City study suggests SLO employees are underpaid

August 19, 2014
Katie Lichtig

Katie Lichtig

By JOSH FRIEDMAN

The chief building official for the city of San Luis Obispo receives a base salary of more than $100,000 a year. But, according to a recently published city study, it is well below the industry standard.

On Tuesday, the San Luis Obispo City Council will discuss the compensation report, a study that compares San Luis Obispo worker pay to that of public employees of other California cities. If the compensation study is any indication of the direction city salaries are headed, then employees are in line for pay raises.

The compensation report, which staff compiled under the guidance of a paid consultant, concludes that 50 percent of city employees receive pay below industry standard.

The study singled out several city jobs as positions that are compensated well below the median. For instance, San Luis Obispo’s chief building official earns a base salary of $107,250 a year. The median salary for the position among comparable cities is more than $125,000, according to the report.

In addition, San Luis Obispo currently pays its deputy public works director a base salary of about $122,000. The report indicates that the median pay for the position is approximately $143,000.

Critics of the study suggest that city staff inflated the median salaries in the report by selected cities that compensate generously to use as comparisons.

For example, the Santa Monica city manager receives a base salary of more than $350,000 a year. Neighboring Culver City, which did not appear in the study, pays its city manager a maximum salary of a little more than $250,000 a year. Santa Monica pays its chief building official about $176,000 a year and its network administrator $117,000. Culver City compensates those workers at approximately $149,000 and $96,000 respectively.

Human resources staff stated that it included Santa Monica in the benchmark report because both cities have coastal locations with tourism-based economies and nearby universities.

The only nearby cities included as comparisons are Paso Robles and Santa Maria. City staff did also use the county of San Luis Obispo as a benchmark.

In the report, city staff claims that it placed a focus on statewide coastal cities because San Luis Obispo competes with them for employees. However, the report also says that 57 percent of applicants for city jobs reside in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.

Nevertheless, human resources staff opted not to use the local private sector labor force as a benchmark which would have lowered the median income. Staff did, though, include analysis of the local labor market in the overall study, as directed to do so by the city council.

Although San Luis Obispo worker pay may stack unfavorably when compared with cities like Santa Monica, city employee compensation has actually spiked in recent years.

Since 2000, general fund staffing costs have approximately doubled, rising from about $21 million to around $42 million currently.

When unions enter negotiation with the city, though, they will have some bargaining chips. Some employees are currently enduring pay cuts from the last round of negotiations, and while the city is very indebted, it also has an investment portfolio of approximately $90 million.

Following the compensation study hearing Tuesday, the council will meet again in closed session on Aug. 26 to discuss a bargaining strategy. Then on Sept. 23, the council will hold a public hearing on employee pay.

Soon after that hearing, city management will likely begin negotiations with representatives of its largest employee group, the San Luis Obispo City Employees Association.

A ballot measure to renew the city’s half-cent sales tax is on the November ballot, and much of the debate over the initiative surrounds whether or not the city has used the tax revenue collected to backfill rising employee salary and pension costs. If the sales tax initiative were to fail, city management has said there is a possibility staff will receive pay cuts.


Loading...
67 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Salary survey’s are are only that, surveys. Do the reflect the quantity and quality of work actually being done? NO!

For example, does the Director of Public Works ultimately cost the city additional monies because his department chose to conceal a hazardous waste spill? Is that included in the survey?

Do the surveys take into account the character of the employee or simply the position job description…the job description! (case in point, CAPSLO, brawling firefighter, etc.)

Salary surveys should only be one part of a comprehensive process to determine the cost and affordability of any public employee.

In any case, I would recommend an independent desk audit of any position be considered for salary adjustment, before doing so.


I think this should be really easy to figure out for the city:


Private Company Hypothetical:

Avg. Pay = $70,000/year

Avg. Savings = 10%/year

Avg Growth = 8% (Hopefully)

Work Term = 30 years

Retired Term = 30 Years


Gross pay over Work Term = $1.89 million (($70k – $7k) x 30 years))

Gross Retirement Savings over Term = $599,345 ($7k/year x 30 years and 8% return)

Total = $2.489 million over 60 years

AVG = $41,500/year for 60 years


City Worker Hypothetical:

Avg. Pay = $70,000/year

Avg. Savings = 8% paid by employee now = $5600

Avg Growth = N/A

Work Term = 30 years

Retired Term = 30 Years


Gross pay over Work Term = $1.932 million (($70k-$5.6k) x 30 years)

Gross Retirement Savings 2.5 @ 55 = 0.75x$70,000 = $52,500 x 30years = $1.575 million

Total = $3.507 million over 60 years

AVG = $58,450/year for 60 years


So city workers will already make almost 41% more per year than the guy working in private industry. So why are they not using private industry as a baseline? And why are they using a city with 2x as many people as a comparison?


Don’t confuse the people that want this with reality. It hurts their minds.


Seems part of the “Support Measure G” PR machine is cranking up.


Typical moronic public officials trying to justify their salaries. Hey I need a raise, lets’ use Santa Monica because they are near the coast. Well why not Bodaga Bay, or Eureka? Because we can’t get as much money.


Here is an apples and oranges comparison so let’s be FAIR!! I have a relative that just bought a 1930’s house in Santa Monica that is 1800 sq feet for about 800k and it is plan o plan o nothing fancy on floor plan or style. I can GUARANTEE YOU that the neighborhood she is in if in SLO the same house would be about 450-500k. Point? Even though SLO is expensive it is a HELL of a lot more in Santa Monica. Wake up people!!! Stop buying this Gov. B.S. of they have more than me mentality. If they want Santa Monica pay them tell them to move their ass there!!! Bet they won’t.


What a sad comentary, our local gov uses “other people do it” as a measure of how we conduct business. This as well as gov bullyism is a very bad example to teach our youth.


And so we arrive at the problematic formula. Put in your time on the job; get paid what other employees in different cities and economis get paid, and let the tax payers keep ponying up.


If increases were justified by productivity, or nullified by cronyism, things would be very different around here.


Many county positions are more about looking busy than being busy. But who is going to tell?

“We keep getting raisies and a little increase in sales tax here and there…nobody’s gonna really feel it. Think I’ll pick up a bottle of wine for dinner tonight, now that I don’t have to step over those homeless people on the sidewalk like I used to. Great place to live SLO is. There’s No Place Like Home.”


When I move to SLO from LA a few years back, I was told to expect a 50% pay cut for a similar job….. I found a similar executive position and yep at a salary 50% less… I was told it was the “cost of living in God’s country”.


These city employees want it all and since they determine their salaries, they get it all !


Their pensions effectively add over 60% to their current wages. They never seem to add that money into the discussion of their wages…..

If they work 30 years and retire at 55 and get 2% of their ending salary per year for pension (60%) , then they will get that extra 60% for the next 30 years of their life. To recap, they get their paycheck each week, then they get another paycheck of 60% for the same work done, each week in the future until they die (which should be around 30 more years)….


In a word, it’s disgusting…. and they are taking money out of our paychecks via taxes to support their crap.


You nailed it, abe… the ‘God’s country” pay cut. I started my own business 28 years ago because there just were no good paying jobs (hell, back then were NO engineering jobs in this town, unless you wanted to work at the nuke plant.). It was just the way it worked. I had a good-paying engineering job in San Diego but I missed SLO so much I gave up the good money to scrape by in this area. The only people making good money around here had some kind of gov’t job. Maybe the pay was not as high as the big city but was far higher than the private sector, and generally still is. Now they are underpaid?


What is the problem? Can’t get good people to work for the pittance the city pays? Really? Bullsh&t! People from all over the country will line up to work here! We could hire TWO city managers for the pay that PARASITE Katie Lichtig gets…That worm does not even live around here and “works” out of her Malibu estate… what, she is in town one day a week? I simply cannot believe the City Manager job is so difficult. Hey Katie, can you do a differential equation? I didn’t think so…. Working for the City is not rocket science!


Honest Abe and everyone else out there who has a misunderstanding of everything, please review this information. http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/member/retirement/faqs.xml&pst=ACT&pca=ST


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics was required reading for me. It appears that others have read this as well. Tying the study to only select cities with a university and a tourism base is not really relevant. What is clear is that there is a HUGE variation in the salaries, even in close proximity. Do the other communities enjoy our wonderful climate, minimal traffic, or brand new, $39M county office buildings?


Perhaps we can do better than a bunch of public employees that hope to elate the unions by manufacturing a bogus salary study.


What a way to determine salaries! Just “study” what other taxpayer gifting is going on in other cities and counties, and top ’em. “Comparable pay.”


1 2 3 5