% $16.70 $17.58 $16.92 $18.62 $16.64

75% $17.46 $18.33 $17.68 $19.36 $17.41

80% $17.95 $18.83 $18.17 $19.86 $17.89

Average $15.30 $16.14 $15.51 $17.13 $15.25

Compa-Ratio

62

Office

Assistant /

Floating

P&D Admin.

Assistant

P&D

Resource

Coord.

Park

Maint./

CSBCC

Technical

Services

Librarian

Current Scale

Grade II II III IV B

Minimum

Midpoint

Maximum

Market Percentiles

20% $13.13 $17.37 $14.09 $14.81 $12.89

25% $13.04 $17.88 $14.08 $14.85 $12.78

30% $13.48 $17.90 $14.50 $15.27 $13.21

35% $14.11 $18.06 $15.12 $15.88 $13.85

40% $14.41 $19.02 $15.44 $16.21 $14.15

45% $14.51 $20.10 $15.59 $16.40 $14.23

50% $14.71 $20.45 $15.81 $16.64 $14.43

55% $15.52 $21.08 $16.60 $17.41 $15.24

60% $15.83 $22.09 $16.92 $17.74 $15.55

65% $16.40 $23.37 $17.49 $18.30 $16.12

70% $16.92 $24.67 $18.01 $18.83 $16.64

75% $17.68 $25.14 $18.76 $19.56 $17.41

80% $18.17 $25.38 $19.26 $20.07 $17.89

Average $15.51 $20.90 $16.55 $17.33 $15.25

Compa-Ratio

63

Table 32 – External Market Comparison – PBA

Comm.

Specialist

Police

Officer

Police

Sergeant

Current Scale

Grade COM PO SGT

Minimum $19.18 $21.10 $22.99

Midpoint $21.58 $24.65 $27.29

Maximum $23.98 $28.21 $31.59

Market Percentiles

20% $20.29 $24.36 $31.86

25% $20.34 $25.28 $33.54

30% $20.58 $25.61 $33.66

35% $20.86 $26.35 $34.22

40% $21.42 $26.85 $34.62

45% $21.70 $27.26 $35.52

50% $21.98 $28.12 $36.02

55% $23.06 $28.45 $36.52

60% $23.40 $29.11 $37.14

65% $23.54 $29.66 $37.39

70% $24.04 $29.88 $37.48

75% $24.26 $30.35 $37.83

80% $24.87 $32.06 $38.57

Average $22.56 $28.02 $35.29

Compa-Ratio

-1.8% -12.3% -24.2%

64

Table 33 – External Market Comparison – Merit

Accred.

Coordinator

Assessing

Technician

Assistant

Director

DPW

Business

Dev.

Specialist

Center

Coordinator

Current Scale

Grade 8 7 11 7 7

Minimum $17.96 $16.26 $26.19 $16.26 $16.26

Midpoint $22.64 $20.50 $33.02 $20.50 $20.50

Maximum $27.32 $24.73 $39.84 $24.73 $24.73

Market Percentiles

20% $23.34 $24.07 $37.21 $23.16 $25.23

25% $24.19 $24.96 $39.09 $24.00 $26.19

30% $25.30 $26.08 $39.32 $25.11 $27.32

35% $25.82 $26.61 $39.56 $25.63 $27.86

40% $26.59 $27.42 $40.67 $26.39 $28.73

45% $27.28 $28.12 $41.62 $27.08 $29.45

50% $27.83 $28.71 $42.76 $27.63 $30.10

55% $28.53 $29.41 $43.30 $28.32 $30.81

60% $29.30 $30.21 $44.75 $29.09 $31.64

65% $30.01 $30.95 $45.62 $29.79 $32.43

70% $30.83 $31.82 $46.54 $30.60 $33.37

75% $31.77 $32.76 $47.49 $31.54 $34.32

80% $32.87 $33.86 $48.88 $32.63 $35.42

Average $28.01 $28.89 $42.74 $27.81 $30.27

Compa-Ratio

-18.7% -28.6% -22.8% -25.8% -31.9%

65

Chief

Building &

Code

Children’s

Librarian

Children’s

Library

Clerk

Circulation

Clerk

City Clerk

& Tax

Collector

Current Scale

Grade 9 8 2 2 9

Minimum $20.77 $17.96 $7.25 $7.25 $20.77

Midpoint $26.18 $22.64 $11.28 $11.28 $26.18

Maximum $31.59 $27.32 $15.30 $15.30 $31.59

Market Percentiles

20% $26.68 $23.30 $13.08 $13.08 $30.27

25% $28.99 $24.06 $13.35 $13.35 $31.50

30% $29.34 $26.17 $14.34 $14.34 $32.69

35% $29.58 $26.29 $14.73 $14.73 $33.31

40% $31.49 $27.32 $15.00 $15.00 $34.42

45% $32.02 $27.32 $15.54 $15.54 $35.22

50% $32.62 $27.48 $15.59 $15.59 $36.11

55% $33.39 $28.65 $16.17 $16.17 $36.88

60% $35.04 $29.04 $16.65 $16.65 $37.85

65% $37.57 $29.06 $16.91 $16.91 $38.86

70% $38.13 $29.76 $17.09 $17.09 $40.12

75% $38.67 $32.10 $17.98 $17.98 $41.09

80% $40.57 $33.64 $19.07 $19.07 $42.19

Average $33.87 $28.36 $15.82 $15.82 $36.26

Compa-Ratio

-19.7% -17.6% -27.7% -27.7% -27.5%

66

City

Planner

Comm./

Records

Manager

Comm.

Specialist

Deputy Fire

Chief

Deputy

Police Chief

Current Scale

Grade 10 9 2 11

Minimum $23.20 $20.77 $7.25 $26.19 -

Midpoint $29.24 $26.18 $11.28 $33.02 -

Maximum $35.28 $31.59 $15.30 $39.84 -

Market Percentiles

20% $30.03 $28.99 $13.08 $36.78 $37.72

25% $31.25 $30.15 $13.35 $37.17 $39.65

30% $32.44 $31.32 $14.34 $38.43 $43.00

35% $33.05 $31.92 $14.73 $39.90 $43.64

40% $34.15 $32.97 $15.00 $41.07 $45.22

45% $34.95 $33.75 $15.54 $43.03 $46.04

50% $35.82 $34.57 $15.59 $43.55 $47.54

55% $36.59 $35.33 $16.17 $43.87 $49.29

60% $37.56 $36.27 $16.65 $45.49 $50.21

65% $38.55 $37.22 $16.91 $45.60 $50.42

70% $39.80 $38.40 $17.09 $47.03 $52.25

75% $40.77 $39.36 $17.98 $48.80 $53.61

80% $41.87 $40.46 $19.07 $49.64 $56.28

Average $35.97 $34.73 $15.82 $42.70 $47.35

Compa-Ratio

-18.4% -24.3% -27.7% -24.2% -

67

Deputy Tax

Collector

Executive

Asst / Clerk

to Council

Farmers

Market

Finance

Director Fire Captain

Current Scale

Grade 2 7 5 12 9

Minimum $7.25 $16.26 $12.36 $29.93 $20.77

Midpoint $11.28 $20.50 $15.58 $37.73 $26.18

Maximum $15.30 $24.73 $18.80 $45.53 $31.59

Market Percentiles

20% $13.08 $20.72 $17.67 $43.02 $31.89

25% $13.35 $21.29 $18.20 $44.81 $32.73

30% $14.34 $23.61 $19.25 $45.39 $32.93

35% $14.73 $24.74 $19.69 $45.76 $33.08

40% $15.00 $24.91 $20.19 $46.63 $33.65

45% $15.54 $25.10 $20.80 $47.53 $33.96

50% $15.59 $25.90 $21.07 $48.92 $33.97

55% $16.17 $26.59 $21.71 $50.53 $34.40

60% $16.65 $27.86 $22.31 $51.56 $35.08

65% $16.91 $29.17 $22.78 $54.29 $35.96

70% $17.09 $29.59 $23.24 $55.40 $36.45

75% $17.98 $29.83 $24.16 $56.00 $38.19

80% $19.07 $31.01 $25.25 $56.93 $39.23

Average $15.82 $26.48 $21.28 $49.47 $35.14

Compa-Ratio

-27.7% -20.9% -26.1% -22.9% -22.9%

68

Fire Chief

Director

Fitness

Instructor

Front Desk

Staff

Gym

Monitor

Human

Resources

Manager

Current Scale

Grade 12 2 2 2 9

Minimum $29.93 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $20.77

Midpoint $37.73 $11.28 $11.28 $11.28 $26.18

Maximum $45.53 $15.30 $15.30 $15.30 $31.59

Market Percentiles

20% $41.11 $13.08 $13.00 $13.08 $26.43

25% $43.00 $13.35 $13.65 $13.35 $27.11

30% $44.37 $14.34 $14.13 $14.34 $27.99

35% $45.22 $14.73 $14.37 $14.73 $29.06

40% $47.12 $15.00 $14.94 $15.00 $30.24

45% $47.80 $15.54 $15.58 $15.54 $31.48

50% $49.60 $15.59 $16.24 $15.59 $32.33

55% $51.22 $16.17 $16.61 $16.17 $33.09

60% $51.70 $16.65 $17.30 $16.65 $33.25

65% $52.73 $16.91 $18.22 $16.91 $33.78

70% $56.69 $17.09 $19.21 $17.09 $35.27

75% $58.36 $17.98 $19.71 $17.98 $36.41

80% $59.06 $19.07 $20.11 $19.07 $37.14

Average $50.51 $15.82 $16.61 $15.82 $31.69

Compa-Ratio

-23.9% -27.7% -30.6% -27.7% -19.0%

69

Information

Systems I

Librarian

Director

Library

Circulation

Librarian

Library

Page Lifeguard

Current Scale

Grade 8 11 7 2 2

Minimum $17.96 $26.19 $16.26 $7.25 $7.25

Midpoint $22.64 $33.02 $20.50 $11.28 $11.28

Maximum $27.32 $39.84 $24.73 $15.30 $15.30

Market Percentiles

20% $24.86 $33.80 $22.34 $13.08 $13.08

25% $25.79 $36.35 $23.13 $13.35 $13.35

30% $26.91 $38.68 $24.23 $14.34 $14.34

35% $27.46 $40.00 $24.74 $14.73 $14.73

40% $28.30 $41.09 $25.47 $15.00 $15.00

45% $29.02 $41.34 $26.14 $15.54 $15.54

50% $29.64 $42.12 $26.65 $15.59 $15.59

55% $30.36 $42.12 $27.33 $16.17 $16.17

60% $31.17 $46.33 $28.07 $16.65 $16.65

65% $31.94 $47.69 $28.74 $16.91 $16.91

70% $32.86 $48.80 $29.50 $17.09 $17.09

75% $33.81 $49.09 $30.43 $17.98 $17.98

80% $34.91 $49.18 $31.53 $19.07 $19.07

Average $29.82 $42.42 $26.83 $15.82 $15.82

Compa-Ratio

-23.6% -21.6% -23.1% -27.7% -27.7%

70

Maint.

Supervisor

Network

Admin.

Office

Manager

Park Maint.

CSBCC

Parks &

Recreation

Director

Current Scale

Grade 7 10 6 2 11

Minimum $16.26 $23.20 $14.44 $7.25 $26.19

Midpoint $20.50 $29.24 $18.21 $11.28 $33.02

Maximum $24.73 $35.28 $21.97 $15.30 $39.84

Market Percentiles

20% $22.48 $29.31 $23.43 $13.08 $26.35

25% $23.28 $29.81 $24.28 $13.35 $27.24

30% $24.38 $31.14 $25.39 $14.34 $28.18

35% $24.89 $32.08 $25.92 $14.73 $29.59

40% $25.62 $32.88 $26.69 $15.00 $33.26

45% $26.30 $33.15 $27.39 $15.54 $34.03

50% $26.81 $33.62 $27.94 $15.59 $34.97

55% $27.50 $34.48 $28.64 $16.17 $35.86

60% $28.24 $35.30 $29.41 $16.65 $38.74

65% $28.91 $35.40 $30.13 $16.91 $39.84

70% $29.68 $35.95 $30.96 $17.09 $40.08

75% $30.62 $36.72 $31.89 $17.98 $40.78

80% $31.72 $38.65 $32.99 $19.07 $42.80

Average $26.99 $34.04 $28.12 $15.82 $35.29

Compa-Ratio

-23.6% -13.0% -34.9% -27.7% -5.6%

71

Planning &

Dev.

Director

Police

Admin.

Assistant

Police

Captain

Police Chief

Director

Police

Detective/

Prosecutor

Current Scale

Grade 12 6 10 12 7

Minimum $29.93 $14.44 $23.20 $29.93 $16.26

Midpoint $37.73 $18.21 $29.24 $37.73 $20.50

Maximum $45.53 $21.97 $35.28 $45.53 $24.73

Market Percentiles

20% $38.80 $20.48 $36.84 $41.83 $22.92

25% $40.06 $21.16 $38.68 $44.22 $23.74

30% $40.56 $22.24 $41.22 $44.78 $24.85

35% $40.73 $22.72 $41.29 $45.85 $25.36

40% $41.39 $23.36 $42.47 $49.04 $26.12

45% $43.10 $24.01 $43.61 $50.00 $26.80

50% $45.12 $24.42 $45.61 $51.17 $27.33

55% $45.39 $25.08 $46.14 $51.56 $28.02

60% $46.96 $25.77 $46.23 $52.20 $28.78

65% $47.41 $26.35 $47.00 $56.64 $29.47

70% $48.67 $27.00 $48.63 $58.43 $30.27

75% $48.79 $27.92 $48.83 $59.06 $31.21

80% $49.08 $29.02 $50.36 $59.69 $32.30

Average $44.33 $24.61 $43.85 $51.52 $27.52

Compa-Ratio

-16.4% -25.4% -35.9% -26.3% -25.0%

72

Project

Manager

Public

Works

Director

Seasonal Seasonal

Supt. of

Parks &

Facilities

Current Scale

Grade 10 12 1 2 9

Minimum $23.20 $29.93 $7.25 $7.25 $20.77

Midpoint $29.24 $37.73 $9.73 $11.28 $26.18

Maximum $35.28 $45.53 $12.20 $15.30 $31.59

Market Percentiles

20% $31.02 $41.11 $11.43 $13.08 $26.23

25% $32.30 $43.00 $11.60 $13.35 $26.35

30% $33.50 $44.25 $12.58 $14.34 $26.94

35% $34.12 $45.22 $12.94 $14.73 $27.91

40% $35.27 $47.12 $13.14 $15.00 $29.54

45% $36.08 $47.80 $13.64 $15.54 $31.42

50% $37.00 $49.60 $13.61 $15.59 $31.90

55% $37.79 $51.22 $14.18 $16.17 $32.26

60% $38.78 $51.70 $14.61 $16.65 $32.75

65% $39.82 $52.70 $14.80 $16.91 $33.40

70% $41.13 $56.69 $14.87 $17.09 $34.45

75% $42.10 $58.36 $15.76 $17.98 $35.78

80% $43.20 $59.06 $16.85 $19.07 $37.44

Average $37.15 $50.15 $13.85 $15.82 $31.16

Compa-Ratio

-21.0% -23.9% -28.6% -27.7% -17.9%

73

Supt. of

Rec.

Programs

Treasurer /

Assistant

Finance Dir.

Welfare

Director

Current Scale

Grade 8 10 10

Minimum $17.96 $23.20 $23.20

Midpoint $22.64 $29.24 $29.24

Maximum $27.32 $35.28 $35.28

Market Percentiles

20% $24.67 $32.75 $32.34

25% $25.60 $34.13 $33.69

30% $26.72 $35.35 $34.91

35% $27.26 $35.99 $35.55

40% $28.10 $37.22 $36.76

45% $28.81 $38.06 $37.59

50% $29.43 $39.07 $38.58

55% $30.14 $39.87 $39.38

60% $30.95 $40.91 $40.41

65% $31.71 $42.03 $41.50

70% $32.62 $43.45 $42.90

75% $33.57 $44.42 $43.87

80% $34.67 $45.53 $44.98

Average $29.60 $39.21 $38.72

Compa-Ratio

-23.1% -25.2% -24.2%

74

Proposed Salary Schedules

Proposed Salary Schedule – AFSCME DPW It is recommended that the step structure of the current collectively-bargained plan is maintained, Steps I, II, and III for Grades 12 through 18. The current midpoint for all grades is more than 5 percent below the 50th percentile of the market and it is therefore recommended that all 3 steps for each grade be adjusted in a similar fashion, namely the ratio of the 50th percentile divided by the current midpoint. A table illustrating the recommended adjustments follows.

Table 34 – Proposed Salary Schedule – AFSCME DPW

Grade Step New

Rate Grade Step

New

Rate

12U I $18.20 16U I $23.92

II $18.45 II $24.19

III $18.71 III $24.46

13U I $19.95 17U I $25.57

II $20.22 II $25.85

III $20.48 III $26.12

14U I $20.76 18U I $28.27

II $21.00 II $28.86

III $21.28 III $29.44

15U I $21.44

II $21.71

III $21.97

Proposed Salary Schedule – AFSCME Clerical The current AFSCME Clerical contract establishes only minimum rates of pay based on experience and is not a salary range. Consequently, it is recommended that a formal salary scale (see Table 35) be implemented. It is recommended that the spread between the minimum and maximum salary is set to 60%, an industry standard value, to allow for growth opportunities. The number of pay grades was set to 6 to accommodate the range of market data. The Ladders, i.e., the distance between grades, was set to be 7.5%.

75

Table 35 – Proposed Salary Schedule – AFSCME Clerical

Grade Hourly

Min

Hourly

Mid

Hourly

Max Increment

Clerical1 $11.19 $14.55 $17.90 $0.34

Clerical 2 $12.03 $15.64 $19.24 $0.36

Clerical 3 $12.93 $16.81 $20.69 $0.39

Clerical 4 $13.90 $18.07 $22.24 $0.42

Clerical 5 $14.94 $19.43 $23.91 $0.45

Clerical 6 $16.06 $20.88 $25.70 $0.48 It is recommended that each job title is first placed at the appropriate grade by comparing the 50th percentile of the external market and the hourly midpoints from Table 35. It is then recommended to to credit individual employees for years of service above the indicated hourly minimum by the indicated ‘Increment’ amount. This should be a one-time adjustment and is not intended for use in subsequent years. In the case where an employees’ current compensation exceeded the proposed amount, no change in pay is recommended.

Proposed Salary Schedule – PBA

It is recommended that the step structure of the current collectively-bargained plan is

maintained whereby the Base Salary is achieved in the 4th year of service and 115% of the

Base Salary is earned after the 30th year of service. It is recommended, however, that the

Base Salary be adjusted to reflect the 50th percentile of the market for each of the three job

titles, Police Officer, Police Sergeant, and Communications Specialist independently.

Police Officers

For a Police Officer, the current Base Salary is $24.53. The current midpoint, which

considers the minimum rate of pay as $21.10, is $24.65 and the 50th percentile of the

market is $28.12. As the current midpoint is more than 5 percent below the 50th percentile

of the market for Police Officer compensation, accordingly, it is recommended that the Base

Salary be increased to $27.98. This is calculated by multiplying the Current Base Salary by

the ratio of the 50th percentile divided by the current midpoint - $24.53 x ($28.12/$24.65) =

$27.98. This recommended adjustment will align the midpoint of the salary range with the

50th percentile of the market.

76

Table 36 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Police Officer

Base % New

Rate Base %

New

Rate Base %

New

Rate

86.0% $24.06 104.5% $29.24 110.0% $30.78

90.0% $25.18 105.0% $29.38 110.5% $30.92

92.0% $25.74 105.5% $29.52 111.0% $31.06

94.0% $26.30 106.0% $29.66 111.5% $31.20

97.0% $27.14 106.5% $29.80 112.0% $31.34

98.5% $27.56 107.0% $29.94 112.5% $31.48

Base Salary

$27.98 107.5% $30.08 113.0% $31.62

102.5% $28.68 108.0% $30.22 113.5% $31.76

103.0% $28.82 108.5% $30.36 114.0% $31.90

103.5% $28.96 109.0% $30.50 114.5% $32.04

104.0% $29.10 109.5% $30.64 115.0% $32.18

Police Sergeants

Table 37 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Police Sergeant

Base % New

Rate Base %

New

Rate Base %

New

Rate

104.5% $37.88 110.0% $39.87

105.0% $38.06 110.5% $40.05

92.0% $33.35 105.5% $38.24 111.0% $40.23

94.0% $34.07 106.0% $38.42 111.5% $40.42

97.0% $35.16 106.5% $38.60 112.0% $40.60

98.5% $35.70 107.0% $38.78 112.5% $40.78

Base Salary

$36.25 107.5% $38.97 113.0% $40.96

102.5% $37.15 108.0% $39.15 113.5% $41.14

103.0% $37.33 108.5% $39.33 114.0% $41.32

103.5% $37.52 109.0% $39.51 114.5% $41.50

104.0% $37.70 109.5% $39.69 115.0% $41.68

77

For Police Sergeants, the current Base Salary is 112% of a Police Officer’s Base Salary, that is,

$27.47. The current midpoint of the salary range is $27.29 and the 50th percentile of the

market is $36.02. As the current midpoint is more than 5 percent below the 50th percentile

of the market, accordingly, it is recommended that the Base Salary be increased to $36.25.

Communications Specialist

Presently, the Communications Specialist’s Base Salary is 85% of a Police Officer’s Base

Salary, that is $20.85. The current midpoint of the salary range is $21.58 and the 50th

percentile of the market is $21.98. As the current midpoint is within 5% of the 50th

percentile, the current compensation for the position is considered to be “At Market.”

Accordingly, it is recommended that the Base Salary remain at $20.85.

Table 38 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Communications Specialist

Base % New

Rate Base %

New

Rate Base %

New

Rate

104.5% $21.79 110.0% $22.94

105.0% $21.89 110.5% $23.04

92.0% $19.18 105.5% $22.00 111.0% $23.14

94.0% $19.60 106.0% $22.10 111.5% $23.25

97.0% $20.22 106.5% $22.21 112.0% $23.35

98.5% $20.54 107.0% $22.31 112.5% $23.46

100.0% $20.85 107.5% $22.41 113.0% $23.56

102.5% $21.37 108.0% $22.52 113.5% $23.66

103.0% $21.48 108.5% $22.62 114.0% $23.77

103.5% $21.58 109.0% $22.73 114.5% $23.87

104.0% $21.68 109.5% $22.83 115.0% $23.98

78

Proposed Salary Schedule – IAFF It is recommended that the step structure of the current collectively-bargained plan is maintained, 3 steps for Firefighters (C, B, A) and 2 steps (B, A) for Fire Department Lieutenants. Presently, the midpoint of the salary range for Firefighters is $20.82 occurring at Step B. The 50th percentile of the external market for the position was found to be $23.19. As the current midpoint is more than 5 percent below the 50th percentile of the market, it is recommended adjusting all 3 steps by the same percentage, namely the ratio of the 50th percentile divided by the current midpoint – $20.82 x ($23.19/$20.82) = $23.19.

Table 39 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Firefighter

Step New

Rate

C $22.30

B $23.19

A $24.08 The current midpoint of the Fire Department Lieutenant’s salary range is $24.12. The 50th percentile of the external market for the position was found to be $29.30. As the current midpoint is more than 5 percent below the 50th percentile of the market, it is recommended adjusting both steps by the same percentage, namely the ratio of the 50th percentile divided by the current midpoint.

Table 40 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Fire Department Lieutenant

Step New

Rate

B $29.05

A $29.54

Proposed Salary Schedule – Contract For contract employees, it is recommended that the new salary be no less than the 50th percentile of the external market for the position.

79

Proposed Salary Schedule – Merit

A recommended salary scale for Merit employees is shown in Table 41. The spread between

the minimum and maximum salary was set to 60%, an industry standard value, to allow for

growth opportunities. The number of pay grades was set to 24 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.

Table 41 – Proposed Salary Schedule – Merit

Grade Hourly

Min

Hourly

Mid

Hourly

Max

C01 $7.25 $9.43 $11.60

C02 $7.79 $10.13 $12.47

C03 $8.38 $10.89 $13.41

C04 $9.01 $11.71 $14.41

C05 $9.68 $12.59 $15.49

C06 $10.41 $13.53 $16.65

C07 $11.19 $14.55 $17.90

C08 $12.03 $15.64 $19.24

C09 $12.93 $16.81 $20.69

C10 $13.90 $18.07 $22.24

C11 $14.94 $19.43 $23.91

C12 $16.06 $20.88 $25.70

C13 $17.27 $22.45 $27.63

C14 $18.56 $24.13 $29.70

C15 $19.96 $25.94 $31.93

C16 $21.45 $27.89 $34.32

C17 $23.06 $29.98 $36.90

C18 $24.79 $32.23 $39.66

C19 $26.65 $34.64 $42.64

C20 $28.65 $37.24 $45.84

C21 $30.80 $40.04 $49.28

C22 $33.11 $43.04 $52.97

C23 $35.59 $46.27 $56.94

C24 $38.26 $49.74 $61.21

80

Proposed Internal Equity – Merit

In Table 42, the resulting proposed internal equity for Merit positions at the City is

presented.

Table 42 – Proposed Internal Equity – Merit

Grade Title

C06 Seasonal 1

C07 -

C08

Children's Library Clerk Circulation Clerk Communications Specialist 2 Deputy Tax Collector 2 Fitness Instructor Front Desk Staff Gym Monitor Library Page Lifeguard Park Maintenance/CSBCC 2 Seasonal 2

C09 -

C10 -

C11 -

C12 Farmers Market

C13 -

C14 Police Administrative Assistant

C15 Library Circulation Librarian Maintenance Supervisor

C16

Accreditation Coordinator Assessing Technician Business Development Specialist Children's Librarian Executive Assistant/Clerk to Council Office Manager/DPW Police Detective/Prosecutor

C17 Center Coordinator Information Systems I Superintendent of Recreational Programs

C18 -

81

Grade Title

C19

Chief Building and Code City Planner Communication/Records Manager Fire Captain Superintendent of Parks & Facilities

C20

City Clerk & Tax Collector Human Resources Manager Network Administrator Project Manager Welfare Director

C21 Police Captain Treasurer/Assistant Finance Director

C22

Assistant Director DPW Deputy Fire Chief Deputy Police Chief Librarian/Director Parks and Recreation Director

C23 Planning and Development Director

C24

Finance Director Fire Chief/Director Police Chief/Director Public Works Director

82

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/Assistant Director

•4 Manager

•5 Supervisor

•6 Coordinator

•7 Specialist

•8 Technician

•9 Entry

83

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/ Assistant 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.

84

Table 43 – Recommended Reclassification

Current Title Classification Title Change

Treasurer/Assistant Finance Director

Level 4 Treasurer/Finance Manager

Welfare Director Level 4 Welfare Manager

Communication/Records Manager Level 5 Communications/Records Supervisor

Superintendent of Recreational Programs

Level 6 Recreations Programs Coordinator

Accreditation Coordinator Level 7 Accreditation Specialist

Assessing Technician Level 7 Assessing Specialist

Maintenance Supervisor Level 7 Maintenance Crew Leader

Claremont, New Hampshire Pay and Classification Study ...

Documents