The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 6A - Citywide Compensation Study and Related ActionsROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER V J DATE: APRIL 22, 2025 SUBJECT: CITYWIDE COMPENSATION STUDY AND RELATED ACTIONS SUMMARY At the April 8, 2025 meeting, the City Council discussed the Citywide Compensation Study and took the following actions: 1. Motion approved to receive and file the Citywide Compensation Study. 2. Motion failed to approve Resolution No. 2025-20 to amend the salary listing for full-time and part-time positions adjusting salary ranges to align below-market classifications with market -average rates for: 1) unrepresented Executive Group, 2) unrepresented Mid - Management, Professional & Confidential Group, and 3) unrepresented Part -Time Group. 3. Motion approved to bring back a Resolution when additional council member(s) is in attendance. 4. Tabled the salary adjustment for the represented Rosemead Employee Association (REA) after meet and confer with REA/AFSCME Local 321 representatives. DISCUSSION Pursuant to City Council's approved motion at the April 8, 2025 meeting, this item is to consider (with additional council member in attendance) Resolution No. 2025-22 (Attachment C) amending the salary listing for full-time and part-time positions adjusting salary ranges to align below-market classifications with market -average rates for: 1) unrepresented Executive Group, 2) unrepresented Mid -Management, Professional & Confidential Group, and 3) unrepresented Part -Time Group, and 4) represented Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321. For reference, the draft minutes of the April 8, 2025 meeting are attached as Attachment B. The April 8`h staff report including the salary study prepared by Public Sector Personnel Consultants is Attachment A. AGENDA ITEM 6.A City Council Meeting April 22, 2025 Page 2 of 4 Below is a summary of a few salient items discussed at the April 8s' meeting as follows: Public Sector Personnel Consultants (PSPC), an outside subject matter expert, prepared the salary study according to industry standards. An outside consultant is used to gain an impartial and objective understanding of market compensation trends. They bring specialized expertise, experience, and objectivity, which helps an organization make more informed compensation decisions. The City's consultant from PSPC directly worked with the following agencies between 2019 and 2025: Adelanto, CA; Azusa, CA; Banning, CA; Camp Verde, AZ; Colton, CA; Cottonwood, AZ; Culver City, CA; Douglas County Lake Tahoe Sewer Authority; El Monte, CA; Fontana, CA; Fountain Valley, CA; Fullerton, CA; Globe, AZ; Hill County, TX; Howard County, IN; Humble, TX; Lake Havasu City, AZ; Nogales, AZ; Pismo Beach, CA; Portales, TX; San Luis, AZ; Salinas, CA; Santa Cruz County, AZ; Scottsdale, AZ; Soldotna, AK; the City of San Bernardino, CA; Watauga, TX; Yuma, AZ; Yuma County, AZ. The consultant's expertise and experience enable organizations to make well-informed compensation decisions, promoting both competitiveness and equity across each agency. • The salary survey studies Rosemead's compensation structure to ascertain the city's competitiveness in the recruitment and retention of employees. An uncompetitive salary structure can lead to negative consequences for an organization, including difficulty attracting talent, higher turnover, low employee morale and engagement, reduced performance/productivity, and internal inequity. • The salary study does not examine any individual employee's pay rate as such will be a personnel matter. The salary study's objective is to look at Rosemead's overall compensation structure to determine the City's positioning of salary compared to the competitive marketplace. • Staff proposes to adjust the applicable below-market salary range positions for unrepresented groups at this time. The adjustment would only apply to the below-market positions to align with the market -average range; the current at -market or above -market positions would not be adjusted. This is not an adjustment to every/all position or an across-the-board salary adjustment increase. • The market -average range will establish new pay amounts within the 10 Step system. In some instances, there will need to be a salary adjustment to the affected positions, but only to the effect that the salary is adjusted to the nearest new Step to avoid a reduction in pay. A hypothetical scenario example is below. (1) The employee is currently at Step 5(SS.RNmod (2) Tae employee's rale will Oe adjusted to the comespondirlgnewmarket average rate that is trot less than the employee's current rate (3) In this hypotheticalscenado, the new rate wiU be tmm $5,626/mo. (Step 5) to $5.66&mo. (Step 2) or 0.67% adjustment increase City Council Meeting April 22, 2025 Page 3 of 4 • Sixteen cities were selected for the salary study. The survey cities are that are comparable in size, population, proximity, and aspirational, and importantly are cities that Rosemead competes with in recruitment and retention. This is a holistic approach as the surveyed cities encompass a broader approach to the competitive marketplace than narrowing the focus. • The salary adjustment proposal is consistent with the Rosemead Municipal Code Section 2.48.020 (Position Classification, Salary Plan and Personnel Rules) which states, "[T]he City Manager shall prepare a position classification and salary plan, including class specifications, and prepare revisions of the plan as required. The plan shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council. " The salary study was done in good faith to review the City's salary structure compared to the competitive marketplace. Although the survey will be discussed with the labor groups, the purpose of the survey is outside of the current labor negotiations, and was supported by the Council as a valuable undertaking. Additionally, on April 15, 2025, representatives from the City engaged in a meet -and -confer session with Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321 (REA) representatives, as part of the ongoing labor relations process. During this meeting, the City presented its proposal regarding salary adjustments for REA-represented employees. After a thorough discussion and review of the proposed changes, the REA expressed its agreement with the City's proposed salary adjustments. This mutual understanding reflects a collaborative effort between both parties to ensure fair and competitive compensation for City employees. AMENDING THE ADOPTED SALARY SCHEDULE California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 570.5 and amendments to 571(b) require a consolidated Salary Schedule which shows all City classifications and salary ranges for purposes of determining eligible salary compensation for retirement be publicly available. The attachment to Resolution 2025-22 represents the Citywide Salary Schedule including the new positions and salaries for concurrent approval. Staff is recommending that the Council authorize the salary range adjustments for Executive, Mid -Management, Professional and Confidential, REA, and Part -Time positions as outlined in the attached Resolution No. 2025-22, with salary changes effective as of the first day in the following pay period, which is Monday, April 28`h, 2025. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve Resolution No. 2025-22 to amend the salary listing for full-time and part-time positions, adjusting salary ranges to align below-market classifications with market rates for the unrepresented Executive Group, the unrepresented Mid -Management, Professional -Confidential Group, unrepresented Part -Time Group, and represented REA. City Council Meeting April 22, 2025 Page 4 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT At this time, there are no projected costs associated with addressing below-market compensation classifications within the Executive Group for the remainder of the current fiscal year. As such, no financial impact is anticipated for this employee group in the short tern. In contrast, adjustments made to bring certain classifications in the unrepresented Mid -Management, Professional & Confidential Group, unrepresented Part -Time Group, and the REA bargaining unit to market -competitive levels are expected to result in a combined estimated fiscal impact of approximately $13,300 for the remainder of the fiscal year. On an annualized basis, the cost of these adjustments is projected to total approximately $80,000. It is important to note that despite the additional costs, a formal budget adjustment will not be necessary at this time. The associated expenditures will be managed and fully absorbed within the existing budget allocations of the affected departments, ensuring that overall financial stability is maintained without requiring additional appropriations. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared by: BrgVan Chua Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Attachment A: Agenda Report 6.A Citywide Compensation Study Report dated April 8, 2025 and 2025 Total Compensation Survey Consultant Report dated April 2025 Attachment B: Draft April 8h, 2025 Council Meeting Minutes for Agenda Item 6.A Attachment C: Resolution No. 2025-22 — Amending the City of Rosemead Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2024-25 to Meet the California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 570.5 and 571 to Reflect Approved Rates From April 28, 2025 Through June 30, 2025 for Executive, Mid - Management, Professional and Confidential, REA, and Part -Time Groups Attachment C: Exhibit A: Amended Salary Ranges and Job Classifications Schedule to Reflect Approved Rates From April 28, 2025 Through June 30, 2025 for Executive, Mid -Management, Professional and Confidential, REA, and Part -Time Groups Attachment A Citywide Compensation Study Report Dated April 8, 2025 and 2025 Total Compensation Survey Consultant Report Dated April 2025 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND I Y COUNCIL FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER DATE: APRIL 8, 2025 WRIF.CT: CITYWIDE COMPENSATION STUDY AND RELATED ACTIONS SUMMARY In 2024, the City engaged Public Sector Personnel Consultants to review and make recommendations to the compensation structure for all City positions and propose strategies for improvement. This report summarizes the study's findings and its connection to the recommended compensation adjustments. Additionally, staff recommends aligning below-market salaries with current market rates. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS The City's most recent Citywide compensation study was completed more than 15 years ago. A compensation study is a vital tool for the City to ensure that Rosemead can attract, retain, and fairly compensate employees, contributing to the effective delivery of public services. By benchmarking the salary structure against industry standards and local government trends, the City can offer competitive wages, helping the city attract skilled workers while staying within budgetary constraints. This is crucial for recruitment, ensuring that the City remains an employer of choice, particularly for highly specialized roles where talent may be in high demand. Moreover, compensation studies play a key role in reducing turnover and enhancing employee morale. Employees who feel they are being fairly compensated are more likely to stay, thus reducing the costs and challenges associated with frequent turnover and recruitment efforts. This stability allows the City to maintain continuity in services, improve workforce morale, and avoid disruptions in critical operations. A compensation study also promotes fairness within the organization by identifying and addressing any internal pay disparities. This helps avoid potential morale issues and ensures that employees are compensated equitably for similar roles and responsibilities, fostering a positive and inclusive workplace culture. AGENDA ITEM 6.A City Council Meeting — Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions April 8, 2025 Page 2 of 8 The following cities were chosen for inclusion in this salary survey. Their complete salary plans were reviewed, and data was extracted for job classes that align with the City's salary survey benchmarks. Alhambra Arcadia Azusa Baldwin Park Downey El Monte La Puente Monrovia Montebello Monterey Park Pasadena San Gabriel San Marino South Gate Temple City West Covina The study encompassed more than 55 position classifications within all City departments. A summary of the employee groups and Full Time Employee (FTE) totals are shown in the table below. Table 1 Ytlwlated by diddingtha number of budgeted hours by 2M A standard "structure -to -structure" approach was used to compare the City's salary structure maximum to the prevailing rates, which represent the average salary range maximums for each benchmark job class. Key Aspects of Structure -to -Structure Comparison: 1) Salary Range Maximums — The comparison focuses on the highest salary within a given pay range, rather than looking at starting salaries or actual employee pay. 2) Benchmarking Against Market Rates — The City selects benchmark job classes (i.e., representative positions that exist in both the City and the broader labor market) and compares their maximum salary levels to those in comparable organizations. 3) Consistent Framework — Instead of looking at individual employee pay or averages, this method ensures an apples -to -apples comparison by evaluating predefined salary structures. Focus on Competitive Positioning — The goal is to determine whether the City's salary ranges are aligned, above, or below market standards, ensuring competitiveness in attracting and retaining talent. To calculate the total compensation for each benchmark, data on employer contributions to City Council Meeting — Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions April 8, 2025 Page 3 of 8 key benefits was gathered. The cash value of these contributions was added to base pay and averaged to determine the Total Comp Prevailing Rate for each benchmark. The benefits included in this calculation are: • Group health (assuming family -level enrollment) • Net employer contributions to pension (CalPERS) • Auto allowance • Bilingual pay • Certification, assignment, and incentive pay • Deferred compensation • Education pay • Longevity pay • Stipends for technology devices and/or cell phones SUMMARY OF REPORT FINDINGS Public Sector Personnel Consultants findings for the City of Rosemead are as follows: 1. Base Compensation: • 67% of job classes are within 5% or above the prevailing market rates, meaning they are competitive. • 33% of job classes fall more than 5% below the prevailing rates, meaning they are not competitive. 2. Total Compensation • 74% of job classes are within 5% or above the prevailing rates, meaning they are competitive. • 26% of job classes fall more than 5% below the prevailing rates, meaning they are not competitive. 3. Comparison of Base vs. Total Compensation: • The City is slightly more competitive in total compensation, with seven more job classes meeting the competitive criteria compared to base compensation. 4. Leave Benefits: • The City offers competitive vacation hours for employees with 1 to 15 years of service, along with paid sick leave, paid holidays, and administrative/management leave. For employees with more than 20 years of service, vacation hours are not competitive, and the City does not offer a competitive personal leave plan. City Council Meeting — Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions April 8, 2025 Page 4 of 8 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF CONSULTANT DATA Please see below for the breakdown of base compensation in relation to prevailing rates for each employee group, without accounting for a 5% variance above or below those rates. Table 2 Across all employee groups, a total of 33 position classifications (benchmarks) are currently below market rates, while 22 exceed market levels. The extent of variance for below-market benchmarks ranges from a minimal -0.1 % to as much as -19.1 %, indicating significant discrepancies in certain positions. Conversely, the benchmarks that surpass market rates show a variance between 0.1% and 9.4%, reflecting varying degrees of competitiveness above market standards. Number of % of Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321 Benchmarks Sample 0 - 0 Unrepresented Executive Management Number of Benchmarks a71-% % of Sample 1M Eket a Number of % of Unrepresented Mid -Management, Professional & Confidential Benchmarks Sample Unrepresented Part -Time Number of Benchmarks %of Sample ©Jm 1 am Across all employee groups, a total of 33 position classifications (benchmarks) are currently below market rates, while 22 exceed market levels. The extent of variance for below-market benchmarks ranges from a minimal -0.1 % to as much as -19.1 %, indicating significant discrepancies in certain positions. Conversely, the benchmarks that surpass market rates show a variance between 0.1% and 9.4%, reflecting varying degrees of competitiveness above market standards. City Council Meeting -Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions April 8, 2025 Page 5 of 8 The following table illustrates the current Rosemead monthly pay rates for full-time positions in comparison to the market. Table 3 CityManager City Clerk 1 21,416 22,970 (1,554) -7.3% Below Market 1 13,717 12,446 1,271 9.3% Above Market Assistant City Manager 1 20,448 201535~ (87) -0.4% Below Market Director of Community Development 1 17,948 18,134 (186) -LO%Below Market Directorof Finance 0 18,533 18,692 (159) -a9% Below Market Directorof Parks & Recreation 1 17,067 17,045 22 0.1% Above Market Director of Public Works 1 18,601 18,616 (15) -0.1% Below Market MID-MGT/PROFESSIONAL/CONFIDENTIAL Accountant 1 8,015 7,672 343 4.3% Above Market Administrative Analyst 2 6,785 6,543 242 3.6% Above Market Administrative Specialist 2 6,210 6,008 202 3.3% Above Market Associate Engineer 1 10,045 9,636 409 4.1% Above Market Associate Planner 1 8,000 8,541 (541) -6.8% Below Market Building Official 1 11,990 13,092 (1.102) -9.2% Below Market City Engineer 1 13,318 15,101 (1,783) -13.4% Below Market Deputy City Clerk 1 7,758 7,302 456 5.9%Above Market Deputy Director of Community Development 0 13,308 14,796 (1,488) -1L2% Below Market Executive Assistant To The City Manager 1 61915 7,092 (177) -2.6% Beim Market Finance Manager 1 11,178 12,480 (1,302) -1L7% Below Market Human Resources Analysts 2 7,362 8,255 (893) -121%Below Market Human Resources Manager 1 10,434 12,429 (1.995) -19.1% Below Market Management Analyst 2 7,426 8,011 (585) -7.9% Below Market Plan Checker 1 8,488 8,673 (185) -22% Below Market Planning& Econ Development Manager 1 71,150 12,679 (1,529) .13.7% Below Market Public Safety Manager 1 10,236 11,221 (985) -9.6% Below Market Public Safety Supervisor 1 9,304 8,678 656 7.1% Above Market Public Works Fiscal and Project Manager ` 1 $884 10,263 (1,379) -15.5% Below Market Public Works Manager 1 10,906 11,821 (915) -8.4% Below Market Recreation Supervisor 3 7,755 7,975 (220) -28% Below Market Senior Code Officer 2 7,872 8,006 (134) L7% Below Market Senior Management Analyst 0 8,076 9,330 (1254) -ts.5%Below Market Seni or Planner 1 9,696 10,182 (486) -So%Below Market GENERAL Accounting Specialist 1 5,741 5,204 537 9.4% Above Market Administrative Assistant 5 5,645 5,450 195 3.5% Above Market Assistant Planner 1 7,046 7,507 (461) -6.5% Below Market Building Inspector 1 7,683 7,475 208 2.7% Above Market Code Enforcement Officer 3 6,254 6,775 (521) -8.3% Below Market Facility Technician 1 5,504 5,330 174 3.2% Above Market Maintenance lead Worker 5 6,126 6,378 (252) -4.1% Below Market Maintenance Worker 10 5,336 5,160 176 3.3% Above Market Permit Technician 3 6,156 5,671 485 7.9% Above Market Public Works Inspector 1 7,579 7,878 (299) -3.9% Below Market Recreation Coordinator 3 5,891 6,119 (229) .3.9% Below Market Senior Accounting Specialist 2 6,174 6,218 (44) -0.7% Below Market City Council Meeting - Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions April 8, 2025 Page 6 of 8 One position, the Public Works Fiscal and Project Manager, as seen on Table 3 of the previous page, was difficult to benchmark as there was no comparable positions available. This position's duties and responsibilities, however closely align with those of a Principal Management Analyst in other organizations, which typically earns 10% more than the Senior Management Analyst series and is recommended to be in line as such. Please also note that the positions of Director of Public Safety and Administrative Services Manager were not included in this study, as they were recently approved by the Council at the market rate average. The following table illustrates the current Rosemead hourly pay rates for part-time positions in comparison to the market Table 4 .t nnicr-nMe ., Administrative Intern 20.18 20.53 (0.35) -17% Below Market Aquatic Attendant Assistant Pool Manager Community Service Officer Lifeguard Lifeguard Swim -Instructor Office Specialist (Part-time) Park Ranger Parking Control Officer Playschool Teacher Recreation Leader Recreation Leader, Senior Youth Worker 19.53 18.54 0.99 22.65 24.19 (134) 25.94 25.92 0.03 20.72 20.10 0.62 ZL76 ZL97 (0.22) 24.70 21.25 3.45 25.94 25.53 0.42 25.94 26.1.1 (0.27) 23.53 2242 132 20.12 18.64 148 23.53 20.79 274 16.60 1&39 (L79) RECOMMENDED COMPENSATION CHANGES 5.0% Above Market -5.9% Below Market 0.1% Above Market 3.091 Above Market -LO% Below Market 14.0% Above Market L6% Above Market -LO% Below Market 4.7% Above Market 7.3% Above Market 1L6% Above Market .10.8% Below Market Staff recommends adjusting salaries that are currently below market levels to enhance the City's ability to attract and retain qualified employees. Competitive wages are essential in maintaining a skilled workforce, reducing turnover, and ensuring the City remains an employer of choice. Based on salary survey data, these adjustments will bring compensation in line with market rates, supporting fair and equitable pay practices. This proposed increase would affect 33 position classifications, encompassing 39 budgeted full-time positions and approximately 8.5 full-time equivalent budgeted part-time positions. The recommended adjustments do not include the City Manager and the City Clerk, whose contract is separately approved by the City Council. By aligning salaries with market standards, the City can improve employee morale, productivity, and job satisfaction while reducing costs associated with frequent recruitment and training due to high turnover. In a competitive labor market, offering competitive wages is crucial for retaining institutional knowledge and ensuring continuity in public services. It is important to clarify that the increase applies to the salary ranges for position classifications, not directly to employees' pay. While the salary range for certain positions will City Council Meeting - Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions April 8, 2025 Page 7 of 8 be adjusted, this does not guarantee an immediate or automatic pay increase equal to the market adjustment for employees currently in those roles. However, employees in positions brought up to market rates may see a slight pay increase due to changes in the "Step" structure. Any individual salary adjustments will continue to be determined through the standard annual performance evaluation process, ensuring that pay increases are based on performance, tenure, and other relevant factors. Position classifications that are currently above market are not recommended for reduction adjustment in order to maintain employee morale and foster a sense of fairness within the organization. When salaries are above market, employees in those positions may feel valued and secure in their compensation, which contributes to job satisfaction, motivation, and a strong sense of loyalty to the organization. Adjusting these positions downward could negatively impact morale, as employees might perceive the change as unfair or demotivating, especially if they feel their compensation is being reduced or undermined. Additionally, maintaining above -market salaries for certain positions ensures that the City remains competitive in attracting and retaining top talent in key roles. By not altering these positions, the organization can continue to recognize the value of these employees and maintain a strong foundation of expertise and leadership within the workforce. AMENDING THE ADOPTED SALARY SCHEDULE California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 570.5 and amendments to 571(b) require a consolidated Salary Schedule which shows all City classifications and salary ranges for purposes of determining eligible salary compensation for retirement be publicly available. The attachment to Resolution 2025-20 represents the Citywide Salary Schedule including the new positions and salaries for concurrent approval. Staff is recommending that the Council authorize the salary range adjustments for Executive, Mid - Management, Confidential, Professional, and Part -Time positions as outlined in the attached Resolution No. 2025-20, with salary changes effective as of the first day in the following pay period which is Monday, April 141, 2025. However, because the Rosemead Employee Association (REA) is a represented group, the City is required to engage in the meet -and -confer process, and the REAs agreement is necessary before moving forward. Therefore, we cannot implement these adjustments at this time for REA and will need to revisit the matter in the future, pending REA's consent. FISCAL IMPACT If all positions were at their current maximum rate of pay and if all budgeted positions are filled, the estimated total annual fiscal impact, including benefits, to align below-market salaries with market rates could be up to $419,000. There are no estimated costs for the remainder of the fiscal year to adjust below- market classifications in the Executive Group. However, the estimated fiscal impact for the remainder of the fiscal year for the Mid -Management, Professional & Confidential Group is $15,000. The estimated fiscal impact for the remainder of the fiscal year for the Part -Time Group amounts to $2,000. City Council Meeting — Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions April 8, 2025 Page 8 of 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: I) Receive and file the Citywide Total Compensation study report provided by Public Sector Personnel Consultants. 2) Approve Resolution No. 2025-20 to amend the salary listing for full-time and part-time positions, adjusting salary ranges to align below-market classifications with market rates for the unrepresented Executive Group, the unrepresented Mid -Management, Professional & Confidential Group, and the unrepresented Part -Time Group. 3) Approval to bring back a salary adjustment resolution for Rosemead Employee Association after a meet and confer with Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321 representatives. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process in accordance with the Brown Act. Submitted by: Bryan Chua, Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Attachments: Attachment A: 2025 Total Compensation Survey for the City of Rosemead Attachment B: Resolution No. 2025-20 — Amending the City of Rosemead Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2024-25 to Meet the California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 570.5 and 571 to Reflect Approved Rates 2025 TOTAL COMPENSATION SURVEY FOR THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APRIL 2025 Prepared by. Public Sector Personnel Consultants National Office: 2824 North Power Road Mesa, Arizona 85215 www.compensationconsultin,q.com 888-0522-7772 2025 TOTAL COMPENSATION SURVEY FOR THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pape 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 3 A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS...............................................................................................................3 — Page 2 2. EXTERNAL COMPETITIVENESS COMPARISONS.............................................................................4 Page 7 A. SOURCES OF EXTERNAL DATA...................................................................................................4 — Page 12 B. BASE COMPENSATION CALCULATION.......................................................................................4 — Page 17 C. TOTAL COMPENSATION CALCULATION.....................................................................................4 — Page 21 D. BENCHMARK OCCUPATIONS....................................................................................................... 5 E. EXTERNAL PREVAILING RATE COMPARISON...........................................................................5 — Page 23 1. BASE COMPENSATION RESULTS.........................................................................................5 Appendix — Page 28 2. TOTAL COMPENSATION RESULTS.......................................................................................5 3. PAID TIME OFF BENEFITS...................................................................................................................6 A. VACATION LEAVE ACCRUALS.....................................................................................................7 B. OTHER LEAVE ACCRUALS...........................................................................................................7 Appendix External Prevailing Rates Comparison.............................................................................Appendix — Page 1 Total Compensation Details — Group Health....................................................................Appendix — Page 2 Incentives paid as a flat amount..........................................................................Appendix— Page 7 Incentives paid as a percentage of salary ..........................................................Appendix — Page 12 PERS Formulas and Contribution Rates........................................................................Appendix — Page 17 Education Pay Details.....................................................................................................Appendix — Page 21 Certification, Specialty, and Assignment Pay Details .....................................................Appendix — Page 22 PTO -Paid Leave — Vacation Leave at Various Years of Service....................................Appendix — Page 23 Other Leave— Sick, Holidays, Floating Holidays ............................................... Appendix — Page 28 PSPC COR APR 2025 2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Public Sector Personnel Consultants is pleased to provide this report describing the 2025 Salary Survey findings for the City of Rosemead. A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. Base Compensation: The City's base compensation plan is competitive (within 5% or more of the prevailing rates) for sixty-seven percent (67%) of its salary survey benchmarked job classes in comparison to the designated competitor employers. The City is not competitive (more than 5% below the prevailing rates) for the remaining thirty-three percent (33%) of the surveyed jobs are more than five percent (page 5 and External Prevailing Rates Comparison, Appendix— Page 1). 2. Total Compensation: The City's total compensation plan is competitive (within 5% or more of the prevailing rates) for seventy-four percent (74%) of its salary survey benchmarked job classes in comparison to the designated competitor employers. The City is not competitive (more than 5% below the prevailing rates) for the remaining twenty-six percent (26%) of the surveyed jobs (page 5 and, External Prevailing Rates Comparison, Appendix— Page 1). 3. The City is slightly more competitive for Total Comp (seven more jobs are competitive) than for base compensation (page 5). 4. The City offers a competitive number of vacation hours for employees with one year of service through fifteen years of service, paid sick leave, paid holidays, and administrative/management leave (page 7). 5. The City does not offer a competitive number of vacation hours for employees with more than twenty years of service and for personal leave (page 7). PSPC COR APR 2025 3 2. EXTERNAL COMPETITIVENESS COMPARISONS The following paragraphs and tables compare the salary range maximums from the City's current salary structure to those for similar occupations at public employers with whom the City competes to obtain and retain high quality staff. A. SOURCES OF EXTERNAL DATA The following cities were selected by the City for inclusion in this salary survey. We obtained the complete salary plans of each and extracted data on theirjob classes matching the City's salary survey benchmarks. Alhambra Montebello Arcadia Monterey Park Azusa Pasadena Baldwin Park San Gabriel Downey San Marino EI Monte South Gate La Puente Temple City Monrovia West Covina B. BASE COMPENSATION CALCULATION We utilized a standard "structure -to -structure" method to compare the City's salary structure Maximum to the Prevailing Rates. The Prevailing Rates are the average of all salary range maximums for each benchmark job class. C. TOTAL COMPENSATION CALCULATION To calculate the total compensation (Total Comp) for each benchmark, we collected data on the amounts employers pay for certain major benefits. The cash value of the contribution was added to the base pay amounts and averaged to arrive at the Total Comp Prevailing Rate for each benchmark. Benefits included in the Total Comp calculation include the cash contributions for the following: • Group health — assumes family level enrollment • Net employer contributions to pension (CalPERS) • Auto allowance • Bilingual pay • Certification, assignment, incentive pay • Deferred compensation • Education pay • Longevity pay • Stipends for technology devices and/or cell phones Details and additional information about benefits offered by comparator employers are included in the Appendix of this report. PSPC COR APR 2025 4 D. BENCHMARK OCCUPATIONS This survey includes all current City job classes. Benchmark job classes were identified using the City's job content as the basis of comparison and identifying similar jobs at the comparator employers using their job descriptions, organizational charts, and budgets. Benchmark job classes are listed on the External Prevailing Rates Comparison table on Appendix - Page 1. E. EXTERNAL PREVAILING RATE COMPARISON The tables below summarize the relationship of the City's compensation to the prevailing rates for both base compensation and total compensation. Details by benchmark job class are included in Table 1, Appendix -Page 1. NOTE: Relationship of +1- 5% to the prevailing rates is considered comparable to the prevailing rates. 1. BASE COMPENSATION RESULTS The City's base compensation plan is competitive (within 5% or more of the prevailing rates) for sixty-seven percent (67%) of the benchmark job classes and is not competitive (more than 5% below the prevailing rates) for thirty-three percent (33%) of the benchmark job classes. Relationship to Prevailing Rates No. of Benchmarks % of Sample More than 5% BELOW 18 ° Comparable—within 5% 28 51% More than 5% AHEAD 9 16% The 18-28-9 distribution pattern is suggestive of a salary plan that has been adjusted by across- the-board increases in past years, instead of per -occupation adjustments for their individual variances from the prevailing rates. 2. TOTAL COMPENSATION RESULTS The City's total compensation plan is competitive (within 5% or more of the prevailing rates) for seventy-four percent (74%) of the benchmark job classes and is not competitive (more than 5% below the prevailing rates) for twenty-six percent (26%) of the benchmarked job classes. Relationship to Prevailing Rates No. of Benchmarks % of Sample More than 5% BELOW 11 ° Comparable—within 5% 23 55% More than 5% AHEAD 8 19% Note: The City is slightly more competitive for Total Comp (seven more jobs are competitive) than for base compensation. PSPC COR APR 2025 5 3. PAID TIME OFF BENEFITS We surveyed various paid time off benefits offered by the sixteen comparator cities shown on page four above. While vacation, paid sick, and paid holidays are common benefits offered by all sixteen of the comparator cities, the accrual amounts for each benefits often vary based on whether a job class is exempt or non- exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), belongs to a bargaining unit, or is considered an executive level, management level, or a general level job class. Highlights of the findings are summarized in the tables below with full details included in the Appendix of this report. Market Average represents the average benefit accrual amount offered across all categories of employment and includes executive, management, bargaining unit, and general benefit levels. The table below summarizes the types of paid leave offered by the comparator cities. Comparator Vacation Sick Fixed Floating Personal AdminMgmt Edue Employer ': Leave Leave: Holidays: Holidays Days (Exempt only) Leave-:. Alhambra X X X X X X No Arcadia X X X X X X No Azusa X X X X No X No Baldwin Park X X X No No X No Dovmey X X X No No X X EI Monte X X X X X X No La Puente' X X X X X Not indicated No Monrovia X X X X X X No Montebello X X X No No X No Monterey Park X X X X X X No Pasadena X X X X No X No San Gabriel X X X X X X No San Marino X X X X No X No South Gate X X X X No X No Temple City X X X X No X No West Covina X X X X x X No No. Offering Benefit 16 16 16 13 8 is 1 Rosemead X X X No No X No • All offer paid time off for vacation, sick, and holidays. • Most provide exempt employees with administrative or management leave. • Half the employers offer personal paid time off. • One employer offers leave for educational purposes. Note 1) La Puente provided general benefits information only and did not indicate if executive and management employees receive any benefits beyond those offered to the general employees. PSPC COR APR 2025 6 A. VACATION LEAVE ACCRUALS Vacation benefits are offered by all sixteen comparator employers included in this survey. Vacation accrual amounts vary by several factors for all the cities surveyed. Factors affecting an employee's accrual amount include length of service, management or non -management status of the position, and bargaining unit affiliation. For ease in comparing rates, the tables below breakdown vacation accrual rates for lengths of service in five-year intervals. Length of Service and @1 Year @5 Years @10 Years @15 Years @20 Years 20+ Years Hours per Year Market Average 100 120 145 168 175 176 City of Rosemead 140 140 147 160 160 160 Variance (hours) +40 +20 +2 -8 -15 -16 Variance% +28% +14% +1% -5% -10% -10% AHEAD AHEAD COMPETITIVE COMPETITIVE BELOW BELOW • The City offers a competitive number of vacation hours per year for employees with one year of service through fifteen years of service. • The City does not offer a competitive number of paid vacation hours for employees with more than twenty years of service. B. OTHER LEAVE ACCRUALS The table below compares the other paid leave categories offered by the City and the comparator employers. Sick Holidays Personal AdminlMgmt (Exempt levels (Hrslyr) (Dayslyr) (Hrslyr) only) Market Average 101 10 24 72 City of Rosemead 120 12 0 70 Variance (hours) +19 +2 -24 -2 Variance % +16% +20% -3% AHEAD AHEAD BELOW COMPETITIVE " Unable to calculate • The City offers a competitive number of hours of paid sick leave, paid holidays, and Administrative/Management leave. • The City is not competitive for personal leave PSPC COR APR 2025 7 City of Rosemead 2025 Total Compensation Survey External Prevailing Rates Comparison Rosemead TMe from Salary Structure I Rosemead I Market Shaded boxes represent job Gasses BEHIND the Market data by more than 5% Bold only vanances are AHEAD of the Market data by more than 5%. Director M Community Development Director of Finance Assistant City Manager Director of Public Works Director of Parks 8 Recreation City Manager city Clerk Human Resources Manager Planning 8 Econ Development Mgr City Engineer Finance Manager Deputy Director of Community Development Public Safety Manager Building Official Public Works Manager Senior Management Analyst Human Resources Analyst Management Analyst Associate Planner Planner, Senior Executive Mat To The City Mgr Code Enforcement Officer, Senior Recreational Supervisor Administrahve Specialist Administrative Analyst Associate Engineer Accountant Public Safety Supervisor Deputy City Clark Code Enforcement Officer Assistant Planner Maintenance Lead Worker- Public orkerPublic Warks Inpsecor Recreation Coordinator Fan Checker Accounting Specialist, Senior Building Inspector Maintenance Worker Administrative Assistant Facilities Technician Pemut Technician Accounting Spedalist PART-TIME JOB CLASSES: Youth Worker Assistant Pool Manager Administrative Intern Parking Control Officer Lifeguard Sw rn4nsh hx Community Service Officer Park Ranger Lifeguard Fayschool Teacher Aquatic Attendant Recreation Leader Recreation Leader, Senior Office Spedalist (Pan4ime) For Infomration and Salary Planning Only: Chief Deputy City Clark (to elected Clerk) Elected City Clerk $17,948 $18,134 4186 -1.04% $18,533 j $18,692 4159 41.86% 320,448 $20,535 487 41.43% $18,601 j $18,616 415 4.08% $17,067 $17,045 $22 0.13% $21,416 j $22,970 41,554 -7.26% $13,717 $12,446 $1,271 9.27% $10,434 I $12,429 -$1,995 -19.12% $11,150 j $12,679 -$1,529 -13.71% $13,318 $15,101 41,783 -13.39% $11,178 j $12,480 41,302 -11.65% $13,308 $14,796 41,488 -11.18% $10,236 j $11,221 4985 -9.62% $11,990 i $13,092 -$1,102 -9.19% $10,906 j $11,821 4915 4.39% $8,076 $9,330 $7,362 $8,255 $7,426 j $8,011 $8,000 $8,541 $9,6% j $10,182 $6,915 $7,092 $7,872 j $8,006 $7,755 $7,975 $6,210 j $6,008 $6,785 $6,543 $10,045 j $9,636 $8,015 $7,672 $9,304 j $8,648 $7,758 i $7,302 $6,254 $6,775 $7,048 $7,507 $6,126 $5,378 $7,579 j $7,878 $5,891 56,119 $8,488 j $8,673 $6,174 V3218 $7,683 I $7,475 $5,336 55,160 $5,645 j $5,450 $5,504 $5,330 $6,156 $5,671 $5,741 $5,204 $1660 j $18.39 $22.85 524.19 $20.18 j $20.53 $25.94 $28.21 $21.76 j $21.97 $25.94 $25.92 $25.94 j $25.53 $20.72 $20.10 $23.53 j $22.42 $19.53 $18.54 $20.12 j $18.64 $23.53 $20.79 $24.70 1 $21.25 FYI j $11492 FYI $1,915 41,254 4893 4585 4541 -$406 dm -$134 4220 $202 $242 $409 $343 $655 5456 4521 4481 4252 4299 4228 -Sim 444 $208 $176 $195 $174 $485 $537 -$1,79 -$1.34 -$0.35 40.27 40.22 $0.03 $0.42 $0.62 $1.12 50.99 $1.48 $2.74 $3,45 -1S.53% -12.13% -7.88% 4.76% 4.01% -2.56% -1.70% -2.84% 3.26% 3.57% 4.07% 4.28% 7.05% 5.88% 4.33% 4.54% 4.11.6 3.95% 4.07% -2.18% -0.n% 2.71% 3.29% 3.46% 3.16% 7.87% 9.36% -10.78% 4.611.6 -1.72% -1.03% -1.00% 0.11% 1.61% 2.99% 475% 5.05% 7.34% 11.6,1% 13.98% Page 1 of 28 MAX TOTAL COMPENSATION °Wvr Rosemead Market a Varian 16 $24,313 $23,411 $902 3.850A 16 $25,027 j $24,029 $998 4.15% 12 $27,365 $26,012 $1,353 6.20% 15 $25,110 $23,903 $1,207 6.05% 16 $23,237 $22,166 $1,071 4.83% 16 $28,547 $28,896 -$U9 -1.21% 7 $19,147 $17,WB $1,839 10.63% ,. $14,W3 i $16,205 41,842 -11.37% 16 $15,194 j $16,569 41,375 4.30% _ $17,711 $19,587 41876 -9.58% i., $15,227 j $16,442 41,215 -7.39% 8 $17,699 $18,931 41,232 4.51% 6 $14,133 $15,260 -$1,117 4.32% 11 $16,169 $17,098 4926 4.42% 14 $14,911 $15,632 4721 4.61% .. $11,625 1 $12,673 41.48 4.27% 15 $10,797 i $11,729 4932 -7.86% '.4 $10,871 j $11,430 4559 -4.89% 9 $11,537 $12.32 4495 4.11% 13 $13,506 $13,813 -$W7 -2.22% 12 $10,278 $10,376 -$98 4.94% 9 $11,389 $11,590 4201 -1.74% 14 $11,253 $11,351 498 43.B7% 16 $9,459 $9,147 $312 3.42% 9810,127 $8,553 I $9,742 $385 3.95% 10 $13,911 $13,239 $672 6.08% 13 $11,555 $10,981 $574 6.23% 9 $13,051 j $12,124 5927 7.64% 13 $11,258 $10,560 $698 6.59% t3 $9,260 $10,039 -111T79 -7.76% 15 810,180 $10,795 4615 4.70% '.4 $9,112 $9,577 4465 4.85% 9 $10,798 $11,127 4328 -2.95% 13 $8,939 $9,270 4431 4.65% 6 $11,854 $12,132 4278 -2.29% 13 $9,167 $9,207 439 4L4 % 12 $10,919 $10,847 $n 0.67% 16 $8,195 $8,154 S40 0.50% 16 $8,553 I $8,484 $69 0.81% $8,390 i $8,204 $185 2.26% 10 $9,147 $8,735 $411 4.71% 1_ $8,665 $8,182 $483 5.91% PSPC COR APR 2025 Appendix - Page 7 N 2 H N G N O N C N O CL c r Ed 0 CL L� o U U 0 v9 F N O N 83�Z P3$gg? P23i 8 8 8 P 9: 9: €£€a� k", kill s: 'esz5 sE e�'a obs saa QE 8�dP .Far 3: s» ayya§ B$gE€gL :�ppy's 9 9 s aE a�''= s^ a� ez� ap 3 x x O • _8 8 _ 9 S a c� Fgg =a o %'- i 9 9 3 3 0 000 € &� u" U Z u e� = m w � q` < E E E N O 3 Oy f E c 2 0 0 O O O O O O m F iJ Gm� S—u f f f 5 6 W '3y C 4 o a U V U U j j j Hi §! E )g\ 2l 2 § | . p•» j; !!| .,! , ` 10 ( � �! |` I| . | • //\ / \ } } } \ / ( < ! - i - - ; " Mlil!! EMM ! • JR�.z• - - /g'm24! wyq• eb23 MI; ! ! |||{! { ` J§ • • ---_ � § !2 | , ! | ))) ;. 25!}5§ Is !!!lV.., ! ! ! , I ) \�\i!!}{!/ ! i | § ; ] _ � T d 2w y d m d O i+ c G E m O N c N N ° E c C y CL T. UO V U 00 .� N O N Z4 § ) !| |! §� \\ � \ \ } \ \\ \ \ } I- ! ! | ! , !! ƒ ( k} ƒ } { ) ƒ! ;\0 ()k / CL E /0 j0 § || `! e 112 � } 2 (§ § || z{||| || 0 _ ■ ,! , ) §z��!!|)))�/ § ƒ� 00 §)k o /e( °0 ] | w ! . � !|! �!!!• ,!!" �, ,• § ! ) ■)) ; |\( ) | | | ) | ,/■ ; ■ , , } § � | \ lu <!® ! ! !!| !!I ! !!2!! | ! | |. !! !! i� |� ! !! } (� ! § § 2 _;;■,■s, : , t■§!E|!! ! § \ E ■ ;, !!||!§! ■ r•- , LL- - d \ §} § | .. ! !! !||! §] � � !, L §} § |! I !! ! all ■ E§ § § o - � !! ,! • ) ! ! ! §) 72 ) ) 2 ,e. }h _ � §)] >| ! {{!- ;|!! | |� ! .! ! |f § !|AA ) ) }/!0 0 0 0 `��}|\ Ul`_ •,_, !., ; i!!!; ; ! | i Milt l t�`�` ) , ||f gj� i § § § >! §§)§ § i ) / q�^ , !! ! !, ! | \ ||!- /)/ �! ) - � � - ; !!!!!!N!!! ! • ! ! ! IT d Z w d m O � d r C E mO d +' N A ° E c d CL V E U U 05 O N � N P z° i a o' 'r3 `a eS xm e E Y r � x x o x x x C px t �x a 3 g�� E� - m 0 U 5 rc � P I N !H !8 !H I8 iI sf a n W e ui x SE •E f8 «E «� • «E m•a e m g � s zc aE % zcscn n �` r n r n n n � n n g � n n � r i'gng.'i Ag $a icyw r4$nfS •n �w 3�'dS�al w"n'.! lei �wg _a3 t E L i i Y SaS9En • X s s= t : y � � : : : S L S it u�•a X X, X X X M �� X X X Rm X X X X X X oy3pe rt�gi R g b iLC age :ge yiu�e x y y x y y y y p, coF � 2V� .� y a t. • $ i€ • £ a ury �� m Ea e i i i i S F 5 3 3 S S F 3 F Z S Z S 4 € � � s ' a • a � Y '• � e a a I N \ _; /\ | | | ! £\! ; !t� , !!!. ■§| ■. !! �� S a n ma U yy �.b vua pp sxn a�N 2 E x SX FSE X oE3: � S w gg w�a§ t :rp: € 6•• S y e o•E ud n6 nil mem 'fie f a $ 3 3 y 9 7 s g��-nx dm i i a A., AWS s. Es2 €xe r�waoa u - -y - 0 4$• o � o 0 0 0 o a P� Nwn: a •$ s g g 8 8 8 8 8 8 $ $ 8 W�5 - $Uw • m s G �e di S S5 ° '• ° 6 a E ^ a ry if — E u • F ff 0 i(� !E \\ f!i| |f|f !!�| j§ {!�! !!,! | f / \` /\\ \� | !!0 !| !I = !■|r . 10 §|§ §§ nim ■ - I!||§ !! R!! !!®■ ■ | fig /( . || » �) I , .!! |! � _ ■ § £& !! i [§ /7[§! =i |, \ 44 $ |||\)]]0Eluj 2 ; i |{ ! !!!!!! _ v O o ii iiii1M■1■111iiiiiIn ,11"�■��-�©..1'1"1'. „"11■_®_..■■"11'11® ® 8 �'t1111■--.-1'..I'I�'ll■ ®1�1111��■■■�1111111� ! » !! § \\) !!F i !!] )!, > \!\| . )))\ | \ ®\®! N � � � ! ! » !! § )))\ | \ » !! § 9> , \ \! \ \�\ ` ! § ; § m r;!!!! !! !! ! ` ! § ; § m r;!!!! m ; ;S2§2 r !!§2 /m ;;;; ! ;§§,; . ra ! . § > , ! E E ! r; r! E E ) s2 ( ! ! !2;!! ( 2 \k§ §2e a[\ �EcL \\k i3$� w cli cm ; , ■ OF 10-110? ; , ■ ■ § E�r , ■ ■ ■ ,!f , ■ , ■ ,¥r � !f ! :! \ �\ \ Q� § 4 ! ; , ■ OF 10-110? ; , ■ ■ § E�r , ■ ■ ■ ,!f , ■ , ■ ,¥r ; , ■ OF 10-110? ; , ■ ■ § E�r ; , ■ ! ,«; y GRG ©« > tO < :-\/\ 2!« d g !R= ! ,C�p e © tO r lffr )\f§f ! ! f ! !! ! f ! ! ! { §;!)§j ) \ ) ! j ! { \ ! § \! !§ ! j,!!•!! ! \ ! / | � �/)91 T d 3 l0 O d d r+ 7 R 0 C J d O o G R Ea 0 06 U « a 0 F N O N v$ m =c'2 No a_ 2 - n� �U ^ Ln m i� ^ �0 s i0`v€ �4s'i9€�' m i �2o uL m8 y iF meo hoc 9g a3E u°x v$ m U a a =c'2 No a_ 2 - n� �U ^ ^ �0 s ds" ^ N ^^ ^^ N m e N N ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ m ^ ^ �2 ^^^^ nd E`° ESO m m d m m m m m E'm m m m �O ¢ m C m p m E .E g E o e E E E E o f E o 0 0 J -E m� o N N 3J .Y omN z z° A ^ z N z z z z z mz o m 0 om E E E E E E E E E E E E m m m m $ d u u $ u v d m X wwww W w w w w'uS N N N N Y E u T O 25 c Uc 5 E F� 6 M N N HYi N 0 W Z 22 d N U a a � J ))§ (D a[� �EcL $\§ �0 LO cli \\� � O c O 4-1 co c 0- E O U O LO N O N �c ca N E N M O A n N h co co � | ! ][ 22/2GGGS; § .. !] 5g2&26&b! ^ h| !|_ , uln.6/ } k � !§! . {) /�2aeJRv • ( ! ! ! ! \) • ! ! ° | ! f�| , ......... ! .. �� ......... � | | . : ......... ; ! .......... ! ! 10 , { § 0 .....; : !!! ..... ... � • .. \ f 1 \ } .......... !! ! \ � ! - !! { | Q ) ! ) ; !! .. , . .... ! • . .. . . \ § jA _ ■ , |�,;;!|�!|| }� .\\\�\ba: ;2 l2HaHaee; . £| ) ; X RRoeeRRe - eee256we ; !E a2 ;;!!!!; : ! . ............. . . ; au !!�!!|||!�!•!;!| aug; �,.!!|I! `| ! {\I\ X \{ H RRoeeRRe - eee256we ; !E a2 ;;!!!!; : ! . ............. . . ; au !!�!!|||!�!•!;!| aug; �,.!!|I! {\I\ / ! \{ H ! q \ �� § § \�� § ! ! /\//////| §S 2225bES2; ! ! , ! §•; I !!! ;;!! 2 , G/R5G5&E! ! \/ !§!}|!| mill ! !| wu . /66 ,9 \adoaQdb GaQUQdI o ®weeelRR! ! ! |||()A§ai}%... 11 | ;| u \DQ.As. I !§§ ! ..... ■ r...,,,1.....; „ ] u \DQ.As. I . k { § )! ! ;� / H,�, au 8j e• is �f E• E Eyj frF3 F� �WJ HPaaII�B O� 3 n M d �e�8'mdd'sag d�i�;3 C gS d e a ass {ww-�gggFFFFFFFF d F'��15993?3949993 11 H �t � \�� ! ! | Ti � l : ! l 7 !! |! | ! &b2R99-- ! | \ � nu AFFUq ! | !|r:!!•..•• ! ! ,w gJ&.....! ==._,._.;,;, | , 1�,,......, ;;!!!€ ! ! �!!!ll.........! | §§ §h§\§§ ! ! !! ., .. ... 2g GGSSS-| ! !n RR ReRR#. ■ |ES || -- -- .eDR9eweg --;....!- ; )# ) 1 � !)\| |!!•!!!!`! 1,,l.,�,l,.r,l,!! - 82QhgBgR; I M. § ea/Geew- ! � eSgRRR§A , ! 4-gaeE-E | § Sal RRRRRpR@ r ! !!;; „ A 2 2 a 1 !!!; �!A'M I A ;)! � | ( | !g@g\ ADAaa=�j /eH | § | � ! §j\\/�� &woJwaaA. � , | / j Iis, I , gRS2hRGe 55225525 SRSSSG2G !!!!!!..... ;!l] Iis, I \ ) � §!!!;:!!!!;;!• , ; . ... Rg9RRc� \252&5E- 1...,1,..1.,.,.; f /QG62bba R#RR;RgR; !! . : ..... ON .... , |! ... ... -- |� #! RRREaa2 Uf_...... , .,=l•,.r, . ,,,,,.. i , �)!�) | | - ! ® !\ , ! . - R`!! ) . � | / R/RGRRRR ! 226a&2B- ;; ;!! I§ ;; : !:!!!• ; ,E ,•. G2S8522- Q\!Gd#§§! ea8eB5ad� | ( !Ili -lei i l,;! § | !! ! } IIla, I . ,,. .., � � !!!!!!!!!!!!t!!\ , ; eRR@E©®® SbbBE--- , 1....... eR9RE..� .,...,... eeRRe... � Wil / � !; 9 f � P a 6 asnIsa!RZImwmn�" F 4 FFFFFFa"F== ssx s'ii3€sE€� gip____ 6 saR=i'%CL SFSFF aaaaaaasaa3�=�s� y7 I C 4 |l § RRRDRSgG 52225&66 § ..; . 52222g5b r,..,..,,,..r.., §hhh§§\/ g S G Aa AA � | ! ; ! ! | |� h |l § RRRDRSgG 52225&66 § ..; . 52222g5b r,..,..,,,..r.., §hhh§§\/ g S G Aa AA � | } !oifiH IH M 1119 ;!!!!l;;:!!l::: § LU 5825252E § ! ! s ;!!!!l;;:!!l::: § LU 5825252E § } !a M |� ! � \/222/5- If ! i � ~ ! � i f , � { |5 \ } � | ! ! ! § I ! t ) � / ! - ! T N O C b O m v E 'w y c d°,u E �U �_ U � F N N � i85'E �£B�i� UU a'aYg::::::Yc]e E aaaa�;5a3aad£� bb�bbbb��bab='s la��z��zl3�i�'a`�g 9 i s S E i �W au s FF E' $e �r E mCn nRRSnnn.�nae9 Q OeUiU^��u!{S rvn�mn� a e F P s'uii as s`$^��ae I Fesu�33 S s a S E N m 3 _S UM.--H-H 9p�gd^ A R 9$'4 'E4FZF mm U�2 a It 9m2m?g�� H,�, at P� of l 3 �� XX�eeXgXX sR,N�N'agzq��mm__ $ $ 4um X a S3RA .�1 a R , SSSSR89�RRss, �R888'S88S x��sm��Rs6R�p .»»:RX%A%SRRR 0° 2$ m R A: o m`? 9 y s2 g 4 g gE�r€€�sEEE€€ Ye s6.�@g4sa$as2s t 8 E H9 E S - . Y Y F E X Xe N .. saa.. »»»»» . . .°R'�°_c'XR000RRRoR 566§iim�€ZGIdd3i 4 s lid C E` 3 E b y5' �Y_a g ``e UBt��Z2 Zi4yyE{ 4$ 'gSSS'�FSiFiFFSS R:uYR4£4444443 E Z 0 ! !� � ! ` igaas ]| ! § so ) JhQgHg//B, �!| ! • ... : ! � \ ! RRRRRR9R 522&52/2 GSS22/65 ;_;;;:,,,1;,;;,. !| ) 1|!1 §gRRRR§0 ! ! IIIA � 9DE.......... Mill.---- ; � § !� � ] ! � /�� ! .,._.. ., ..,, OagBE--- ;;! ,,,..r,,,,,.; ed§Rhj2h. ! { !!!!||!i| ! . | !! { � . /G2G..... # !� § • ;bgh G-■ ,!| i| !; !;: ; ••. _ - • |! . .... . § o/ o � . . . ... m S5g2b/E- ; §l ,oewageo# � | ! ! � !| | !! { � . ) ! ))|!!!!|!||!l''' H , !! \ A�q\Aj | ,,1,).,,..1..."� � ! ! ! ; )! \f , � � ! \ ) � ! ! , •ll,;.l......1. \ ! I ,.,,. ,,,__........... /gs�e9391 H � ( � !J '| ..... \hjj§SG\ i \hjj§SG\ | | ! | i ! : � ! k( \ °( § _ ! m ]� SQ2GG--- §2 ! ( � § � , i !] ! ! . ) : jlE!; \| ! f !j #I ggy..... !!! .. .. E' ) � { � \} � � 2 !!! -- ! ! BgHo g\Q| !! !| It! �I Meeeoeeee ; 3 � �! � ! � � |! }/ \ !|| � | � ! _ , QGRQP�Ha {|egee2lno � `! ! ��!{! A E uo yF�e iE -a . 99 gn$i`q- €g 5��5�yy Fa'Y�6mm��; mmSZd�uIiFFF r E ii E Attachment B Draft Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes for Item 6.A Dated April 8, 2025 MAYOR: MARGARET CLARK MAYOR PRO TEM: SANDRA ARI.f A COUNCIL MEMBERS: SEAN DANG PDLLY Low . STEVEN LY City of lgsemead 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100 SUMMARY EXCERPT CITY OF ROSEMEAD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MEETING MINUTES APRIL 8, 2025 The following is a draft summary excerpt from the Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council held on April 8, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Present: Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members Dang, and Low Absent: Mayor Clark and Council Member Ly Staff Present: City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua, Director of Community Development Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, Director of Public Works Gutierrez and City Clerk Hernandez 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions In 2024, the City engaged Public Sector Personnel Consultants to review and make recommendations to the compensation structure for all City positions and propose strategies for improvement. This report summarizes the study's findings and its connection to the recommended compensation adjustments. Additionally, staff recommends aligning below-market salaries with current market rates. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: Receive and file the Citywide Total Compensation study report provided by Public Sector Personnel Consultants. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-20, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE SALARY SCHEDULE TO MEET THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 2, Page 1 of 17 SECTION 570.5 AND 571 TO REFLECT APPROVED RATES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD 3. Approval to bring back a salary adjustment resolution for Rosemead Employee Association after a meet and confer with Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321 representatives. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua introduced Kay Tisler from Public Sector Personnel Consultants who was going to present part of the presentation. He noted that Ms. Tisler has over 30 years of human resource experience and has been working with Public Sector Personnel Consultants for 20 years. KU Tisler, of Public Sector Personnel Consultants, presented an overview of the survey objective, stating that the purpose of conducting a salary survey was to examine what other organizations were paying in order to gauge where the City of Rosemead stood in relation to the competitive marketplace in terms of both salary and benefits. The competitive marketplace was assessed based on employers that were in relative competition with the city, both in recruiting employees and potentially contributing to employee turnover. The compensation plan examined the external competitiveness of the City of Rosemead's compensation, while also considering internal equity, affordability, and sustainability as major components. The survey comparators included in the study were selected based on their proximity to the city, the level of competition they presented in terms of the city's ability to recruit employees, and the extent to which they competed by recruiting employees away from the city. We considered where the City's employees were coming from and where they were going, as well as the similarity of services offered by other employers. When conducting a survey like this, the focus is on evaluating the value of each occupation and understanding where those occupations are situated within the market. We also examined where City employees live. To support this analysis, we created a heat map to visualize employee locations and identify whether there are other employers within commuting distance where these employees might potentially seek employment. The data gathered came directly from the selected comparator agencies. We contacted each comparator or obtained their salary structures and benefit plans. The City of Rosemead served as the basis for making comparisons. We reviewed the comparator organizations' org charts, budgets, and job descriptions to determine whether they had positions similar to those in the City of Rosemead. Rosemead was the reference point, and we examined all relevant documents from the comparators to identify matches to your job classifications. This allowed us to collect information on both base salary and benefits. The big question then once we've gathered the salary survey would be, well, where does the city of Rosemead want to be in relationship to those competitive employers? The methodology used focused on analyzing the salary range maximums. In discussions with the City of Rosemead, we reviewed their pay philosophy and strategy and determined that the salary Page 2 of 17 survey would be based on maximum salary levels. This means we looked at the highest possible salary attainable for each job classification within the City and then collected the corresponding maximum salary data from the comparator agencies. This approach allowed for a direct comparison of maximum -to -maximum salary ranges. The prevailing market rate was then calculated by averaging the maximum salaries across all comparator agencies. So when saying prevailing rate or the market rate, it's the average for each of those job classes, all the maximums for each employer that are included in each individual job classification or benchmark. We analyzed the base maximum specifically, the highest salary attainable for each job classification and then added the City's contributions to employee benefits to calculate total compensation. We considered all major benefit components that typically contribute to total compensation, including medical, dental, and vision coverage. We evaluated how much each comparator city pays on behalf of the employee for these benefits. Recognizing that benefit plans often have multiple tiers, we focused on the maximum contribution each city would make, assuming the employee enrolled their entire family. Additionally, we included any deferred compensation offered by the comparator agencies as part of the total compensation analysis. In addition, added any allowances for auto and technology devices respectively. We know that many executive level classifications receive auto and technology allowances, which can sometimes be significant amounts of money. We also reviewed offerings related to bilingual certification, educational incentives, and longevity pay. These are what we refer to as "big-ticket items", the types of compensation that can significantly impact the difference between base salary and the maximum salary attainable through additional incentive programs. The results from 16 comparators with a total of 55 positions, we were successful in benchmarking almost every one of the city's job classes. The ability to benchmark it, hinges on whether those 16 comparators have a comparable job class. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, or it may be something that's a blended job class. We looked at the City of Pasadena, their job class might not match the City of Rosemead sufficiently to say that it's really a comparable job. We were able to collect a substantial amount of market data for 55 positions. In total, the survey included data on over 639 comparable jobs, resulting in a robust database of competitor job information. When analyzing the data, the base compensation refers specifically to the value of the salary range maximums for each position. 18 of the benchmark job classifications were more than 5% below the market, representing approximately 33% of the survey sample. About half of the positions were found to be comparable when comparing base salary to base salary. Additionally, approximately 16% or nine positions were more than 5% above the market. Roughly, 67% of the jobs were at or ahead of the market when we compared just base compensation. When we added in the total compensation, the medical, dental, vision, the auto, where it was applicable, and then the incentive programs, certification, education, bilingual. We added the value of that, and we had a little bit of a shift, so the City of Rosemead does offer some very generous benefits. The number of positions that were more than 5% below market, there were 11 of them, approximately 26%. Within 5% of the market, the comparable job classes, we had 23, just over half. There were a few that are still ahead of the market by more than 5% when we look at the combined value of base compensation plus the benefits. Page 3 of 17 Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained about the number of positions that are below or above market by employee groups. The group that was impacted the most is the Mid - Management, Professional and Confidential, which was 74%, of the position classifications being below market with 17 below, six above. In the Rosemead Employee Association, there were 12 positions benchmarked, six are below market and six are above market on base compensation. The unrepresented Executive Management Group consists of seven positions, five are below market share, two are above. The unrepresented part-time, five below and eight above. Mr. Chua referenced slide no. 8 of the presentation, noting that the compensation survey results for the Executive group monthly rates compared to the market 5 positions below market, 2 positions above. The variance ranges anywhere between 9.3% above market for the City Clerk position to a negative 7.3% below market for the City Manager's position. Referring to slide no. 9, the compensation survey results for the Mid -Management, Professional and Confidential group, has 18 positions below market 6 above. The variance between the positions ranged anywhere from a negative 19.1%, which is the Human Resource Manager position and 7.1 % above which is the Public Safety Supervisor. Slide no. 10, the compensation survey results for the Rosemead Employee Association has 6 positions below market, and 6 positions are above. The variance with this group was anywhere between plus 9.4% and negative 8.3%. The negative 8.3% was a Code Enforcement Officer position and the plus 9.4% is the Accounting Specialist. Slide no. 11 is the Part -Time group, the variance for these positions range from anywhere between plus 14%, which is the Office Specialist position, and negative 10.8%, which is the Youth Worker position. Ms. Tilser continued by explaining that vacation time is not necessarily considered part of total compensation, since employees must actually use the time off to receive the cash value. We did examine the amount of paid time off offered in the market and compared it to what Rosemead provides. To normalize the data, because each comparator offers vacation and adjusts accrual rates at different points (some at two years, others at seven), we used five-year increments for comparison. Specifically, looked at vacation accrual at one year, five years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, and beyond 20 years. The "20 -plus" category represents the maximum vacation accrual offered by each employer. Some organizations extend their accrual rates up to 30 years, providing different rates for very long-term employees. We compared these figures, and you can see a breakdown of vacation accrual by years of service (referring slide no. 12). For the first four service intervals, Rosemead is either ahead of or competitive with both the marketplace offerings and the market average. However, at the 20 -year mark, Rosemead begins to fall slightly below the average at approximately 10% less than what the market offers at that level. On Slide no. 13, she explained further that other leave accruals don't necessarily change based on years of service. The market average for sick was measured in hours per year and then holidays, the number of days per year. Rosemead was ahead of the market average on both of those. Personal hours the City does not offer, however, the market average per year was 24 hours, which would Page 4 of 17 typically be three hours or three days. But when you look at how generous the sick and holidays are, that's not anything that requires any further attention to it, unless the city desires to offer personal time off. The exempt level employees, Administrative Management and Executives are expected to work salaried schedules and don't get the benefit of paid time off or overtime, they're afforded some management leave to make up for the overtime that they work. That is within the 5% parameter that Public Sector Personnel Consultants usually identifies as the threshold for competitiveness, the City of Rosemead is competitive in the management and admin level paid leave that is offered by the comparator employers. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua continued with the presentation stating that staff recommendation was based on the consultant's report and based on the data presented to increasing salaries below market level to attract and retain qualified employees. It's going to impact 33 classifications covering 39 full time and 8.5 full time equivalent part time positions, excluding the City Manager and City Clerk, it's going to help reduce turnover, boost morale, improved productivity and cut recruitment and training costs. What we are recommending to the City Council is to approve increases in the Mid -Management group, Part -Time group, and Executive group for those that are below market. For example, the Human Resources Manager was about 19% below market. This doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to receive an automatic 19% increase. Because when we create the new range, that's going to also create a new step system, and we currently have a 10 -step system for each position. So based on where they currently are in the step system, they're going to fall out of place within the new structure, so they would have to move incrementally and we're calculating anywhere between 0.01% to a 2.9% increase for those employees. The impacted employees will range anywhere from 0.3% to 2.9% for salary adjustment. Raises will depend on performance evaluations, tenure and other factors. For those positions that are above the market, we did want to maintain them at their current rates to maintain morale, fairness and competitiveness. So we're not recommending that those above market positions be reduced. Mr. Chua explained there were three recommendations for the council to consider, 1) to receive and file the city-wide total compensation study report. 2) Approve Resolution no. 2025-20, to amend the salary listing for full-time and part-time positions adjusting salary ranges to align below market classifications with market rates for the Executive Group, Mid -Management, Professional and Confidential Group, and the Part Time Group. 3) Since the Rosemead Employee Association is a bargaining unit, we would have to meet and confer about the salary adjustment and come back to the City Council at a later time after we had met with the with the union. Mayor Armenia asked for clarification about the correction noted to the Youth Worker about the $16.60 on the chart of page 6 of 8 of the staff report. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chun explained that the $16.60 was the current rate for the Youth Worker. The proposed revised schedule had a maximum rate, that when calculated backwards, should have a start step of $16.60, instead of $16.65 that is on the proposed chart. The compensation study just took a look the position maximums. The current chart excludes steps two to five, and the current rate of $16.60 is considered the maximum. On the proposed table, steps Page 5 of 17 two to five are included, which now provides for a maximum hourly rate of $18.39 to align with the marker. City Manager Kim clarified that the current maximum for the Youth Worker position is $16.60, and staff recommendation is based on the salary to amend that $16.60 to a new maximum of $18.39 based on the salary survey. Mayor Pro Tem Armenia reiterated that the proposed chart has $16.60 and added steps to reach $18.39. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua stated that every single position outside of the Youth Worker has steps. A Youth Worker is an entry level position that a lot of times they're only in step 1, and they transition into other positions within the organization like parks and recreation. Council Member Dang asked for clarification of staff recommendation no. 3. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained that staff could not ask for approval of salary adjustments to the Rosemead Employee Association yet. City Manager Kim interjected and explained that the city has three Memorandums of Understanding (MOUS). The first MOU is the Executive group, which are the directors. The second is the Executive and the Middle Management Professional Confidential group, which neither is represented as part of a union, therefore the City Council has the discretion to approve the resolution amending the salary ranges. However, the third group which is a general employee, is the Rosemead Employee Association, which is represented are a unionized group. Before we can make the salary adjustment, the union rules require that the City meet and confer and solicit their consent before bringing it back. Because we haven't done the meet and confer, and we're bringing it to the City Council for the first time, we're not able to approve a resolution amending their salary range at this time until we meet and confer with the union group. Council Member Dang stated he had difficulty with the idea of a meet and confer with the union group after the information has already been presented. City Attorney Richman stated that a resolution for the union group is something that will be approved again by the City Council. But as a part of the meet and confer negotiation process, we can't just impose it because then that could be considered not negotiating in good faith. Council Member Dang stated that normally there are discussions with the union in closed session with the proposals or recommendations and Council reviews that in closed session. He inquired why this could not be the same process as before. He said that now the Council was sharing the information too early in the negotiation process. City Manager Kim explained that the salary adjustment brings the positions up to market rate was not a request by the Rosemead Employee Association or the union group. This effort was started by him as his authority as a City Manager, which is noted in the Municipal Code to look at employee salaries and recommend adjustments to the City Council. That's why we did not discuss Page 6 of 17 or did not have a meet and confer prior to that because it wasn't a request by the union. Secondly, out of respect for the City Council, he noted he wanted to bring this to the City Council first to get the Council's feedback on the salary survey and the results and seek direction from the City Council. City Attorney Richman stated that the second item, the City Manager was trying to indicate, were adjustments that would be made outside of the meet and confer process can be discussed and determined, but the rest would just be as part of the meet and confer. Council Member Dang reiterated that item number two, the unrepresented group, he would have much preferred a meeting with the unions first and then have the salary presentation come afterward. He references it's like having the horse before the cart. Mr. Dang noted that the Council was showing their cards before the negotiations with the union. It just seems out of sequence. City Manager Kim stated that staff were not negotiating at this point, only conducting the salary survey equitably for every single position, and we're bringing the salary survey to City Council as a matter of to discuss. Later on, the meet and confer is not a matter of negotiating with the REA group but rather disclosing or talking to them about the salary survey and request feedback on moving forward. There's no negotiation. The negotiations with the REA are coming up and that's a separate process. Council Member Dang stated as an example, illustration to make his point clear. Suppose Council approved every single item on the list, and as a result, an individual ends up receiving, a 15% increase in compensation. The salary range itself is increasing by 15%. During negotiations, the employee also requests a cost -of -living adjustment (COLA) of an additional 5%. Within the same year, an individual could receive a 15% increase from the range adjustment, plus another 5% from COLA. Altogether, that's a substantial increase of 20% in total which is quite significant. City Manager Kim clarified that employees are not receiving a 15% increase. The timing overlaps with the upcoming MOU negotiations but believed this needs to be viewed separately. The salary survey report is not about negotiating COLA, benefits, or any other part of the compensation structure. Its sole purpose is to review the current salary ranges for every position in the City of Rosemead. 'Be last time the City conducted such a review was 15 years ago, so it's long overdue. The report simply presents findings to the Council, showing which positions are below market, which are above, and which are in line. The ask is to adjust the salary ranges of those positions that are currently below market, bringing them up to market level. This process is separate from any negotiations and is about ensuring the pay structure is competitive and current. Council Member Dang stated Mr. Kim was within his rights to bring this to the Council's attention. He also supports the efforts to ensure that the City is staying competitive in the market. Where he expressed different opinions on the idea of a giving blanket approval based solely on a consultant's report. By "blanket approval," adopting the recommendations across the board just because the consultant categorized positions as above or below market using their data model. The second concern was about the broader market conditions. We're entering a period where some cities are even considering layoffs, and in that context made him cautious about making across-the-board blanket approval. From the perspective of our residents looking in from the outside, reading the Page 7 of 17 news and headlines and then seeing that Rosemead is giving some employees a 15% increase, the optics aren't great. More importantly, the timing feels off. When you add the possibility of entering negotiations that could result in not just a 15%, but potentially an 18% or even 20% increase, it only adds to the concern. Given the current economic climate, the overall appearance of this move could be poorly received. Council Member Low stated she was trying to understand Council Member Dang's point of view. She stated that staff conducted the study to show whether certain positions were below or above market level. She asked if this got approved, would the union come back to ask for more to the ranges? City Manager Kim stated that the union could ask, but it would be very difficult to justify the increase because the City just did a legitimate salary survey to show every single position what the market rate is, and the City made in good faith in adjusting the market positions below to the market rate. It doesn't prevent anybody from asking. Council Member Low reiterated that in good faith the City did the market study, and this is what the City would be willing to offer to adjust the range. City Manager Kim further stated that the proposal only applies to positions that are currently below market value. To clarify during the negotiation process, an employee group could request a 10% increase to the salary range for all positions within their bargaining unit. If that were approved, then every position in that group regardless of whether it's below or above market would receive that 10% adjustment. For example, if a position is already 5% above market and the Council grants the 10% increase, that position would then be 15% above market. That's how across-the-board negotiation increases work. But what staff is recommending here is not that. This is not a blanket increase for all positions. The proposal strictly targets positions that are below market, and only those would see an adjustment. Positions already at or above market would remain unchanged. Council Member Dang expressed that it would not be fair to reduce the salary for those positions that are above market. City Manager Kim assured that positions above the market would not change. He reiterated that unless the City Council was to make all positions market rate, that would reduce the salary to those currently at above market rate. In an effort to keep employee morale we don't want to hurt the employees that are above market already. Council Member Dang stated as an example, the Director of Parks and Recreation is currently just 0.1% above market. It might not seem fair if, after this process, he comes back that nearly 85% of City Hall received a pay increase, and he is being left out, he is not getting the same benefit. That could understandably feel unfair from his perspective, even though technically his position is already above market. City Attorney Richman clarified to the City Council to not keep referring to individuals, but it's important to understand that we're actually talking about salary ranges, not individual salaries. If we approve an increase for a specific position, that doesn't mean the person currently in that role Page 8 of 17 automatically jumps to the top of the new range. It simply means the range itself has been updated for that position. What is being asked is to adjust the ranges, not approving raises for specific individuals. During negotiations, employee groups often request that all salary ranges go up across the board, for example, by 10% claiming that they're under market. But when we don't have a current salary survey to reference, we don't have a strong basis to counter those requests. She noted that she did not want employees or members of the public to think that by approving this, anyone is automatically getting a 15% raise. When we mention a 15% increase, we're referring to adjustments in the salary range, not individual pay. No one is receiving a 15% salary increase just because a new range is being approved. Council Member Low agreed with the City Attorney and stated when she first read the report, one thing that confused her was the lack of emphasis on the salary range. The report mostly showed the maximum of each range, and it's easy to assume that's the number employees will immediately receive. For example, when we see that a position is 6.8% below market, her initial assumption was that the person in that role would automatically get a 6.8% raise. But that's not actually the case, after speaking with the City Manager. She noted that what's missing in the presentation is a clear explanation that these adjustments are to the ranges, and that employees move through steps within those ranges. After having a side conversation with the City Manager, she also realized the financial impact is actually smaller than expected, since these changes usually mean moving someone to the next step, not jumping them straight to the top of the new range. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained that if the Council approved the staff recommendation, the estimate for the remaining fiscal year is as follows: For the Mid -Management, Professional, and Confidential group, the cost would be approximately $15,000, based on the fiscal impact report. • For the part-time group, estimate about $2,000. In total, we're looking at around $17,000 for these two groups, as we're only adjusting the salary ranges, not directly increasing individual salaries. To clarify, for positions like the Human Resources Manager, which was 19% below market, the person will see an increase due to the movement in the range and the steps within that range. However, it won't be a full 19% increase. If we were to annualize the $15,000 for the Mid -Management group, the total would be roughly $71,000. For both groups combined, we're looking at an estimated total of about $80,000 for the year. City Manager Kim reiterated as an example, if the current salary range is at the one end of a step position, and the new range is further out, and the employee is at step five in the current range, they will remain at step five in the new range. However, there may be a slight adjustment in the spread between steps due to the updated range. The smallest spread between steps is 0.2%, but it's important to note that the employee's step won't change, it's just the range that's being adjusted. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained that based on the data, employee rankings fall between 0.3% and 2.9%. If the range changes significantly, an employee who is at step five in the current range might find themselves at step three or even step two in the new range. This could happen if the range shifts enough that they need to move back a few steps. However, despite potentially being at a lower step, the employee will still be earning more than they are currently making due to the overall adjustment in the range. Page 9 of 17 Mayor Pro Tem Armenta interpreted the difference between one step and the next step was $20 in the old range. If the new range sets the step difference at $25, the employee is not receiving both $20 and $25. They would only receive the additional $5 to reach the new step. City Manager Kim stated that the employee would move within the new range to the next step next closest step up. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua further explained that we have a 10 -step salary structure, with a 3% increase between each step, for example, from step one to step two, and from step two to step three, it's a 3% difference. That's why, if an employee is somewhere in the middle of the range, like at step five, the estimated increase from the range adjustment is relatively small, typically between 0.3% and 2.9% because the step intervals themselves are only 3%. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated her initial reaction was, are employees really going to be getting a 13% increase? She wanted to make it clear, especially to those watching from home, that employees will not automatically receive a 13% raise. Any increase still goes through the regular process, step system, performance evaluations, and merit -based increases. They don't just jump to the top of the new range. She noted she had the same concern if someone appeared to be getting a 13% raise while others weren't, it could affect morale. But these adjustments are about aligning with market value, and employees still have to progress through the step system over time to reach that value. She asked, when determining whether a position is below or above market value, is that it's based solely on base salary, or does it also include benefits? Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua replied the majority is based on base salary. It can be challenging to make accurate compensation comparisons, especially when we have legacy employees who may have more generous benefit packages. These differences often exist because they were hired before certain cutoff dates that made them eligible for benefits that are no longer offered to new hires. Depending on when someone joined the organization, their total compensation, particularly in terms of benefits, can vary significantly. To avoid confusion, we've chosen to focus primarily on base salary when discussing compensation. This is because base salary is typically what prospective candidates look at first when considering a position. Many applicants, especially those who may not be familiar with public sector benefits, often overlook the value of the full benefits package. From a recruitment and marketing perspective, highlighting the base salary made the most sense, as it's the most visible and easily understood component of compensation. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta expressed appreciation, because one of her concerns was how legacy employees, those who've been here for many years, often have different benefit packages. If benefits were included in the comparison, it could significantly skew the base pay. She thanked staff for focusing solely on base salary because that provides a fair and more accurate comparison. She noted you can't compare the benefits of someone who's been here 25 or 30 years with someone who just started two years ago. Council Member Low stated many of our positions in the study, at least at the maximum range are below market value. She acknowledged what Councilmember Dang was getting at, which is the idea of actually showing the numbers. The question is whether it's too early to do that. But by Page 10 of 17 approving the salary ranges, we're essentially saying that Rosemead is willing to either bring in new employees or pay our current employees at least at market value. When looking at the data, a significant number of our positions are under market, and that raises a bigger question. What message does that send to both the public and to our employees about how the City values its workforce. If the issue were that we financially couldn't afford it, that would be one thing. But if we can afford it, she expressed it was only fair for the City to pay employees at least what the market is offering elsewhere. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta agreed with Council Member Low because many have seen firsthand that the struggle to attract more experienced employees. Unfortunately, they tend to go to other agencies where they can earn higher compensation. As a result, we often end up hiring individuals who are fresh out of college which is great, because they bring energy and potential, they gain valuable experience here. Once they've built that experience, they leave for other cities that offer better pay. These are talented employees, and we'd love to keep them, but compensation is the main reason we lose them. I think that's a fair and accurate assessment of the situation. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua stated that the biggest variances below market, is the City Engineer, which took a very long time to recruit. In addition, it has been difficult to fill the position of the Planning and Economic Development Manager, which is currently being filled by a current employee in an acting role. Furthermore, the Building Official position is currently 9.2% below market. It's been about three years since we opened the recruitment for that role, and we still haven't been able to find a qualified candidate to fill it. This really highlights the challenge we're facing. In order to attract and retain highly qualified professionals and to keep the best employees we believe it's necessary to bring those below-market positions up to market level. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated she remembered that before Mr. Chua came on board, the City had a difficult time hiring for the Director of Finance position. It was challenging to attract qualified applicants or retain someone in that role. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua reiterated that from both an employee perspective and a fairness standpoint, it was a smart and transparent decision to hire a third -party consultant to conduct this study. They were responsible for collecting, comparing, and compiling the data independently without any undue influence from management. That gives this report credibility and ensures it presents a fair and objective view of the current salary market. This wasn't an internal review, it was conducted by a highly qualified professional with over 30 years of experience in FIR, and a long tenure with Public Sector Personnel Consultants. That level of expertise and neutrality is exactly why we're basing our recommendations on the findings of the report. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated she appreciated the unbiased assessment and having a tool that can show the City is doing their due diligence and making sure positions are at market value. Council Member Dang asked about Ca1PERS for non -legacy employees and who pays for that? Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua explained there are a few components to consider. First, legacy employees tend to be more expensive because of their benefit structure. They are Page 11 of 17 typically on a 2.7% at age 55 plan. Then, there are employees in-between, those who fall somewhere between legacy and classic plans. These employees are typically on a 2% at age 55 plan. Finally, there are the PEPRA employees, who are on a 2% at age 62 plan, and they all have different city contributions. On top of this, we also have to account for the unfunded liability, which is another financial obligation we need to address. Council Member Dang interpreted if for newer employees, there's a contribution they have to make in to the retirement system, which is part of the PEPRA plan. This money is deducted from their paycheck to help support and strengthen the existing retirement fund. Then, the city contributes to replenishing that fund on their behalf. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua stated there is a City contribution and there is an employee contribution for those in legacy and PEPRA. If you're a 2.7% at 55 the City is going to be contributing more than those employees who are in PEPRA. Council Member Dang asked if the amount was I% or was it a wash. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director interjected that it was between 8.7 or 8%. City Manager Kim explained that PEPRA worked liked social security, the employee and City pay respectively to the Ca1PERS system, approximately about 8%. In addition, sometime after 2012, the classic formula went away and then went to PEPRA which is 2% at 62. For employees who were previously in the Classic system, if they had a break in service of six months or more, they would not be able to return to the Classic system. Instead, they would enter the PEPRA system as new employees. Employees in PEPRA have a two-tier system, Classic and PEPRA. The key difference with PEPRA is that it doesn't matter how much an employee earns. In the Classic system, retirement benefits were typically based on the highest salary earned during the last year or sometimes the last three years of service. There wasn't really a salary cap, which meant that an employee could have a very high retirement benefit. For example, someone who earned $650,000 and then retired, collecting $400,000 or $500,000 in retirement benefits. This happened because there was no salary cap under the Classic system. However, PEPRA significantly changed this. Under PEPRA, there is a cap on the salary used to calculate retirement benefits, regardless of how much an employee earns. Right now, that cap is around $156,000. So even if an employee retires with a salary of $500,000, their retirement benefits under PEPRA would be calculated based on the $156,000 salary cap, not their highest salary. This system works somewhat like Social Security, where there's a cap on contributions. Once you reach a certain income level, you no longer contribute to Social Security. Similarly, PEPRA has a salary cap for retirement benefit calculations. Council Member Dang stated that he wanted to point out something about the data set used by the consultant. In reviewing the cities that were used for benchmarking Rosemead's positions. For example, if we look at the Assistant Planner position, the consultant included cities like Pasadena, Arcadia, San Marino, El Monte, Monterey Park, and others. While it's true that some of these cities are in the San Gabriel Valley, there's an issue with comparing Rosemead to certain larger cities, especially Pasadena. Pasadena is much larger, with high-rise buildings, extensive Page 12 of 17 developments, and areas like Colorado Boulevard and Old Town Pasadena, these are major metropolitan areas. He noted that, when comparing the Assistant Planner in Pasadena to the Assistant Planner in Rosemead, he expressed it was not an apples -to -apples comparison. While it makes sense to benchmark the Assistant Planner against cities of similar size and scope, like EI Monte or South El Monte, it doesn't seem appropriate to compare Rosemead to a big city like Pasadena. Pasadena's numbers are much higher, which, from an engineering perspective, skews the average. It affects the overall benchmarking data, making it less representative of what we should expect in a city like Rosemead. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked for clarification on how the cities were chosen for the study. Was cost of living a factor? Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua stated staff weren't simply focusing on nearby cities in the area. While Pasadena, for example, is somewhat larger in terms of population and workforce, there was a clear rationale behind the selection of the comparator cities chosen. To identify the cities included in the survey, we examined where current City of Rosemead employees live. If a significant number of employees reside in a particular city, that city could be considered a competitor or comparable agency since those, employees were more likely to seek job opportunities there. If a city like Pasadena had an opening for a position similar to one held by an employee in Rosemead, it was reasonable to assume that employees might consider applying, given the proximity and appeal. City Manager Kim stated that he has been with the City for seven years, and during that time, the City has consistently faced challenges in hiring for certain positions. Recruitment cycles can be lengthy and costly. A six-month recruitment effort doesn't just mean six months of expenses; it also involves significant staff time and resources. When key positions remain vacant for extended periods, it impacts on the overall efficiency of the organization and the quality of service provided to the community. It also places added stress on existing staff, who often have to take on additional responsibilities to cover the gaps. One major factor contributing to these challenges is the salary structure. In some cases, the City simply hasn't been competitive enough to attract or retain qualified candidates. There's also been a question about why larger cities like Pasadena were included in the survey. The reality is, if you're a strong candidate, you're not limiting your job search to cities of a certain size or population. You're applying to a range of cities, regardless of whether they're five square miles or have 50,000 residents like Rosemead. The job market is highly competitive. To attract top talent, the City needs to be competitive not only in salary but also in offering a clear path for professional growth. It's not just about hiring someone, it's about bringing in people who are motivated to stay and grow with the organization over time. Mr. Kim continued that at one point, the Public Services maintenance team had a 40% vacancy rate, meaning 60% of the staff were doing 100% of the work. It was an incredibly stressful time. Despite the reduced workforce, the expectations of the residents, businesses, and himself as the Public Works Director at that time, and the City Council remained the same, delivering full service. That kind of strain takes a toll on morale. He noted that as an example, he was performing the responsibilities of two roles, and at one point, even three. Yet, he was only being compensated for one position, and that salary was below market rate. Page 13 of 17 When asked why certain cities were included in the survey, we need to be competitive in the job market. We shouldn't just compare ourselves to cities that are similar to us today. We should also look at aspirational cities, the ones that reflect where Rosemead wants to be in the future. It's important to include comparable cities, but we should also include those that deliver the level of service we hope to achieve. We should strive to improve, to provide higher -quality services, and to become a city that attracts and retains top talent. At a minimum, staff recommendation to the City Council is to bring salaries up to the market rate, the midpoint. Staff is not asking to be the highest -paying city, but to be competitive enough to hire and retain the people. The consultant and staff surveyed 16 cities and used the market average, the true midpoint, as the basis for comparison. If the Council adopts the proposed adjustments, eight of those cities will still offer higher pay, meaning we will continue to compete with them for talent. The analysis included a diverse mix of comparable, aspirational, and future oriented cities, providing a broad and strategic perspective rather than focusing on only one type of city. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta thanked City Manager Kim for the clarification as she assumed staff chose the cities based on cost of living, but rather it was for aspiration to capture talent. Council Member Low stated that she believed the selection of cities included in the survey was reasonable. While Pasadena may be on the higher end in terms of salary and size, other cities like Alhambra, Azusa, and El Monte are more directly comparable and represent realistic competitors for staffing. With 16 cities in total, the inclusion of one higher -paying city is balanced out by the rest, making the overall group reasonable for the study. Council Member Dang commended City Manager Kim for initiating the study but expressed the timing was off since the REA negotiations werecomingup. He commented on the methodology of the consultant's way of doing the survey's; however, argued that it lacks meaningful data analysis. He felt the report merely collected job descriptions, calculated averages, and presented the results without deeper context. As an example, he pointed out a comparison involving park rangers, where Rosemead's significantly lower pay wasn't analyzed in relation to factors like the number or size of parks managed, compared to the City of Pasadena that has more parks. He noted his expectation was to have more robust report to better justify salary differences based on the scope of responsibilities. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated that when you bring in different factors, you're being biased instead of being unbiased. In addition, she commended Mr. Dang for his comments as an engineer, he brings a different analytical perspective. Mrs. Armenta shared an example of an HR manager who left a higher paying position in Rosemead to return to a lower paying role in Pasadena, where they dealt with one set of responsibilities. This highlights that factors beyond salary such as job scope and work environment can influence employment decisions, and that larger cities don't always equate to higher pay or better fit. She emphasized the importance of using a variety of variables in the compensation analysis to avoid repeating past issues, such as being below market value. She acknowledged and expressed respect towards Councilmember Dang's perspective but believed that incorporating multiple factors allows for a more accurate and tailored outcome for Rosemead. A broader approach was applied in the current analysis to determine what best fits the city's needs. Mrs. Armenta reiterated staff recommendations and asked for a motion. Page 14 of 17 Council Member Dang asked to separate each recommendation for consideration Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked for a motion for Recommendation no. 1, receive and file the Citywide Total Compensation study report provided by Public Sector Personnel Consultants. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Council Member Dang to receive and file the Citywide Total Compensation study report provided by Public Sector Personnel Consultants. Motion was carried out by the following votes: AYES: Armenta, Dang and Low; NOES: None; Absent: Clark and Ly Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked for a motion for Recommendation no. 2, adopt Resolution No. 2025-20, entitled: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, Amending the Comprehensive Salary Schedule to meet the California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 570.5 and 571 to reflect approved rates for all employees of the City of Rosemead. Council Member Dang made a motion and then retracted his motion City Manager Kim clarified that the motion was for the resolution of the Executive group and the Mid -Management Professional, and Confidential group and the Part -Time group. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua added the motion includes the correct $16.60 step for the part-time Youth Worker. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta to adopt Resolution No. 2025-22, Amending the Comprehensive Salary Schedule to meet the California Code of Regulations Title 2, Section 570.5 and 571 to reflect approved rates for all employees of the City of Rosemead. Motion was carried out by the following votes: AYES: Armenta and Low; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: Dang; ABSENT: Clark and Ly City Attorney Richman stated the motion died on the floor for lack of 3/2 votes required for adoption of a resolution. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated the resolution could be brought back for consideration when more Councilmembers are present. She asked for a motion. Council Member Low made a motion to direct staff to bring back the resolution for consideration when more Council Members are present. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta to direct staff to bring back Resolution No. 2025-22 to another meeting when more City Council Members are in attendance at the meeting. Motion was carried out by the following votes: AYES: Armenta, Dang and Low; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Clark and Ly Page 15 of 17 Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked for a motion for Recommendation no. 3, approval to bring back a salary adjustment resolution for Rosemead Employee Association after a meet and confer with Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321 representatives. Council Member Dang asked if Recommendation no. 3, required a vote since the resolution did not pass? City Attorney Richman explained that staff would like some direction, although the resolution did not pass, it's not required to have a vote but would like direction to bring back the resolution after a meet and confer has occurred with the union. Council Member Dang clarified that a meet and confer can happen without City Council approving any resolutions. City Attorney Richman noted that the resolutions for the unrepresented haven't gone into effect, nor is it going to be going into effect for the represented. The motion would just indicate that staff will be using this information as a part of the meet and confer. Council Member Low stated that initially she thought the decision on the current item, which pertains to a union group, should be postponed similar to a previous resolution that was delayed until all council members were present. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta clarified that the recommendation no. 3 is asking to give direction to staff to bring back a salary adjustment resolution. City Attorney Richman explained that if City Council did not give staff this direction, it was fine. She wanted to make it clear since the resolution didn't pass, it's not applicable to unrepresented and nor will it be applicable to the represented group because staff will be dealing with this through the negotiation process. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated as good practice since the resolution was tabled to be brough back, recommendation no. 3 should also be tabled. Council Member Dang expressed that he did not think a vote was needed for recommendation no. 3 because City Council does not always meet and confer for other times. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated with all due respect, just because Mr. Dang didn't want to move forward, it did not mean the rest of the City Council felt the same. She asked Mr. Dang if he was making a motion not to move forward to vote on the item. Council Member Dang stated that the recommendation no. 3, simply reflects the usual process of meeting and conferring to discuss salary adjustments. Since this is standard practice, he questioned the need to present it as a separate action item for the council to vote on. City Attorney Richman explained that recommendation no. 3, was included to reassure staff as they begin the meet and confer process. It's not a binding resolution, just a form of direction. Even Page 16 of 17 if the City Council doesn't take action on it, the standard process will still be followed. The intent is simply to clarify that not adopting the item doesn't mean the process won't happen. If the resolution had passed, it wouldn't affect the union group directly. Any changes would still need to go through the meet and confer process. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta explained that for her this was in good faith to show the union that the City is working in good faith and directing staff. City Attorney Richman explained that she believed it wouldn't hurt to take action, but it's not necessary since the resolution had been adopted and it's already clear it would not apply to the represented group. If the item returns in the future, clarification can be added then. Therefore, no immediate action is required. Council Member Dang explained that if recommendation no 3 did not exist, staff would still have to meet and confer due to the rules of negation with the union. City Attorney Richman replied that her legal view she wouldn't want to commit to that. The reason staff added the recommendation is, so the union understands that staff is intending to meet and confer. She further explained that the purpose was to demonstrate good faith by showing that a salary survey was conducted, which was not done before, and to clarify how it will be used. She emphasized that no decisions will be made until the meet and confer process takes place. Council Member Low suggested recommendation no. 3 be table at another meeting Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked for a motion. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Low, seconded by Council Member Dang to table recommendation no. 3, directing to bring back a salary adjustment resolution for Rosemead Employee Association after a meet and confer with Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321representatives. Motion was carried out by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Dang and Low; NOES: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Clark and Ly End of minute excerpt The following Draft Minute Excerpt is a summary of the discussion, approval, and action taken during the Citywide Compensation Study and Related Actions presented before the Rosemead City Council on April 8, 2025. Page 17 of 17 Attachment C Resolution No. 2025-22 with Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. 2025-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE SALARY SCHEDULE TO MEET THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5 AND 571 TO REFLECT APPROVED RATES FROM APRIL 28, 2025 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025 FOR EXECUTIVE, MID -MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL, ROSEMEAD EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION AFSCME LOCAL 321, AND PART-TIME GROUPS WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to create, classify and design salary scales/ranges for all City of Rosemead employee positions; and WHEREAS, California Code of Regulation (CCR) Title 2, Section 570.5 and amendment to CCR Section 571 requires a consolidated Salary Schedule that is publicly available showing all City classifications and salary ranges; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to meet the requirements of these regulations by adopting a Salary Schedule, which sets forth the salary scales/ranges for all City of Rosemead employee classifications; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the Citywide Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2024-25, previously amended by City Council Resolution No. 2025-13 on March 11, 2025 which set forth the salary scales/ranges for all City of Rosemead employee classifications; and WHEREAS, the Citywide Salary Schedule, which has been amended to reflect the new rates for Executive Group positions, Mid -Management, Professional and Confidential positions, Rosemead Employee Association AFSCME Local 321, and Part -Time positions, is included in Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that hereby adopt the Salary Schedule for all City of Rosemead employee classifications as set forth in the attached Exhibit A to reflect the new salary rates for Fiscal Year 2024-25 effective April 28`h, 2025. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April, 2025. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Margaret Clark, Mayor ATTEST: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing City Council Resolution No. 2025-22 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of April, 2025, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk yVj 6 6 U W W W W W V V U V U V U U U U U V V V w W W W W z Z Z Z Z z w w f A N C 9 O O r O b C YI Q 00 o f o f w n f E g c sm`a3LLdaa c? d txYq deu EA Nc ., tYyu'g 2. a' c m i'n c° E E& rvm n d m e. O 10 0 m N� M T ti i0 b Q n Y1 .M. b O 0 IO N$ N ^ono m $ m .. W O H n O d b n N O n P n� 1/1 b h N W •+ N " ...o tioue��ro eo o0 oin ea v:o o.Mi u7 vir n.0 �ri evieronu.c rv.M.nm.mi .ni titi .Mi .d. .N. ... .. n". .n...o+ Pd $ n m N m N n o n .n .c m ed n u a ri of a c m PR n .0 ui .i Le� d n o w m m n m V m me o m b n n" e m o. 0 0 W v n m N IMV n uni .d+ uNi uNi vei n uPf O N O M .ti O T ei N tO N N ri b n I� W n ri m' P A. .. N Y1 n n m N N N L6 m' n YI N P N p T N M W M O N T N M N .mi M O N O Mm W ImD P N m b Omi m IG N .P'. 0 .'I fPV IN ei C Oi O n N ui Oi n h IO I� ri� n ri m' Oi N ui b n b N vi C Ji F h N N n gg M n.n. m m". n rt n o e m a�nnanoouni VI m�dlmyon m m ui,.. R N P n Io .o v o m g m ^n� m� N b IV IV W m o ul YI IO IC m O N Q N n IV N N 0_ Y U yp p m m rvoeoawolcN umirone.i n.uroe eaac d 6 elle l6 d dvi n.c urviN N � m O P W N H P M O O O N IO b P ry O QJ 1 O N n m N q T a a to m N n m a e P m �o $ j m n Q n �u Q .-� N m n C o N m e o+ ti n r�� o� ae m �ri N vi a6 n �c rS �c Ic n m n m m d el �e �6 v+ d vi o N Is N N C n GJ m N N d G Q d b P .. n n ppb N ep n n P m m m vm .. mm n P IIR n M {pp N O m N N -t N N OI N$ .m. T n n N N C N Y� N m' IO IO VI ID IO n m m ri m' �% O d M O O e C C d 1O N O N O N n b O N ru 76 N LL N p N e. i0 m T~ p ppb �m/I „ 1.1 N Yml O T n N n T O T Nm N N N N m p m N ti N n N O O m [O N Mm P .Ni V~I M JPI m O m M M M P m III m�� T P O m' m' O1 IO J1 O h IO .O N IO t0 n m 10 n m' Q P O II'1 n < d Vl V N O YI O O 4O iE Y d N r4 N vm pm N pp n o O N m N N n M n^ 88 ry M m p y m o ti mm O b n •O e n P m I.I 1G Ol O .e. IV N O1 uMdl '1 .M'1 "1 .M4 .N'I pi IG N O b �G IG 1V IO b n d M N N n t0 O O O N d<< d IO t0 O O LA- yVj 6 6 U W W W W W V V U V U V U U U U U V V V w W W W W z Z Z Z Z z w w f A N C 9 O O r O b C YI Q 00 o f o f w n f E g c sm`a3LLdaa c? d txYq deu EA Nc ., tYyu'g 2. a' c m i'n c° E E& City of Rosemead Part -Time Employees Hourly Salary Ranges Effective April 28, 2025 Position Title Administrative Intern Step I 16.89 Step 2 17.73 Step 3 18.62 111 Step 4 Step 5 --1 20.53 Aquatic Attendant 16.60 16.87 17.71 18.60 19.53 Assistant Pool Manager 19.90 20.90 21.94 23.04 24.19 Community Service Officer 21.34 22.41 23.53 24.70 25.94 Lifeguard 17.04 17.90 18.79 19.73 20.72 Lifeguard/Instructor 18.07 18.97 19.92 20.92 21.97 Office Specialist 20.32 21.34 22.41 23.53 24.70 Park Ranger 21.34 22.41 23.53 24.70 25.94 Parking Control Officer 21.56 22.64 23.77 24.96 26.21 Playschool Teacher 19.36 20.33 21.34 22.41 23.53 Recreation Leader 16.60 17.37 18.25 19.16 20.12 Senior Recreation Leader 19.36 20.33 21.34 22.41 23.53 Youth Worker 16.60 17.07 17.50 17.94 18.39