SR 05-08-2018 8A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 8, 2018
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 12
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director, Finance Department
Subject: Receive Compensation and Staffing Review and Approve Implementation
Plan Responding to Recommendations
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive and consider the Compensation and Staffing Review completed by
Moss Adams, LLP;
2. Provide feedback on the proposed Implementation Plan responding to
Review recommendations; and
3. Direct staff to proceed with the Implementation Plan, and provide Council with
reports on the progress of implementation after six months and annually
thereafter until implementation plan actions are deemed complete.
Executive Summary
In response to community and broader concerns raised by media reports, the City of Santa
Monica commissioned an independent compensation study to collect and analyze pay,
benefits and workload data from comparable cities and, where appropriate, the private
sector to identify opportunities for improvement of policies and practices related to C ity
employee compensation, as well as analyze use of overtime by public safety staff . The
report represents one of the most comprehensive local government analyses of
compensation practices done in recent years in Southern California, comparing not only
pay, benefits and public safety overtime usage, but benchmarking workload data and
other factors among cities comparable to Santa Monica. The report documents that
overall, Santa Monica’s pay and benefits are comparable to peer cities , albeit on the
higher end of the scale. Also noted is the large scope and high level of City services.
The report also identifies areas for improvement, many of which are already in progress.
Implementation of these improvements will play a significant role in the City’s efforts to
maintain fiscal sustainability as it faces future statewide threats from rising pension
costs.
2 of 12
The Compensation and Staffing Review report (Attachment A) was conducted by the
City’s internal auditor, Moss Adams, LLP, under the oversight of the Audit
Subcommittee of the City Council, with advisory support from a limited-term,
seven-member ad hoc committee of residents, the Compensation Study Advisory
Committee (CSAC). The report provides 13 observations and recommendations
organized in the following categories: wage and benefits packages, drivers of
compensation, and public safety overtime.
The report was informed by interviews of eleven peer cities, published data and surveys
and interviews of staff and labor unions.
Background
On January 17, 2017, in response to concerns raised by a number of community groups
related to news stories about City of Santa Monica staff compensation, and calls by
these groups that an “independent” audit be conducted, the Audit Subcommittee
discussed a proposed scope of work for a compensation audit to be completed by the
independent firm that acts as the City’s Internal Auditor, Moss Adams, LLP.
After initial discussions both in the Audit Subcommittee and among community
members and the City Manager, staff returned to the Audit Subcommittee on April 20,
2017 with an amended and expanded scope of work, along with the recommendation to
create an ad hoc advisory committee, composed of up to 7 community members.
According to the resolution establishing this ad-hoc community committee would act “in
an advisory capacity to the Audit Subcommittee in matters pertaining to critically
reviewing and objectively considering the City's methodologies related to
compensation.” The ad-hoc community committee was to join Subcommittee
discussions specifically related to the scope, findings, and final report of the
compensation review. At its May 9, 2017 meeting (Attachment B), Council directed the
City Manager to seek applications from members of the public who would be interested
in serving on the ad hoc committee, named the Compensation Study Advisory
Committee (CSAC), and then make appointments. On August 23, the Audit
3 of 12
Subcommittee, informed by its discussion with members of CSAC, approved the scope
of work for the Compensation and Staffing Review. The Audit Subcommittee and CSAC
reviewed data and an initial draft of the report, asked questions and discussed
additional information that would be useful to incorporate into the report on November
21, 2017 and February 28, 2018. The final report was received and reviewed by the
Audit Subcommittee at its meeting on April 17, 2018. Also received and filed at the April
17, 2018 meeting was an implementation plan proposing steps that staff could take to
address report recommendations.
Discussion
The report provides observations and recommendations organized in the following
categories: wage and benefits packages, drivers of compensation, and public safety
overtime.
The report was informed by interviews of eleven peer cities: Anaheim, Beverly Hills,
Burbank, Culver City, El Segundo, Glendale, Inglewood, Pasadena, Redondo Beach,
Santa Barbara and Torrance. Berkeley and Palo Alto also participated in interviews to
provide perspectives on leading practices in other innovative, progressive cities
published data and surveys and interviews. This was in addition to interviews with staff
and labor unions. After discussions between the Audit Subcommittee and the CSAC
the scope and peer cities were approved by the Audit Subcommittee .
While the report indicates that every effort was made to obtain comparable data, not all
information can be compared equally. Factors that contribute to this include differences
in operating budgets, performance measurements, community priorities, level of
outsourcing, geography, and departmental organization. Additionally, a large part of the
peer information used in this report is self-reported and un-audited. Cities do not, as a
general practice, gather and make public easily comparable data on compensation,
workload and service levels on a consistent basis.
4 of 12
The study documents that overall, Santa Monica’s pay and benefits are comparable to
peer cities, albeit on the higher end of the scale. Also noted is the large scope and level
of City services. The study also identifies areas for improvement, many of which are
already in progress. Implementation of these improvements will play a significant role in
the City’s efforts to maintain fiscal sustainability as it faces future statewide threats from
rising pension costs. There are 13 observations and corresponding recommendations in
the report that will help the City to improve its fiscal sustainability.
O BSER VAT I O N S AN D R EC O MME N D A T IO N S
WAGE AND BENEFIT PACKAGES
1
Observation In relation to peer cities, Santa Monica exhibits the same distribution of personnel costs
as peers across wages, health benefits, and retirement.
Recommendation
Enhance awareness and understanding of personnel costs by making this information
readily accessible to the general public and provide explanations of each component of
total compensation.
2
Observation
Santa Monica’s average cash compensation for employees is comparable to the
average of peer cities, although the City’s median senior leadership compensation is the
highest among peers. When Santa Monica’s median cash compensation was compared
to peers, it was the third lowest, likely due to the City’s strong preference to insource
services that require a large number of relatively low paid workers. For individual
positions, Santa Monica met or fell below the peer median for 40% of the positions
included in the benchmarking study, while the remaining 60% of positions were
compensated at levels exceeding the peer median. Santa Monica lacks a formal
philosophy to guide how compensation is determined.
Recommendation
Develop and implement a formal compensation philosophy, including, but not limited to,
compensation and benefits components, levels, and market competitiveness, to guide
labor negotiations and set employee expectations with respect to compensation.
O BSER VAT I O N S AN D R EC O MME N D A T IO N S
3
Observation The City uses peer city compensation averages for individual positions during its market
analysis prior to negotiations. Best practice is to expand the dataset used to include the
median (midpoint) and calculate percentiles when benchmarking position wages.
Recommendations
Evolve the in-house position-level compensation market study methodology to include
medians and percentiles in accordance with best practices, accounting for labor relation
requirements.
4
Observation
Santa Monica has taken steps to reduce unfunded liability, including introducing an
additional retirement tier prior to the Public Employee Pension Reform Act and mak ing
$76 M in lump sum payments. Similar to peer cities, the City’s overall unfunded pension
liability remains high.
Recommendation Continue to take steps whenever possible to mitigate the financial threat that pension
liability places on the City.
5
Observation Similar to peers, Santa Monica’s employee medical insurance costs have risen steeply
in recent years. The City’s cash contribution to monthly individual employee medical
insurance, which varies by plan, is consistent with that of peers.
5 of 12
Recommendation Evaluate options to stabilize per-employee health care costs.
DRIVERS OF COMPENSATION
6
Observation Santa Monica is a highly unionized municipality that typically negotiates multiple labor
contracts lasting one to three years. Frequently, all 11 contracts expire simultaneously,
requiring a significant amount of work to negotiate.
Recommendations Consider negotiating labor contracts in the next cycle to expire at different times and
cover longer durations to reduce the burden of negotiations on the City.
7
Observation Like most municipalities, Santa Monica operates a civil service system that is governed
by state law and the City’s charter, municipal code, and civil service rules. As a result, it
is difficult to change personnel practices as business needs evolve.
Recommendation
Regularly assess the City’s charter, municipal code, and civil service rules to ensure
they are aligned with contemporary personnel practices and meet the evolving business
needs of the City.
8
Observation Santa Monica largely operated as usual during the 2008 recession and did not need to
reduce staffing levels, while most peer cities had to significantly cut costs by increasing
efficiency, outsourcing services, and reducing staffing levels.
Recommendation Develop financial and operational strategies to prepare for possible future recessions,
since the City may not be able to absorb a future recession as easily.
9
Observation Santa Monica has the highest number of employees among peers. Similar t o peers,
tenure at the City tends to be long with 77.3% of employees being paid within 10% of the
top salary step for the position.
Recommendation
Explore strategies for mitigating personnel costs, such as hiring personnel at lower
steps, and leveraging training programs to equip personnel to take on greater
responsibility earlier in their career.
10
Observation Santa Monica employs more personnel than peers, in part, because it operates a variety
of unique service offerings and responds to the service needs of a significant tourist
population.
Recommendation Implement an evaluation framework to assess the lifecycle costs of proposed new
programs and services, and evaluate outsourcing options, where applicable.
O BSER VAT I O N S AN D R EC O MME N D A T IO N S
11
Observation
In general, Santa Monica has a higher workload and higher costs than peer cities.
Citywide, productivity is comparable to peers, although productivity varies by program
and service, and a comprehensive service level study was not conducted. The City
could more strategically utilize key performance indicators to measure and communicate
operational and individual efficiency and effectiveness.
Recommendation Continue initiatives already underway to develop a strategic plan, comprehensive
performance indicators, and leverage the City’s data for decision-making.
PUBLIC SAFETY OVERTIME
12
Observation
Although SMPD’s overtime expenditures increased by $1.2 million between FY 2014
and FY 2016, the overtime rate for an existing employee costs an estimated 7.1 to
14.6% less than the hourly rate of a new employee, suggesting that the use of overtime
provides cost savings to the department.
Recommendation In accordance with best practice, continue to evaluate police staffing levels and use of
overtime.
6 of 12
13
Observation
Although SMFD’s overtime expenditures increased by approximately $800,000 between
FY 2014 and FY 2016, the overtime rate for an existing employee costs an estimated
9.3% less to 6.5% more than the hourly rate of a new employee, suggesting that the use
of overtime may provide cost savings to the department.
Recommendation In accordance with best practice, conduct a staffing study to evaluate on-duty staffing
demand, staffing levels, and use of overtime.
Some key points emerged from the study that highlight the unique landscape in which
Santa Monica functions. According to the study, “Santa Monica’s community has a
number of unique characteristics compared to the average municipality.” Specifically,
the population fluctuates substantially from day to night, seasonally, and during the
holidays. These fluctuations impact the City’s public safety, public landscape and transit
services. It has more complex processes for planning and development due to its
“unique environmental considerations and community development priorities. Overall,
the City delivers programs and services beyond a typical full-service city, including
infrastructure (airport, pier, cemetery, public Wi-Fi, community broadband, beach,
regional bus service) and community programs (arts and community non-profit grant
programs, housing assistance, public interest law, mobility).” (p. 8)
Additionally, among peers, Santa Monica shares a reputation, with Palo Alto and
Berkeley, as “‘innovation labs’ of local government in California, because they have the
employees, culture and resources to explore innovative programming and services.” As
noted in the study, “Both cities reported that, similar to Santa Monica, the culture of high
levels of service was driven by the community, elected officials and employees… City
leadership reported that new hires typically have more experience and education than a
typical new hire.” These cities “noted their highly engaged and educated communities,
with long public meetings and significant effort made to quickly respond to citizen
requests. Several peer cities reported a perception that their public meetings are not as
long as Santa Monica’s, nor do they require as much staff time to support.” (p.46)
7 of 12
Comparison to Peers
Santa Monica’s cash compensation is comparable to the average of peer cities. (pp. 17,
21) By virtue of the fact that Santa Monica shares a regional economy and statewide
structures (such as being a member of the California Public Employee Retirement
System - CalPERS) with its peers, its compensation is driven by many of the same
factors and is for the most part comparable. As noted in the study, the region has a high
cost of living (the study refers to Santa Monica’s over $1 million median home p rice as
the second highest among the peer group and far above the $465,000 of the Los
Angeles metro area (p.8), high commute times, and high job competition, incl uding with
the private sector).
Overall, the City’s median cash compensation for individual positions met or fell below
the peer median for 40% of positions analyzed, while 60% of the positions were above
the peer median. Like all but one peer city, Santa Monica’s employees are hired,
promoted and compensated according to the statutes of the City’s civil service system
as defined in the City Charter and Municipal Code and overseen by a Personnel Board
whose members are appointed by the City Council. Nine of the eleven peers, including
Santa Monica, showed high employee tenure. According to the study, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics shows that local government employee tenure is 8.3 years, while the
private sector median is 3.7 years. Longer tenure is noted as a factor in higher total
compensation costs. (p. 44)
The proportional mix of salaries, medical and retirement benefit costs is similar across
the peer cities, with Santa Monica having slightly higher (1 -3%) medical costs. (pp. 12-
13) All cities have seen steep increases in medical insurance costs in recent years.
Most peer cities face the challenge of large unfunded pension liabilities. While some
cities seem to have lower liability burdens as a percent of their operating budget, four of
these cities operate electrical utilities and their budgets include large contracts for
electrical purchases, which affects the proportional distribution of these costs.
Facing the same fiscal challenges related to medical and retirement costs, Santa
Monica and its peers are requiring employees to increase their cost sharing of
8 of 12
retirement and medical contributions. Santa Monica, like four peers, has added
additional, lower levels of retirement benefits for non -sworn new hires that go beyond
the legislatively-mandated reduced levels (commonly referred to as tiers). The following
chart shows the different level of pension benefits and the percentage of the City’s
workforce in these tiers of retirement:
Pension benefit (Tier) Percentage of staff in tier
as of April 30, 2018
Miscellaneous 2.7% at 55 53.0%
Miscellaneous 2.0% at 55 (Hired on/after July 1, 2012) 5.1%
Miscellaneous 2.0% at 62 (New to PERS hired on/after Jan 1, 2013) 27.1%
Sworn Police 3.0% at 50 8.2%
Sworn Police 2.7% at 57 (New to PERS hired on/after Jan 1, 2013) 1.3%
Sworn Fire 3.0% at 55 4.2%
Sworn Fire 2.7% at 57 (New to PERS hired on/after Jan 1, 2013) 1.1%
Regular pension contributions are established by CalPERS and are set based on the
assumption that unfunded liabilities will be paid off within a 30-year amortization period.
Santa Monica has gone a step further than its peers, in accordance with its Council-
adopted policy, to pay down at least $1.2 million of its unfunded liability each year in
addition to making its regular pension contribution payments. Additionally, the City has
taken the bold step to aggressively pay down the unfunded liability by making significant
lump sum payments. To date, the City has made $76 million in additional payments to
lower its unfunded pension liability.
The study found a number of areas where Santa Monica differs from peers. The report
indicates these differences are often the result of the unique circumstances of Santa
Monica and can represent areas for improvement.
Santa Monica has the highest median cash compensation for management
positions.
The data and anecdotal research suggests that the higher median is due, in part, to
Santa Monica’s desire to take on complex issues and to be a leader in local
9 of 12
government innovation, similar to the cities of Palo Alto and Berkeley, requiring staff
with more experience and education. (p.46)
Santa Monica has the largest staff of peer cities, and often has a higher
workload.
The report indicates that Santa Monica has unique services including a cemetery,
pier, airport, public Wi-Fi, community broadband, beach, regional bus line, Office of
Sustainability, Office of Civic W ellbeing, as well as social services and arts grant
programs. Santa Monica has a population that fluctuates from 92,289 to 250,000 on
a daily and seasonal basis and this larger population directly impacts public safety,
public landscape/beach, and transit services. Also factoring into the larger staff is
Council’s policy of insourcing and keeping a low level of as-needed positions, rather
than contracting out. Examples of areas that other cities contract out are solid waste,
custodial, and workers’ compensation.
Some trade and frontline positions are paid less than peers.
The difference in cash compensation is likely due to the City’s in -sourcing of many
services, which may lower the minimum value of the range. (p. 17)
Staff increased 5% in 9 years, while peer cities, whose revenues were more
impacted during the Great Recession, laid off or furloughed staff or froze
salaries.
The majority of recent position increases in Santa Monica were related to the
introduction of EXPO light rail service (specifically additional Police and Fire
personnel, and additional positions in BBB as part of the Evolution of Blue
enhancements), changing service structures at the Santa Monica Airport (these
positions have not been filled), as well as the conversion of as -needed positions to
permanent positions.
10 of 12
Implementation Plan
Staff has developed an implementation plan to ensure that the recommendations of the
Internal Auditor are addressed in a timely manner. The Implementation Plan
(Attachment C) categorizes each recommendation based on level of difficulty to
address, develops a timeline, and describes the steps that staff will take to make
improvements to the compensation and staffing process as another one of the ways
that the City is working to achieve long term fiscal sustainability. Many of the proposed
actions are already in progress, including the development of a framework, based on
performance measures, to inform staff and council on the most efficient and effective
way to allocate scarce resources. The table below provides a summary of each
recommendation’s priority, effort level and assigned responsibility. Staff will report back
to Council on initial progress made after every six months and annually thereafter until
the implementation actions are deemed complete.
# Recommendation Priority Effort Level Responsibility
1 Enhance awareness and understanding of personnel
costs by making this information readily accessible to
the general public and provide explanations of each
component of total compensation.
High Moderate HR, Finance,
CMO
2 Develop and implement a formal compensation
philosophy, including, but not limited to,
compensation and benefits components, levels, and
market competitiveness, to guide labor negotiations
and set employee expectations with respect to
compensation.
High High HR, CMO, and
City Council
3 Evolve the in-house position-level compensation
market study methodology to include medians and
percentiles in accordance with best practices,
accounting for labor relation requirements.
High Moderate HR
4 Continue to take steps whenever possible to mitigate
the financial threat that pension liability places on the
City.
High Moderate Finance
5 Evaluate options to stabilize per-employee health
care costs.
High High HR, Finance
6 Consider negotiating labor contracts in the next
cycle to expire at different times and cover longer
durations to reduce the burden of negotiations on
the City.
Medium Moderate HR
7 Regularly assess the City’s charter, municipal code,
and civil service rules to ensure they are aligned with
contemporary personnel practices and meet the
Medium Moderate HR and CMO
11 of 12
evolving business needs of the City.
8 Develop financial and operational strategies to
prepare for possible future recessions, since the City
may not be able to absorb a future recession as
easily.
High High Finance and
CMO
9 Explore strategies for mitigating personnel costs,
such as hiring personnel at lower steps and
leveraging training programs to equip personnel to
take on greater responsibility earlier in their careers.
High High HR
10 Implement an evaluation framework to assess the
lifecycle costs of proposed new programs and
services, and evaluate outsourcing options where
applicable.
High High Finance and
CMO
11 Continue initiatives already underway to develop a
strategic plan, comprehensive performance
indicators, and leverage the City’s data for decision-
making.
Medium High CMO and
Finance
12 In accordance with best practices, continue to
evaluate police staffing levels and use of overtime.
Medium Moderate Police and HR
13 In accordance with best practices, conduct a staffing
study to evaluate on-duty staffing demand, staffing
levels, and use of overtime.
Medium Moderate Fire and HR
Audit Subcommittee Review and Actions
The Audit Subcommittee and CSAC received the Compensation and Staffing Review
and the Proposed Implementation Plan at the April 17, 2018 Audit Subcommittee
meeting. Among the items raised by members of CSAC were whether the productivity of
the City’s staff could be compared to peer cities (Moss Adams agreed to clarify
Recommendation 11 to note that, based on metrics gathered but without the benefit of a
service level study, the City exhibited average productivity as compared to peers); an
interest in paying down the City’s unfunded pension liability within a shorter time frame
than the CalPERS 30-year amortization window; and a request to extend the CSAC,
without being subject to the Brown Act and with a new charge to advise on strategies for
reducing unfunded pension liability. Additional comments received from CSAC and
Subcommittee members are included as Attachment D and will be considered as staff
solidifies the action steps included in the implementation plan. Members of the Audit
Subcommittee unanimously voted to approve the Compensation and Staffing Review
and to receive and file the Implementation Plan as well as the comments received.
12 of 12
Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the Council receive the Compensation and Staffing Review
and provide direction to staff on whether to move forward with the actions proposed in
the Implementation Plan.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is a need to contain costs associated with pay and benefits while at the same
time attracting and retaining highly qualified staff to provide the level and quality of
services that the community expects. This underscores the critical importance of
implementing the recommendation for developing a clear and comprehensive
Compensation philosophy to achieve measurable results. To effectuate the City’s
Compensation philosophy, staff will present ideas to balance fiscal savings with
competitive compensation to attract, retain and reward excellent performers as
appropriate through policy deliberations by the council, labor relations activities and the
future budgets. More immediately, if funding is needed for actions in the Implementation
Plan, funds are included in the expenditure control funds of the Finance and Human
Resources Departments.
Prepared By: Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Santa Monica Compensation and Staffing Review (04-29-18)
B. May 9, 2017 Staff Report (Weblink)
C. Santa Monica Implementation Plan
D. Comments received regarding suggested changes to the Implementation Plan
E. Powerpoint Presentation
F. Powerpoint Presentation - Moss Adams
FINAL REPORT
FOR
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Compensation and Staffing Review
April 21, 2018
Moss Adams LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 302-6500
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 5
| Background, Scope, and Methodology 5
I. Introduction 8
| A. Background 8
| B. Scope of Work 9
| C. Methodology 9
II. Wage and Benefit Packages 11
| A. Data Limitations 11
| B. Components of Compensation 11
| C. Cash Compensation 17
| D. Retirement Benefits 28
| E. Health Benefits 33
| F. Fringe Benefits 36
III. Drivers of Compensation 37
| A. Civil Service and Labor Environment 37
| B. Recession Impact 39
| C. Staffing and Employee Tenure 42
| D. Citywide Service Offerings 45
| E. Citywide Service and Staffing level Analysis 47
IV. Departmental Wage, Service Level, and Staffing Analysis 49
| A. Data Sources and Limitations 49
| B. City Attorney’s Office 49
| C. City Clerk 52
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica
| D. City Manager’s Office 54
| E. Community and Cultural Services 59
| F. Finance 62
| G. Fire 65
| H. Housing and Economic Development 68
| I. Human Resources 70
| J. Information Services Department 72
| K. Library 75
| L. Planning and Community Development 77
| M. Police 80
| N. Public Works 83
| O. Transit 90
V. Public Safety Overtime 93
| A. Police Overtime 93
| B. Fire Overtime 106
Appendix A: Wages and Benefits Comparison Methodology 121
| A. Data Source 121
| B. Data Analysis 121
| C. Limitations of the Data 122
| D. Glossary 122
Appendix B: Peer Benchmarking Methodology 124
Appendix C: Peer City Pension Formulas 125
Appendix D: Benefits Offered 130
Appendix E: Peer City Demographic and Economic Data 131
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica
Appendix F: Police Overtime Summary 132
Appendix G: Fire Overtime Summary 134
Appendix H: Break-Even Analysis 136
| A. Police 137
| B. Fire 139
Appendix I: Highest Compensated City Employees 143
Appendix J: Medical Benefits Offered 146
Appendix K: Historical Wage & Benefits Data 147
Appendix L: Performance Data methodology 149
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The City of Santa Monica (Santa Monica, the City) is a full-service city in the Los Angeles metropolitan
area with 92,000 residents. The City and its community have many unique attributes: a large daytime
population, geography, tourism, high City service levels, and a unique breadth of City service offerings. In
late 2016, reports of Santa Monica employee salary data resulted in increased public scrutiny of the City’s
compensation.
The City contracted with Moss Adams LLP (Moss Adams) to conduct a review of its compensation and
staffing levels, including the City’s: 1) wage and benefit setting process 2) wage and benefit packages, 3)
staffing methodology and levels, and 4) use of overtime for public safety services. This analysis was
informed by interviews with City staff, labor unions, and peer cities. Peer cities include Anaheim, Beverly
Hills, Burbank, Culver City, El Segundo, Glendale, Inglewood, Pasadena, Redondo Beach, Santa Barbara,
and Torrance. Compensation data for Santa Monica and peer cities was sourced from the State
Controller’s Office (SCO) Government Compensation in California (GCC). Private sector cash
compensation data was sourced from Economic Research Institute (ERI) compensation databases.
Service level, staffing, and overall cost data was collected from fiscal year (FY) 2016-17 budget documents,
census data, and a voluntary survey sent to peers.
As noted throughout the report, there are many variables that impact the comparability of cities including
operating budgets, community priorities, level of outsourcing, geography, and departmental organization.
Although every effort was made to standardize available data, not all services, functions, or positions were
able to be included in this analysis or to appear in a way that provides a straight comparison among peers.
It is important to note that all data collected from peers is self-reported and unaudited.
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WAGE AND BENEFIT PACKAGES
1
Observation In relation to peer cities, Santa Monica exhibits the same distribution of personnel costs
as peers across wages, health benefits, and retirement.
Recommendation
Enhance awareness and understanding of personnel costs by making this information
readily accessible to the general public and provide explanations of each component of
total compensation.
2
Observation
Santa Monica’s average cash compensation for employees is comparable to the
average of peer cities, although the City’s median senior leadership compensation is the
highest among peers. When Santa Monica’s median cash compensation was compared
to peers, it was the third lowest, likely due to the City’s strong preference to insource
services that require a large number of relatively low paid workers. For individual
positions, Santa Monica met or fell below the peer median for 40% of the positions
included in the benchmarking study, while the remaining 60% of positions were
compensated at levels exceeding the peer median. Santa Monica lacks a formal
philosophy to guide how compensation is determined.
Recommendation
Develop and implement a formal compensation philosophy, including, but not limited to,
compensation and benefits components, levels, and market competitiveness, to guide
labor negotiations and set employee expectations with respect to compensation.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 6
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3
Observation
The City uses peer city compensation averages for individual positions during its market
analysis prior to negotiations. Best practice is to expand the dataset used to include the
median (midpoint) and calculate percentiles when benchmarking position wages.
Recommendations
Evolve the in-house position-level compensation market study methodology to include
medians and percentiles in accordance with best practices, accounting for labor relation
requirements.
4
Observation
Santa Monica has taken steps to reduce unfunded liability, including introducing an
additional retirement tier prior to the Public Employee Pension Reform Act and making
$76 M in lump sum payments. Similar to peer cities, the City’s overall unfunded pension
liability remains high.
Recommendation Continue to take steps whenever possible to mitigate the financial threat that pension
liability places on the City.
5
Observation
Similar to peers, Santa Monica’s employee medical insurance costs have risen steeply
in recent years. The City’s cash contribution to monthly individual employee medical
insurance, which varies by plan, is consistent with that of peers.
Recommendation Evaluate options to stabilize per-employee health care costs.
DRIVERS OF COMPENSATION
6
Observation
Santa Monica is a highly unionized municipality that typically negotiates multiple labor
contracts lasting one to three years. Frequently, all 11 contracts expire simultaneously,
requiring a significant amount of work to negotiate.
Recommendations Consider negotiating labor contracts in the next cycle to expire at different times and
cover longer durations to reduce the burden of negotiations on the City.
7
Observation
Like most municipalities, Santa Monica operates a civil service system that is governed
by state law and the City’s charter, municipal code, and civil service rules. As a result, it
is difficult to change personnel practices as business needs evolve.
Recommendation
Regularly assess the City’s charter, municipal code, and civil service rules to ensure
they are aligned with contemporary personnel practices and meet the evolving business
needs of the City.
8
Observation
Santa Monica largely operated as usual during the 2008 recession and did not need to
reduce staffing levels, while most peer cities had to significantly cut costs by increasing
efficiency, outsourcing services, and reducing staffing levels.
Recommendation Develop financial and operational strategies to prepare for possible future recessions,
since the City may not be able to absorb a future recession as easily.
9
Observation
Santa Monica has the highest number of employees among peers. Similar to peers,
tenure at the City tends to be long with 77.3% of employees being paid within 10% of the
top salary step for the position.
Recommendation
Explore strategies for mitigating personnel costs, such as hiring personnel at lower
steps, and leveraging training programs to equip personnel to take on greater
responsibility earlier in their career.
10
Observation
Santa Monica employs more personnel than peers, in part, because it operates a variety
of unique service offerings and responds to the service needs of a significant tourist
population.
Recommendation Implement an evaluation framework to assess the lifecycle costs of proposed new
programs and services, and evaluate outsourcing options, where applicable.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 7
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11
Observation
In general, Santa Monica has a higher workload and higher costs than peer cities.
Citywide, productivity is comparable to peers, although productivity varies by program
and service, and a comprehensive service level study was not conducted. The City
could more strategically utilize key performance indicators to measure and communicate
operational and individual efficiency and effectiveness.
Recommendation Continue initiatives already underway to develop a strategic plan, comprehensive
performance indicators, and leverage the City’s data for decision-making.
PUBLIC SAFETY OVERTIME
12
Observation
Although SMPD’s overtime expenditures increased by $1.2 million between FY 2014
and FY 2016, the overtime rate for an existing employee costs an estimated 7.1 to
14.6% less than the hourly rate of a new employee, suggesting that the use of overtime
provides cost savings to the department.
Recommendation In accordance with best practice, continue to evaluate police staffing levels and use of
overtime.
13
Observation
Although SMFD’s overtime expenditures increased by approximately $800,000 between
FY 2014 and FY 2016, the overtime rate for an existing employee costs an estimated
9.3% less to 6.5% more than the hourly rate of a new employee, suggesting that the use
of overtime may provide cost savings to the department.
Recommendation In accordance with best practice, conduct a staffing study to evaluate on-duty staffing
demand, staffing levels, and use of overtime.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 8
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
SANTA MONICA CHARACTERISTICS
The City of Santa Monica (the City) is a full-service city in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Santa
Monica is 8.4 square miles, with a resident population of 92,000, more than 90,000 daily commuters,
and an estimated annual visitor population of 7.5 million.
Santa Monica’s community has a number of unique characteristics compared to the average municipality.
A popular tourist destination, the City’s population fluctuates significantly from day to night, between
seasons, and during holidays. Population fluctuations impact the response of the City’s public safety,
transportation and traffic, public landscape, and transit services. Santa Monica’s planning and
development process is also more complex and rigorous than other cities, given the City’s unique
environmental considerations and community development priorities. Overall, the City delivers programs
and services beyond a typical full-service City, including infrastructure (airport, pier, cemetery, public Wi-
Fi, community broadband, beach, regional bus service) and community programs (arts and community
non-profit grant programs, housing assistance, public interest law, mobility).
Public entities in California annually report W-2 data to the State Controller’s Office (SCO). This data is
regularly reported on by the media and public interest groups. In late 2016, several reports of Santa
Monica salary data led to increased public scrutiny of City employee compensation. As a result, the City
Council’s Audit Subcommittee directed Moss Adams, the City’s internal auditor, to review the City’s
compensation and staffing levels.
CITY REVENUE SOURCES
The City’s annual operating budget in FY 2017 was $508 million, with employee expenses of $332 million
to support 2,293 budgeted full time employees (FTEs). The City funds its operations through a variety of
charges, taxes, grants, and investments. In 2017, the largest sources of city revenues were charges for
service (30.3%), sales tax (15.1%), and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) (8.2%). Revenues generated by the
TOT, or hotel tax, have increased at an annual rate of 9.2% since 2011, reflecting Santa Monica’s
continued status as a global destination.
REGIONAL DRIVERS OF COMPENSATION
Several external factors contribute to municipal employee compensation levels in the Los Angeles area.
First, the region’s cost of living is high. According to US Census estimates, the median home value in the
Los Angeles metro area is $465,000, while the median home value in Santa Monica is over $1 million, the
second highest among the cities considered peers in this study. Additionally, the Los Angeles area
experiences significant traffic; one study indicated that Los Angeles has been the most gridlocked city in
the world since 20121. Congested roads contribute to longer commutes for employees working in the City.
1 INRIX 2017 Global Traffic Scorecard
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 9
Santa Monica and peer cities reported that commute times are often cited as a contributing factor to
employee resignation. Finally, cities compete for employees with other regional cities and, in some cases,
private employers. Peer cities reported a shortage of applicants and strong competition for management-
level roles. These factors contribute to higher overall municipal employee compensation in the LA
metropolitan area in comparison to many other areas in California and the nation.
B.SCOPE OF W ORK
The objectives of this project are to perform a review of the City of Santa Monica’s overall 1) wage and
benefit setting process, 2) wage and benefits packages, 3) staffing methodology and levels, and 4) use of
overtime for public safety services. The scope of work for each area of analysis includes:
1.Wage and Benefit Setting Process: Document the current wage setting process for each
bargaining unit and assess processes for opportunities for improvement.
2.Wages and Benefits: Understand the terms of bargaining unit agreements and, for a representative
sample set of positions (levels and types of positions for each City department), document the wages
and benefits for Santa Monica for the past five fiscal years (FY 12, FY 13, FY 14, FY 15, and FY 16),
compare to peers for the past three fiscal years (FY 14, FY 15, and FY 16), and document comparison
results. Also, document the compensation for top five highest paid positions for each of the top five
largest cities in the United States. See Appendix K: Historical Wage & Benefits Data for a detailed
breakdown of the historical data.
3.Staffing Methodology and Levels: Document the City’s staffing philosophy and related policies;
document staffing levels for FY 2007 through FY 2016; and document results. Compare to peer
service offerings and insourcing versus outsourcing practices. Compare to peer key performance
indicators (e.g., efficiency measure such as cost per FTE or capita and effectiveness measure such as
service delivery outputs or outcomes).
4.Public Safety Overtime: Document overtime utilization for the past three fiscal years (FY 14, FY
15, and FY 16) by department, unit, and person. Compare to staffing levels, turnover, and key
performance indicators (e.g., efficiency measures such as cost per FTE or capita and effectiveness
measures such as crime rate or response time).
C.METHODOLOGY
The methodology utilized to conduct this study was grounded in extensive stakeholder input,
consideration of peer city practices, and formulation of recommendations to address opportunities for
improvement. The following four phases comprised the assessment methodology:
1.Startup/Management: This phase concentrated on comprehensive project planning and ongoing
management, including determining who would be interviewed, what documents would be reviewed,
what on-site observations and walkthroughs would be performed, and when and how results would be
shared.
2.Fact Finding: This phase included documentation review, interviews with department directors and
employee labor group representatives, work sessions to review compensation and overtime data, peer
and private sector data collection, and peer management interviews. Peer and best practice
information was collected to identify overall industry trends. Eleven peer cities were identified for
wage comparison, and some positions were compared to the private sector. Compensation
benchmarking methodology is described in detail in Appendix A: Wages and Benefits Comparison
Methodology. Representatives from 9 of these cities were interviewed, and 6 participated in a survey
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 10
to obtain performance data: Anaheim, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, El Segundo, Glendale,
Inglewood, Pasadena, Redondo Beach, Santa Barbara, and Torrance. Berkeley and Palo Alto also
participated in interviews to provide perspectives on leading practices in other innovative, progressive
cities.
3.Analysis: This phase identified opportunities for improvement and recommendations based on first-
hand input gained during fieldwork and comparisons to peer and best practices. We evaluated the
importance, impact, and scope of our observations in order to develop recommendations that address
opportunities for improvement. Compensation benchmarking methodology is described in detail in
Appendix A.
4.Reporting: This phase concluded the project by communicating observations and recommendations
through reports and presentations.
Every attempt was made to standardize salary, job title, workload, and performance data presented in this
report. However, the data utilized in this analysis has limitations; chiefly, all data is self-reported and
unaudited and therefore may be inaccurate or misleading. Additional limitations include inconsistent
naming conventions (the inclusion of abbreviations and minor differences between departments and
titles); limited controls around data entry; the lack of systemized distinctions between part-time
positions, new hires, and newly promoted employees; and the inability to consistently identify reasons for
outliers and major variances.
Throughout the project, we worked with an ad hoc subcommittee of the Audit Subcommittee. Seven Santa
Monica residents appointed by the City Manager comprise the Compensation Study Advisory Committee
(CSAC). The CSAC provided guidance and feedback at each major phase of the project. Draft
observations, recommendations, and the full report were provided to the CSAC for review and comment.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 11
II.WAGE AND BENEFIT PACKAGES
This section uses the following definitions to describe city employee compensation:
•Base pay: Includes regular pay and special pay
•Cash compensation: Includes base pay and overtime pay
•Total compensation: Sum of cash compensation, lump sum payments, and benefit cost.
A.DATA LIMITATIONS
Our analysis of wages and benefits used data from the State Controller’s Office (SCO) Government
Compensation in California (GCC). In 2014, the California Legislature required municipalities to submit
anonymized payroll compensation data to the SCO. The data has some limitations, including:
•The GCC data does not consistently distinguish between or separate full- and part-time positions or
employees. In order to partially account for this, we removed positions from our analysis where the
annual regular pay was below the minimum salary level for the position.
•Due to the inability to distinguish between full and part time, the GCC data line-items do not
correspond with FTE counts. Count data is included in order to provide context on sample-sizes.
•There is not a timely way to validate the accuracy of the data (would require auditing the GCC data
against city payroll records).
•Multiple types of calculations were used in this analysis - including average (arithmetic mean),
median, and percentiles - in order to provide a variety of lenses to examine and compare the data.
•Results of this analysis have not been verified as statistically significant and are likely to vary between
years and cities.
Appendix A includes the data and methodology used to calculate peer comparisons.
B.COMPONENTS OF COMPENSATION
1
OBSERVATION
In relation to peer cities, Santa Monica exhibits the same
distribution of personnel costs as peers across wages, health
benefits, and retirement.
Overall, Santa Monica spends about two-thirds of compensation to
base pay (not including overtime or lump sum payments) and the
remaining one-third to health (medical, dental, and vision) and
retirement benefits. Health benefits tend to comprise a slightly (1-3%)
higher percentage of total compensation in relation to peers.
RECOMMENDATION
Enhance awareness and understanding of personnel costs by
making this information readily accessible to the general public and provide explanations of each component of total
compensation.
The City should provide an accessible, easy-to-understand summary of
total compensation provided to City employees. A visual element, such
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 12
as a pie chart, showing the typical breakdown of total compensation
components for miscellaneous and safety employees should be
developed. A list of benefits should be provided with definitions,
relevant eligibility information, as well identify which portions of
benefit costs the City pays vs. what portion the employees pay. The
total compensation summary should link to the City’s open data
portal, which provides specific compensation and operating data.
Enabling citizens to better understand the components of total
compensation will increase transparency and public trust.
As noted previously, there is increasing public scrutiny of public employee compensation in Santa Monica
and other public entities. Public sector employees’ total compensation packages can vary significantly
from the private sector; public employees typically have defined benefit pensions, do not contribute to
Social Security, do not receive bonuses, and tend to have less lifetime earning potential than similar
private sector roles. In addition, public employee salaries are published while private compensation data
is typically not available to the general public.
The following compensation data analysis uses a combination of average (arithmetic mean), median, and
percentile values in order to provide an array of ways of examining and comparing the data. Calculating
the average value is a way to identify a “representative” sample from a dataset, and particularly for
subcategories within the data. The average can be useful for examining, standardizing, and comparing
data between entities. However, the average value of a dataset can be skewed by outliers, particularly
within smaller datasets, and should be used in conjunction with additional calculations. The median – the
single middle value within a range of data – provides a value that is less impacted by outlier values,
particularly within smaller data ranges. Usually, if the average and median value are close, it means that
the data are symmetric around the mean; if there is a significant difference, the average is likely being
skewed by outliers. Percentiles are the values (or the average of two values) in the data set that mark a
certain percentage of the way through the data (25% and 75%); the number below which 25% of values are
lower than, and the number which 25% of values are higher than. Percentiles provide a way to understand
the relative standings of values within the dataset – where a value is in relation to all the other values in
the dataset.
According to data from the SCO GCC, the relative percentages Santa Monica spent on base pay,
retirement, and health benefits are approximately equal to peer city averages. Across all employee types,
average base pay accounts for approximately two-thirds of employee compensation, with retirement
varying from approximately 18-30% and health benefits comprising the remaining 8-15%. Using the
average values to approximate each City’s typical compensation costs, Exhibit 1 summarizes these
observations with payroll compensation data from the GCC for FY 2016, after analyzing data from
Anaheim, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, El Segundo, Glendale, Pasadena, Redondo Beach, Santa
Barbara, and Torrance.2
2 Percentage data may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 13
Exhibit 1
SECTOR CITY
COMPARISON BASE PAY 3 HEALTH
BENEFITS RETIREMENT
Miscellaneous
Employees
Santa Monica
Average 67.3% 14.3% 18.4%
Peer City Average 72.2% 11.3% 16.5%
Police
Santa Monica
Average 62.0% 8.9% 29.1%
Peer City Average 65.7% 8.2% 26.0%
Fire
Santa Monica
Average 66.5% 10.7% 22.8%
Peer City Average 66.4% 8.7% 24.9%
MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES – COMPENSATION COMPONENTS 4
Santa Monica has a slightly higher percentage of average overall compensation costs dedicated to
retirement and health care for miscellaneous employees (all employees except in fire and police
departments) in comparison to peer cities. In particular, average health care costs comprise an additional
3% of total compensation in Santa Monica compared to the peer city average. At an average of 14.3% of
total compensation for miscellaneous employees, Santa Monica has the largest average health care
percentage cost, compared to the 11.3% peer average. For costs of retirement, Santa Monica ties with
Santa Barbara for highest average retirement costs at 18.4%, above the 16.5% peer average. Exhibit 2
provides a breakdown comparison of the 2016 average health benefits, retirement costs, and base pay
compensation (excluding overtime) as components of total compensation for Santa Monica and the peer
cities, excluding police and fire department positions.
3 Does not include overtime
4 Count of GCC data payroll line-items used in analysis: Anaheim (951); Beverly Hills (448); Burbank (727); Culver City (349); El
Segundo (96); Glendale (899); Pasadena (1,020); Redondo Beach (180); Santa Barbara (524); Santa Monica (1,261); Torrance
(647). Percentage data may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 14
Exhibit 2
POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPENSATION COMPONENTS 5
Police department compensation components vary more significantly between municipalities. In
comparison to peers, Santa Monica has the third highest amount of total compensation dedicated to
health and retirement benefits combined (38.0%), above the total peer average of 34.3%. Exhibit 3
provides a comparison of the average 2016 health benefits, retirement costs, and base pay compensation
as a percentage of total compensation for police departments.
5 Count of GCC data payroll line-items used in analysis: Anaheim (513); Beverly Hills (166); Burbank (204); Culver City (140); El
Segundo (73); Glendale (304); Pasadena (283); Redondo Beach (130); Santa Barbara (166); Santa Monica (342); Torrance (294).
Percentage data may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.
72
.
2
%
73
.
4
%
74
.
6
%
71
.
7
%
76
.
1
%
75
.
7
%
69
.
4
%
75
.
7
%
72
.
6
%
67
.
3
%
78
.
7
%
72
.
2
%
10
.
8
%
12
.
7
%
9.
2
%
12
.
5
%
6.
8
%
9.
8
%
12
.
8
%
8.
5
%
9.
0
%
14
.
3
%
9.
0
%
11
.
3
%
17
.
0
%
13
.
9
%
16
.
2
%
15
.
8
%
17
.
1
%
14
.
5
%
17
.
8
%
15
.
8
%
18
.
4
%
18
.
4
%
12
.
3
%
16
.
5
%
Miscellaneous Employes (Not Public Safety)
Average Wage % of Compensation Average Health Benefits % of Compensation
Average Retirement % of Compensation
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 15
Exhibit 3
FIRE DEPARTMENT COMPENSATION COMPONENTS 6
Fire department compensation components also vary significantly between municipalities. In comparison
to peers, Santa Monica lands squarely in the middle when comparing the amount of total compensation
dedicated to health and retirement benefits combined (33.5%), approximately the same as the 33.6% peer
average. Exhibit 4 provides a comparison of the average 2016 health benefits, retirement costs, and base
pay as a percentage of total compensation for fire departments.7
6 Count of GCC data payroll line-items used in analysis: Anaheim (240); Beverly Hills (91); Burbank (122); Culver City (67); El
Segundo (45); Glendale (180); Pasadena (132); Redondo Beach (59); Santa Barbara (106); Santa Monica (117); Torrance (148).
Percentage data may not always add up to 100% due to rounding.
7 Inglewood is not represented on this chart because the City has contracted Fire Services.
68
.
2
%
61
.
8
%
66
.
6
%
66
.
4
%
59
.
5
%
69
.
1
%
68
.
1
%
63
.
9
%
67
.
5
%
62
.
0
%
64
.
6
%
65
.
7
%
9.
4
%
9.
5
%
8.
6
%
7.
7
%
6.
3
%
6.
8
%
10
.
3
%
6.
1
%
8.
2
%
8.
9
%
5.
9
%
8.
2
%
22
.
5
%
28
.
7
%
24
.
7
%
25
.
9
%
34
.
1
%
24
.
1
%
21
.
6
%
30
.
0
%
24
.
3
%
29
.
1
%
29
.
5
%
26
.
0
%
Police Department -Components of Total Compensation by Peer City
Average Wage % of Compensation Average Health Benefits % of Compensation
Average Retirement % of Compensation
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 16
Exhibit 4
66
.
2
%
64
.
0
%
71
.
9
%
65
.
2
%
62
.
8
%
67
.
8
%
65
.
5
%
63
.
3
%
73
.
4
%
66
.
5
%
63
.
8
%
66
.
4
%
9.
6
%
8.
6
%
8.
4
%
7.
1
%
7.
1
%
7.
4
%
10
.
6
%
4.
6
%
11
.
3
%
10
.
7
%
7.
2
%
8.
7
%
24
.
3
%
27
.
4
%
19
.
7
%
27
.
7
%
30
.
1
%
24
.
8
%
23
.
9
%
32
.
0
%
15
.
3
%
22
.
8
%
29
.
1
%
24
.
9
%
Fire Department -Compenents of Total Compensation by Peer City
Average Wage % of Compensation Average Health Benefits % of Compensation
Average Retirement % of Compensation
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 17
C.CASH COMPENSATION
2
OBSERVATION
Santa Monica’s average cash compensation for employees is
comparable to the average of peer cities, although the City’s
median senior leadership compensation is the highest among peers. When Santa Monica’s median cash compensation was
compared to peers, it was the third lowest, likely due to the
City’s strong preference to insource services that require a large
number of relatively low paid workers. For individual positions,
Santa Monica met or fell below the peer median for 40% of the positions included in the benchmarking study, while the
remaining 60% of positions were compensated at levels
exceeding the peer median. Santa Monica lacks a formal
philosophy to guide how compensation is determined.
Reviewing the average cash compensation (including base pay and
overtime) across cities serves as a comparison of representative
samples. Santa Monica’s average cash compensation was $103,844,
meaning a typical employee’s compensation is approximate to the peer
average of $105,198. The median value of cash compensation
(including base pay and overtime) amongst all of Santa Monica’s
employees was $86,077, which falls below the peer median ($91,600)
of cash compensation. This variance is typical of data sets with a
broader range of minimum and maximum values. The difference is
likely due to the City’s in-sourcing of many services as discussed in
Section IV, which may lower the minimum value of the range. Santa
Monica had the highest median senior leadership level cash wages
among peer cities at $214,842, which is 14.5% ($187,689) above the
peer median.
Santa Monica does not have a formal compensation policy to guide
negotiators during collective bargaining. Additionally, some
Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) require the City to
compensate their members above peers.
RECOMMENDATION
Develop and implement a formal compensation philosophy,
including, but not limited to, compensation and benefits
components, levels, and market competitiveness, to guide labor
negotiations and set employee expectations with respect to
compensation.
The City Council, City Manager, and Human Resources (HR) should
develop a compensation philosophy that formally states the City’s
principles related to employee compensation. A compensation
philosophy can help guide the City in attracting, retaining, and
motivating employees while also balancing the public interest and
ensuring sustainability of City operations. The compensation
philosophy should identify the elements of total compensation, how
employee compensation supports the City’s strategic goals and
operating objectives, and how the City plans to compensate employees
considering competition for talent and fiscal constraints. Elements
could include staff efficiency, job performance, and fairness. The
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 18
philosophy should provide a framework for management, employees,
and citizens to understand the decisions that impact compensation
and should reflect the value public employees bring to community
services and programs.
Once the philosophy is adopted, the City Manager and HR Director
should develop a compensation policy that clearly defines how the
philosophy will be implemented. Both the philosophy and policy
should be publicly available to reinforce transparency with employees
and the community.
3
OBSERVATION
The City uses peer city compensation averages for individual
positions during its market analysis prior to negotiations. Best
practice is to expand the dataset used to include the median (midpoint) and calculate percentiles when benchmarking position
wages.
The use of average (arithmetic mean) values in position compensation
benchmarking is commonplace; however, the average value can be
misleading if no other values are considered. Best practice is to also
consider the median (midpoint) when benchmarking position wages,
and calculate the range of values through the use of percentiles. The
average (mean) value is sensitive to outliers (abnormally low or high
values); the impact of outliers on the median value is lower, and
therefore the median provides an additional view of the data being
used to benchmarking a position’s compensation.
RECOMMENDATION
Evolve the in-house position-level compensation market study
methodology to include medians and percentiles in accordance
with best practices, accounting for labor relation requirements.
The City can build upon the existing methodology used to create the
internal market studies, incorporating individual position
compensation benchmarking best practices for future compensation
market studies.8
Individual position benchmarking best practices include:
•For each study, reviewing peer group selection for relevance and
purpose, and including demographic information for each of the
peer cities, such as population, operational budget, and FTEs.
•Utilizing percentiles (25%, median, 75%) in addition to peer
averages in presenting individual position benchmarking analysis,
in order to provide a more complete range of the compensation
dataset.
•Documenting methodology, including data source, process for
selection of other cities, and standardization of titles used in the
analysis.
•Providing a publicly available summary of the comparison of Santa
Monica positions against the peer median.
8 Market Study methodology may be subject to a meet and confer process.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 19
PEER P RACTICES – CASH C OMPENSATION
Cash compensation for public sector employees is typically defined by collective bargaining and takes two
major forms: base pay, and, for non-exempt employees, overtime. Other forms of cash compensation
include lump sum payouts for accrued leave and negotiated termination settlements. Some employees
also receive “special pay,” pay increases for certifications, degrees, or specialized skills. Base pay and
salaries earned determine individual pension contributions; overtime is not pensionable.
Some peer cities established compensation philosophies to guide wage setting practices. The
compensation philosophies may include the city’s goals for how compensation is defined, what elements
are included, where the city aims to compare to the market, and budgetary considerations. For example,
one city’s compensation philosophy also includes limiting management compensation to 25% of total
personnel costs.
Most peer cities report that they aim to pay their employees the average or median of their labor market;
whether by an informal or formal policy. Local government wages in California have lagged behind the
private sector since the recession; between September 2016 and September 2017, total compensation
costs for private industry workers increased 3.6% in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and
Ventura Counties, compared to the national pace of 2.5%. Locally, private industry wages and salaries,
which comprise the largest component of compensation costs, advanced at a 3.2% pace, compared to the
2.6% national average.9 Exhibit 5 shows local government cash compensation in California compared to
private sector cash compensation over the past 10 years.
9 Source: “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. <www.bls.gov>.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 20
Exhibit 5
SANTA MONICA PRACTICES
COMPENSATION SETTING PROCESS
At the onset of labor negotiations, the City conducts a market study for key positions that are easily
matched in other jurisdictions and arranges a series of meetings with labor representatives. Most of these
cities have been defined by the Police Officer’s Association MOU and are included for comparison in this
study. The City’s Human Resources (HR) department is responsible for conducting this analysis, which
reviews the average (mean) compensation of like positions in cities considered within Santa Monica’s
labor market. The use of average (mean) values for individual position compensation benchmarking is
commonplace; however, only using the average value can be misleading if no other values are considered.
Best practice is to include additional values, such as the median (midpoint) and percentile values, when
benchmarking individual position wages. The average (mean) value provides a representative value of a
dataset or subset; however, the average is sensitive to outliers (abnormally low or high values) particularly
in smaller datasets. The impact of outliers on the median value is lower, as it represents the middle value
of a range of numbers, and therefore the median is also useful for better understanding the range of a
position’s typical compensation.
Santa Monica follows a standard bargaining process that follows California State laws and regulations of
the Public Employee Relations Board. Using the information gathered by both parties, the City and labor
representatives negotiate MOU terms related to compensation, working conditions, and, on occasion,
other benefits. Labor groups solicit input from their membership in a variety of ways, including in-person
$5
1
,
6
6
7
$5
3
,
5
3
5
$5
4
,
1
6
3
$5
4
,
5
0
4
$5
4
,
9
1
5
$5
5
,
5
3
8
$5
6
,
3
3
5
$5
7
,
9
5
4
$5
9
,
9
5
6
$6
1
,
7
9
9
$4
9
,
9
3
6
$5
0
,
7
0
4
$5
0
,
6
8
0
$5
2
,
5
5
3
$5
4
,
3
4
5
$5
6
,
2
9
5
$5
6
,
5
7
7
$5
8
,
5
0
7
$6
1
,
2
8
1
$6
2
,
4
8
4
7.8%
5.1%
-0.9%
-2.4%-2.3%
0.1%
1.7%
4.7%
7.4%
5.6%5.2%
0.2%
-6.4%
2.3%
5.3%
7.1%
3.8%
6.5%
8.0%
4.7%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
California Total Wages & Average Annual Wages by Sector
Local Government Average Wages Private Sector Average Wages
Local Government Total Wages Private Sector Total Wages
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 21
meetings, surveys, and email solicitations. Some labor groups choose to engage an attorney for
negotiations.
Santa Monica does not have a formal compensation philosophy or policy that guides the City’s
compensation setting process. A compensation philosophy can help guide the City in attracting, retaining,
and motivating employees while also balancing the public interest and ensuring sustainability of City
operations. Compensation philosophies and policies provide a framework for management, employees,
and citizens to understand the decisions that impact compensation and should reflect the value public
employees bring to community services and programs.
CASH COMPENSATION
In order to provide a representative sample of typical costs, the average, median, and quartiles of Santa
Monica and peer cities’ cash compensation was compared. The average cost of cash wages (including
overtime) in Santa Monica came to $103,844, based on GCC payroll data analysis. This ranked Santa
Monica 7th amongst the 11 peer cities, which had average cash wages of $105,198. The range of average
cash wages in peer cities spanned from $117,661 to $96,084. The average cost of cash compensation
(includes regular pay, overtime pay, and special pay - not including payout, health benefits, or retirement
costs) across all peer cities in 2016 is shown in Exhibit 6. The graph includes the overall peer average, as
well as the peer percentile values.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 22
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7 presents, for each city, the detailed percentile values (25th, 50th, and 75th) as well as the average
cash compensation data listed in descending order of average wages. Santa Monica approximates or falls
slightly below the percentile values amongst all peers, including the 25th, the 50th (median), and the 75th.
Using percentiles to better understand the range of values, Santa Monica’s cash wage 25th percentile value
was $65,134, similar to the peer value of $65,179. Comparing the median value for cash wages across all
its departments, the middle-value amongst Santa Monica’s cost of cash wages (including overtime) was
$86,077, below the peer median of $91,600. Santa Monica’s commitment to insourcing services
contributes to the City’s lower median compensation, driven by the lower values that create a wider range.
The 75th percentile value for cash wages in Santa Monica was $124,006; this was more than $10,000
lower than the $136,159 value amongst the peers.
$1
1
7
,
6
6
1
$1
1
5
,
1
9
0
$1
1
2
,
1
8
9
$1
0
9
,
4
6
9
$1
0
4
,
7
6
1
$1
0
4
,
0
2
1
$1
0
3
,
8
4
4
$1
0
3
,
2
7
3
$9
9
,
4
0
0
$9
6
,
6
5
0
$9
6
,
0
4
8
$101,337
$104,021
$110,829
$105,198
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
2016 Cash Compensation by City
Average Cash Compensation 25th Percentile Peer Median
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 23
Exhibit 7
2016 CASH COMPENSATION, RANKED BY MEDIAN
City 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile Average
Anaheim $73,399 $109,324 $153,665 $117,661
El Segundo $71,209 $106,839 $153,396 $115,190
Beverly Hills $72,530 $98,560 $141,806 $112,189
Redondo Beach $60,564 $97,612 $139,247 $104,761
Torrance $67,224 $92,324 $147,461 $109,469
All Peer Average $65,179 $91,600 $136,159 $105,198
Burbank $59,239 $90,057 $136,581 $103,273
Pasadena $62,488 $89,681 $126,509 $99,400
Santa Barbara $62,451 $88,379 $121,762 $96,650
Santa Monica $66,134 $86,077 $124,006 $103,844
Glendale $57,764 $85,044 $126,130 $96,048
Culver City $64,324 $84,938 $134,890 $104,021
Peer City Senior Leadership Compensation. Using the GCC payroll data, Moss Adams filtered out
positions by title to provide an approximate sampling of executive and director-level compensation.10 We
compared each City’s median base pay (not including overtime) value in order to reduce the impact of
outlier positions. Santa Monica had the highest median value amongst the peers for its senior leadership-
level positions at $214,842. Torrance came in at a similar level in second, with a senior leadership-level
median wage of $210,396. The median of senior leadership base pay compensation among all peers was
$187,689, which is $27,153 below Santa Monica’s median value. When comparing the median value of all
employees, however, Santa Monica’s median base pay was $78,286. This is $13,314 below the peer base
pay median of $91,600.
10 Words used to filter by include: Director, Deputy, Chief, City Manager, City Attorney, and Division, among others. These filters
allow us to capture positions including chief officers, division managers, and assistant directors.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 24
Exhibit 8 presents the median base pay values for both senior leadership and all employees across all the
peer cities, as well as the number of data points from the GCC used within each dataset.
Exhibit 8
SPECIAL PAY
Some employees receive “special pay,” which is a percentage pay increase for certifications, degrees, or
specialized skills. Exhibit 9 compares the percentage of wages deriving from special pay for Santa Monica
employees compared to the average percentage of compensation coming from special pay in peer cities.
As noted in Exhibit 9, Santa Monica pays 75% less in special pay to miscellaneous employees than peer
cities. Additionally, in relation to peers, the City pays a slightly higher percentage of special pay to police
officers and approximately the same percentage for firefighters.
$1
8
0
,
5
5
0
$2
0
0
,
9
3
7
$1
9
0
,
4
8
9
$1
9
6
,
7
8
7
$1
6
5
,
4
2
3
$1
7
9
,
2
6
6
$1
7
2
,
7
5
6
$1
6
1
,
1
0
7
$1
6
8
,
2
5
2
$2
1
4
,
8
4
2
$2
1
0
,
3
9
6
$91,600
57 26 43 20 12 40 18 35 25 22 38
1,704
705
1,053
556
214
1,383
1,435
369
796
1,720
1,089
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
Peer Cities Senior Leadership-Level Median Cash Compensation
All Employee Median Sr. Leader Median
Peer All Employee Avg.Peer Sr. Leader Avg.
GCC Sr. Leader Count GCC All Count
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 25
Exhibit 9
PEER POSITION BENCHMARKING
This section presents citywide trends in cash compensation when compared to peer cities and, where
possible, private sector positions. This analysis draws from the departmental service level, staffing, and
compensation analysis presented in Section IV. The city data used in this section was sourced from
employee W-2 compensation data that cities report annually to the California SCO. Private sector cash
compensation data is sourced from Economic Research Institute (ERI) compensation databases, based on
the factors identified in the data notes provided in Appendix A. For a detailed methodology of the peer
benchmarking, please see Appendix B: Peer Benchmarking Methodology.
CITYWIDE CASH COMPENSATION
When the City’s median cash compensation for individual positions was compared to the overall peer
median value for matching positions, Santa Monica met or fell below peer median compensation for 40%
of positions analyzed; the other 60% of positions were compensated at levels exceeding the peer median.
Exhibit 10 summarizes this analysis and presents the percent of Santa Monica’s positions that fall above,
at, and below the matching peer median compensation. Approximately a fifth of Santa Monica’s positions
are below 90% of the peer median (9%) or between 90-100% of the peer median (9%). Additionally, 22%
of Santa Monica’s positions serve as the peer median, meaning the City’s cash compensation for those
positions falls in the middle of the peer values. The remaining positions are compensated at levels above
the peer median; 24% of Santa Monica’s positions fall between 100 and 110% of the peer median; and the
remaining 37% of positions are more than 110% of the peer median.
1.8%
15.2%
11.5%
5.4%
14.1%
11.6%
Miscellaneous Employee Police Fire
Percent of Wages Deriving from Special Pay
Santa Monica Peer City Average
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 26
Exhibit 10
At a department level, we sampled a selection of individual positions from each department, based on the
relevance to the department and availability of peer data. For each position, we compared Santa Monica
median value of cash compensation to the peer median value and any private sector data for cash
compensation, as available. Exhibit 11 summarizes what percentage of Santa Monica’s positions were
above the peer median and what percentage of positions were below the private sector compensation
value. Private sector comparisons were drawn in 11 city departments; in most departments (seven), over
half of the benchmarked positions were compensated at a level that fell below the private sector median.
Exhibit 11
DEPARTMENT
NUMBER OF
BENCHMARKED
POSITIONS
% OF SANTA
MONICA POSITIONS
ABOVE PEER
MEDIAN
% OF SANTA
MONICA POSITIONS
BELOW PRIVATE
SECTOR
City Attorney 4 100% 75%
City Clerk 3 100% N/A
City Manager 6 83% 100%
Community and
Cultural Services 5 80% 33%
Finance 7 86% 86%
Fire 8 75% N/A
Housing and Economic
Development 4 100% 50%
Human Resources 4 100% 25%
Information Services 6 33% 83%
Library Services 5 60% 67%
Be
l
o
w
9
0
%
o
f
p
e
e
r
me
d
i
a
n
9%
90
t
o
1
0
0
%
9%
Is Median
22%
100 to 110%
23%
Over 110% of peer
median
37%
Santa Monica Position Compensation Medians Compared to Peer City
Medians
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 27
DEPARTMENT
NUMBER OF
BENCHMARKED
POSITIONS
% OF SANTA
MONICA POSITIONS
ABOVE PEER
MEDIAN
% OF SANTA
MONICA POSITIONS
BELOW PRIVATE
SECTOR
Planning & Community
Development 4 100% 33%
Police 7 100% N/A
Public Works 18 44% 61%
Transit 5 100% 40%
Exhibit 12 shows at the department level, the median values of cash compensation, comparing Santa
Monica against the peer median. In general, Santa Monica’s departments are higher than the peer median
(11 out of 14). The largest difference is within SMFD, which is at 124% of the peer median, likely due to
high levels of overtime in the department. The three departments below the peer median are Public
Works (89%), the City Clerk’s office (84%), and the City Manager’s office (82%).
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 28
Exhibit 12
D.RETIREMENT BENEFITS
4 OBSERVATION
Santa Monica has taken steps to reduce unfunded liability, including introducing an additional retirement tier prior to the
Public Employee Pension Reform Act and making $76 M in lump
sum payments. Similar to peer cities, the City’s overall unfunded
pension liability remains high.
Like most public entities in California, Santa Monica offers its
employees’ pension benefits through the California Public Employees
Retirement System (CalPERS), which has defined benefits. CalPERS
pension liabilities have risen significantly in the past 10 years, and are
projected to double statewide by 2030. Many cities are taking steps to
117%
84%
82%
123%
110%
124%
105%104%
122%
106%
119%
104%
89%
106%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
120%
125%
130%
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
Peer Median Cash Compensation by Department
All Peer Santa Monica Santa Monica Difference from Peer Median
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 29
address unfunded liability and reduce pension costs. Santa Monica’s
employees pay 25-29% of PERS contributions. The City has adopted a
financial policy to pay at least $1 million a year toward unfunded
pension liability.
RECOMMENDATION
Continue to take steps whenever possible to mitigate the financial threat
that pension liability places on the City.
Reducing unfunded pension liability is a financial priority for Santa
Monica and all peer cities. The City should continue to seek ways to
reduce its pension burden, including:
•When possible, pay down pension liabilities ahead of schedule.
•Pursue fiscally sustainable compensation plans during labor
negotiations.
•Assess life cycle costs of proposed programs and services,
including pension implications of new FTEs.
•Collaborate with other cities to advocate for pension reform and
seek innovative approaches to managing pension obligations.
PEER PRACTICES – PENSIONS
Retirement benefits are a larger share of total compensation in the public sector, as shown in Exhibit 13.
According to the Center for State and Local Government Excellence, wages have declined as a percentage
of total compensation (67% in 2006 to 63% in 2016) as the costs of pensions and benefits have risen.11
Exhibit 13
11 https://slge.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/CSLGE-CompensationD.pdf
70%63%
26%
26%
4%11%
Private Industry State & Local Government
National Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
Retirement & Savings
Benefits
Wages & Salaries
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 30
In California, almost every municipal agency (cities, counties, special purpose districts, and joint power
authorities) participates in CalPERS. CalPERS serves 1.4 million members and is the largest defined
benefit pension program in the United States. In a defined benefit pension plan, retirement benefits are
fixed and pre-defined using a formula that includes factors such as years of service and age at retirement.
Employees working at least 1,000 hours receive CalPERS benefits. Employees participating in CalPERS
do not contribute to Social Security while they are contributing to the pension fund.
Municipal pension liabilities have increased in recent years as CalPERS has repeatedly adjusted its
investment valuation. The CalPERS fund lost more than $67 billion in 2008-2009, and revised its asset
mix and valuation methodology in subsequent years. The employer contribution to CalPERS fluctuates
depending on investment returns. Statewide, unfunded pension liabilities are expected to double by 2030.
Santa Monica’s pension obligations from fiscal year 2006 to 2016 are shown in Exhibit 14, and the percent
of unfunded liabilities compared to the City’s pension liabilities.
Exhibit 14
During interviews, peers reported major concerns regarding rising pension obligations and unfunded
liability, which is the gap between promised retirement benefits and the money available to pay those
benefits. Cities have limited flexibility to reduce pension costs due to the “California Rule,” a 1955 state
Supreme Court ruling that requires that public employee pension benefits, once granted, can never be
modified, even for future work.12 Exhibit 15 shows the net pension liability of Santa Monica and peer cities
compared to operating costs.
12 Beyersdorf, Brian. “The Fate of Public Employee Pensions: Marin’s Revision of the “California Rule.”” California Law Review.
17.8%
16.0%16.4%
21.6%21.5%20.8%20.4%
28.5%
24.4%25.0%
28.4%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
$0
$500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Santa Monica CalPERS Obligations
Pension Liability Unfunded Liability % Unfunded
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 31
Exhibit 15
FY 2016 CAFR NET
PENSION LIABILITY
FY 2017
OPERATING
BUDGET
PENSION LIABILITY
% OF OPERATING
BUDGET
Santa Monica $ 386,760,127 $507,991,516 76%
Anaheim $ 383,378,000 $1,743,524,375 22%
Beverly Hills $ 202,469,000 $448,119,185 45%
Burbank $ 275,441,000 $659,018,444 42%
Culver City $ 143,401,863 $220,109,311 65%
El Segundo $ 109,933,608 $123,109,311 89%
Glendale $ 430,182,000 $819,533,134 52%
Inglewood $ 227,011,005 $103,192,627 220%
Pasadena $ 386,000,000 $690,440,000 56%
Redondo Beach $ 129,892,979 $83,875,745 155%
Santa Barbara $ 249,860,418 $355,141,316 70%
Torrance $ 374,022,800 $299,328,883 125%
Note: Some cities, such as Burbank, Pasadena, Glendale and Anaheim, operate electric utilities that require large contracts
to purchase electricity. Anaheim also utilizes large contracts for the operation of their convention center, arena, and stadium.
These functions increase the non-salary portion of the operating budget significantly and do not have the same level of
employees tied to operations, therefore the pension liability as a percent of some operating budgets may appear significantly
reduced.
In recent years, some small cities have terminated their relationship with CalPERS, at high up-front
costs.13 Many cities have cut staffing and services in response to rising pension costs. All peer cities, as
well as Santa Monica, reported increasing employee contributions during most labor negotiations, with
some cities ending the employer contribution entirely. Some cities, including Santa Monica, have paid
above planned contributions to lower total unfunded liability, in accordance with best practices. In 2017,
the cities of Glendale and Torrance established pension rate stabilization trust funds in response to rising
and unpredictable CalPERS costs.14,15
SANTA MONICA PRACTICES
RETIREMENT BENEFIT SETTING PROCESS
Most unions (8 of 11) participate in the Coalition of Santa Monica City Employees to negotiate medical
and retirement benefits. A subset of labor representatives is appointed by membership to negotiate these
13 Ashton, Adam. “Public workers from two more towns expected to lose CalPERS pensions.” Sacramento Bee. September 13,
2017.
14 Landa, Jeff. “Glendale establishes trust fund to mitigate escalating pension costs.” Glendale News-Press. July 25, 2017.
15 Green, Nick. “Rising pension costs crimp Torrance city budget.” Daily Breeze. May 17, 2017.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 32
MOUs on their behalf. Labor groups operating in public safety roles, such as the Police Officer Association
and Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109, negotiate medical and retirement benefits during their
individual MOU negotiations. Due to the nature of public safety work, negotiations for medical benefits,
overtime, retirement, and other benefits typically does not fall within citywide umbrella agreement
MOUs.
SANTA MONICA’S RETIREMENT OFFERINGS
Like other cities, Santa Monica’s employees receive pensions under multiple tiers or formulas. Public
safety employees typically receive different pension benefits (e.g., earlier retirement eligibility, higher
percent of salary received as pension) from general government staff; in addition, the 2012 Public
Employee Pension Reform Act required employers to revise pensions for employees hired after January 1,
2013. While employer contribution rates are established by CalPERS, cities can negotiate with employee
groups to pay a portion of the employer cost; Santa Monica employees pay 25-29% of their total PERS
contribution rate. Exhibit 16 summarizes the pension benefits offered to Santa Monica employees in FY
2017. Pension formulas and contribution percentages for Santa Monica and peer cities are provided in
Appendix C: Peer City Pension Formulas.
Exhibit 16
HIRE DATE
MONTHLY BENEFITS
AS PERCENT OF
COMPENSATION
RETIREMENT AGE
Miscellaneous
E mployees
>7/1/12 2.70% 50-55
7/1/12-12/31/12 1.43-2.42% 50-62
1/1/13+ 1.0-2.5% 52-67
Police
>12/31/12 3% 50
1/1/2013+ 2.0-2.7% 50-57
Fire
>12/31/12 2.4-3.0% 50-55
1/1/2013+ 2.0-2.7% 50-57
In July 2012, Santa Monica created a second tier for miscellaneous employees, in alignment with best
practices. This tier effectively lowered all incoming miscellaneous employees’ benefits and reduced the
City’s financial burden for new employees’ retirement. Additionally, since 2011, the City has made $76
million in additional payments, including a $45 million payment in 2016, beyond annual required
contributions to pay down its unfunded liability and reduce its future burden. These pay downs have
lowered the City’s annual pension cost by $6 million. The City also has a policy to pay at least an
additional $1 million annually toward its unfunded liability to further contain rising pension costs.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 33
E.HEALTH BENEFITS
5
OBSERVATION
Similar to peers, Santa Monica’s employee medical insurance
costs have risen steeply in recent years. The City’s cash
contribution to monthly individual employee medical insurance, which varies by plan, is consistent with that of peers.
Most peer cities, as well as Santa Monica, participate in CalPERS
health insurance. Costs to cities and employees vary based on the
number and types of benefits offered. On average, peer medical benefit
offerings require monthly city contributions of $639-800 and monthly
employee contributions of $59-281 for an employee-only plan. In
comparison, Santa Monica’s health insurance results in monthly City
contributions of $538-759 and employee contributions of $40-74 for
its employee-only plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Evaluate options to stabilize per-employee health care costs.
As the cost of medical insurance continues to rise, the City should
regularly evaluate its options with the goal of stabilizing costs to the
City. Peer cities have taken steps including requiring increased
employee cost sharing, offering new hires less generous coverage,
offering health savings accounts, and increasing cost sharing for
spouses and families. Employee wellness programs and incentive can
have long-term impacts on health care costs.
PEER PRACTICES – HEALTH BENEFITS
Most peer cities participate in CalPERS health insurance, known as the Public Employees' Medical &
Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). Retiree health insurance is typically guaranteed for public safety retirees in
most cities, and is provided for all retirees in some cities. Employees pay a percentage of monthly
premiums, which is negotiated during collective bargaining and can vary between labor groups. In Santa
Monica, 8 of 11 labor unions participate in the Coalition of Santa Monica City Employees to collectively
negotiate medical and retirement benefits.
The cost of health insurance premiums has increased significantly in the past ten years. For example, as
shown in Exhibit 17, below, PEMHCA Kaiser Single monthly premiums in the Los Angeles area have
increased 87% since 2007.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 34
Exhibit 17
As shown in Section IV, according to data from the State Controller’s Office Government Compensation in
California (GCC), the relative percentages Santa Monica spent on wages, retirement, and health benefits
are approximately equal to the peer city averages. In accordance with best practices, many peer cities
reported increasing the employee-paid share of insurance premiums during and subsequent to the
recession as costs continue to rise. Peers reported major uncertainty around the cost of health insurance,
the state insurance marketplace, and the future of the Affordable Care Act. A 2016 survey conducted by
the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) noted the following strategies for stabilizing or
reducing employee health care costs:
•Offering consumer-directed health plans (e.g., health reimbursement arrangements, health savings
accounts).
•Creating an organizational culture that promotes health and wellness.
•Offering a variety of preferred provider organization (PPO) plans, including those with high and low
deductibles and co-pays.
•Increasing the employee share contributed to the total costs of health care.
•Offering a health maintenance organization (HMO) health plan.
•Providing incentives or rewards related to health and wellness.
•Placing limits on, or increasing cost-sharing for, spousal health care coverage.
•Increasing the employee share contributed to the cost of brand name prescription drugs.16
16 SHRM Survey Findings: 2016 Strategic Benefits— Health Care
$3
0
6
.
5
$3
2
9
.
1
$3
5
9
.
3
$3
8
8
.
0
$4
1
3
.
2
$4
3
4
.
0
$4
6
5
.
6
$5
0
2
.
4
$5
4
1
.
8
$5
2
1
.
2
$5
4
3
.
8
$5
7
3
.
9
4.0%
7.4%
9.2%
8.0%
6.5%
5.0%
7.3%7.9%7.8%
-3.8%
4.3%
5.5%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
PEMHCA Kaiser Single Monthly Insurance Premiums in
Los Angeles Area
Kaiser Premiums Y-Y % Change
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 35
SANTA MONICA PRACTICES
HEALTH BENEFIT SETTING PROCESS
As noted earlier, most unions participate in the Coalition of Santa Monica City Employees to negotiate
medical and retirement benefits. A subset of labor representatives is appointed by membership to
negotiate these MOUs on their behalf. Labor groups operating in public safety roles, such as the Police
Officer Association and Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109, negotiate medical and retirement benefits
during their individual MOU negotiations. Due to the nature of public safety work, negotiations for
medical benefits, overtime, retirement, and other benefits typically does not fall within citywide umbrella
agreement MOUs.
SANTA MONICA’S HEALTH PLAN
Full-time employees of Santa Monica and peer cities are eligible for medical insurance benefits. Most
cities require employees to pay a portion of the monthly premium, which ranges on average from $59 to
$281 per month for a single employee, depending on the plan selected. Four peer cities offer cafeteria
plans with flat monthly city contributions for medical, dental, and vision insurance; under these plans,
employees may select a range of options and pay the difference. One peer city, Santa Barbara, provides an
option for a plan with no monthly cost to employees. As reported in interviews, peers have increased the
employee share of medical insurance premiums in recent years, as they have risen significantly. Santa
Monica employees now pay 108-148% more per month than they paid in 2013, depending on the health
care plan selected. Medical premiums paid by Santa Monica employees are comparable to other cities,
with the exception of the most expensive plan for employees and their families; in Santa Monica, the city
bears more of the cost of that particular plan vs. the peer average ($2,567 per month compared to $1,536
per month). Monthly medical insurance costs are shown in Exhibit 18 below.
Exhibit 18
TYPE OF PLAN EMPLOYEE ONLY EMPLOYEE +1 EMPLOYEE
+FAMILY
Cafeteria HMO/
PPO
Employee
Cost
City
Cost
Employee
Cost
City
Cost
Employee
Cost
City
Cost
Santa
Monica X $40-$74 $538-
$759 $79-$148 $1,061-
$1,975 $112-$193 $1,494-
$2,567
Peer
Average 4 offer 7 offer $59-$281 $639-
$800 $142-$659 $1,016-
$1,234 $232-$974 $1,265-
$1,538
A comparison of benefits offered by each city and medical plan costs is provided in Appendix J: Medical
Benefits Offered
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 36
F.FRINGE BENEFITS
As shown in Exhibit 19 below, fringe benefits offered by the City of Santa Monica to full-time employees
are similar to those offered by peer cities.17All peer cities offer core medical, retirement, disability, and life
insurance benefits. Most of these benefits are provided through CalPERS. Fringe benefits can play a
crucial role in recruiting and retaining staff; a 2016 Glassdoor/Harris poll reported that 57% of job
seekers reported benefits and perks among their top considerations.18
Exhibit 19
MEDICAL DENTAL VISION DISABILITY LIFE FSA
Santa
Monica Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
# of Peer
Cities
Offering
11 11 11 11 11 10
EAP
RETIREE
HEALTH
SAVINGS
457 WELLNESS
PROGRAM COMMUTE TUITION
Santa
Monica Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
# of Peer
Cities
Offering
11 11 9 5 5 11
A comparison of benefits offered by each city and medical plan costs is provided in Appendix J: Medical
Benefits Offered.
17 Data source: Memoranda of understanding and/or benefits summaries provided by city human resources.
18 Glassdoor, “5 Job Trends to Watch in 2016,” https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/glassdoors-5-job-trends-watch-2016/
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 37
III.DRIVERS OF COMPENSATION
A.CIVIL SERVICE AND LABOR ENVIRONMENT
6
OBSERVATION
Santa Monica is a highly unionized municipality that typically
negotiates multiple labor contracts lasting one to three years.
Frequently, all 11 contracts expire simultaneously, requiring a
significant amount of work to negotiate.
Similar to peer cities, Santa Monica operates a civil service system
established in the City Charter. The city has 11 labor groups that
represent all employees below the director level. Labor contracts
typically last between one and three years, and typically expire at the
end of a fiscal year. Longer contracts are typically agreed to during
times of economic and organizational stability. The City’s HR and
Finance Department have a significant amount of additional work to
perform to support 11 different labor negotiations at once, impacting
the delivery of core services during that time.
RECOMMENDATION
Consider negotiating labor contracts in the next cycle to expire
at different times and cover longer durations to reduce the
burden of negotiations on the City.
In the current model, all compensation levels are decided at the same
time, and each compensation element is fixed for a certain amount of
time, typically the length of the contract. The major benefit of this
model to the City is predictability in a large expenditure category for
one to three years. When contracts are staggered, the City engages in a
lower burden of work over a longer period, which enables HR and
Finance to plan the work required to support negotiations,
minimizing impact on day-to-day operations.
Longer contract durations would provide more stability, as well as
increased expenditure predictability for budgeting and forecasting.
7
OBSERVATION
Like most municipalities, Santa Monica operates a civil service
system that is governed by state law and the City’s charter,
municipal code, and civil service rules. As a result, it is difficult
to change personnel practices as business needs evolve.
Civil service hiring processes are designed to eliminate bias and
ensure fair hiring practices. However, the systems are rarely updated
to account for changes in employee relations practices, business
process modernization, and a changing workforce.
RECOMMENDATION
Regularly assess the City’s charter, municipal code, and civil
service rules to ensure they are aligned with contemporary
personnel practices and meet the evolving business needs of
the City.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 38
The City’s civil service system should support the recruitment and
retention of a high-performing workforce. Every three to five years,
the City Manager’s Office and Human Resources should review the
City’s charter, municipal code, and civil service rules to ensure they
align with modern business practices and the City’s workforce needs.
PEER PRACTICES
Most public entities in California established civil service systems to govern how employees are hired,
promoted, and compensated. Ten of 11 peer cities operate a civil service system overseen by a Personnel
Board or Civil Service Commission. The City of Anaheim uses a merit-based system with personnel rules
defined by the City Manager and Human Resources Director. These personnel rules are intended to create
a fair and equitable employment system and therefore resemble many aspects of the civil service system,
such as required tests and evaluations to secure an appointment or promotion.
City labor relations in California are governed by the Public Employee Relations Board and rules defined
in the Meyers Milias Brown Act (MMBA).19 The MMBA gives city and county employees the right to
collective bargaining over wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. Any change a public
employer wishes to make to a term or condition of employment is subject to collective bargaining. Public
employees in California have a property right to their jobs and a right to due process prior to discipline or
termination.20
A number of efforts are underway at different levels of government to reform and modernize the civil
service system. In recent years, some state legislatures have moved to at-will employment or changed
personnel rules for state employees to align with private sector practices, allowing state agencies more
flexibility in hiring, promoting, and firing employees.21 In California, a civil service modernization
initiative has been underway since 2015, with the goal of recruiting and retaining younger workers.22 At
the local level, civil service reform is more difficult to implement, as civil service rules are often in City
charters, which require multiple public meetings and a public vote to amend.
SANTA MONICA PRACTICES
The City of Santa Monica operates a civil service system, as defined in the City charter 23 and municipal
code. According to the City’s municipal code, the intent of Santa Monica’s civil service rules is:
“…to assure the selection and retention of well qualified employees, who because of
their qualifications, training, and industry will be able to perform the services rendered
by the City to the public in an effective and businesslike manner. Accordingly, it is the
purpose of this manual to provide for selection of employees on the basis of merit; the
payment of equitable rates of pay; prompt attention to grievances; the provision for
19 Public Employment Relations Board, Meyers-Milias-Brown Act <https://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/mmba.aspx>
20 Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal. 3d 194 (1975)
21 Maynard, Melissa. “Civil Service Reform Passes in 3 States.” Governing. June 12, 2012.
22 Ashton, Adam. “California’s civil service changes aim for a millennial workforce.” Sacramento Bee. November 14, 2016.
23 Santa Monica City Charter, Article XI
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 39
employee training programs; and the establishment of promotional advancement for
qualified employees.”24
Santa Monica is a highly represented municipality with a total of 11 labor groups that cover all city
employees (with the exception of department directors). Peer cities have between five and 10 labor
groups; six was the most common number of groups (in a total of four cities). Some labor groups in the
City described challenges in engaging members and filling officer positions. The City and most labor
groups report having an overall positive relationship, which enables both sides to pursue their interests in
a way that is based on mutual respect and communication.
Most labor contracts cover one to three years and are set to expire at the end of a fiscal year, and many
labor contracts are under negotiations at the same time. Negotiations of any single labor contract require
a significant amount of time and resources for the City’s HR and Finance departments, which has a
compounding effect when multiple contracts are negotiated simultaneously. In this process, the first labor
group to ratify a labor contract can set the expectations of other labor groups. For example, if the Police
Officer Association was the first labor group to ratify a MOU and received a 3% cost of living adjustment,
other labor groups may expect the same benefit. Other cities that have contracts expiring on a rolling basis
don’t have the same ability to make a 1:1 comparison between labor groups in this manner.
B. RECESSION IMPACT
8
OBSERVATION
Santa Monica largely operated as usual during the 2008 recession and did not need to reduce staffing levels, while most
peer cities had to significantly cut costs by increasing
efficiency, outsourcing services, and reducing staffing levels.
Because Santa Monica was not impacted by the recession in the same
manner as many of its peers, its staffing levels and overall personnel
costs tend to be higher than peer cities. Peer cities reduced personnel
costs in many ways, such as layoffs, furloughs, outsourcing services,
and conducting efforts to increase operational efficiencies.
RECOMMENDATION Develop financial and operational strategies to prepare for possible future recessions, since the City may not be able to
absorb a future recession as easily.
While the City’s financial position is strong, the City should begin
planning for possible future economic downturns and developing
potential strategies to weather a future recession. Implementing
strategies that allow for operational flexibility during times of
constrained resources is a best practice. These include, but are not
limited to:
• Utilizing financial forecasting and scenario modeling to assess
impacts of changes in revenues and expenditures.
• Reviewing reserve policies to ensure that reserve levels are
consistent with industry best practice and policies clearly
24 Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 2.04.010 to 2.04.570
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 40
articulate spending priorities in the event that reserve funds are
expended.
• Assessing processes and systems in place for efficiency
improvements.
• Evaluating programs and services to determine core service
delivery needs and identify programs and services that directly
support strategic goals.
PEER PRACTICES
Following the global financial crisis that began in 2007, local government revenues nationwide fell
significantly. In response, many cities cut services, reduced staff, instituted pay cuts and/or furloughs,
froze pay and hiring, and reduced employee benefits. Nationwide, local government payrolls fell by 3.3%
(437,000 jobs) between 2008 and 2012.25 Job cuts continued for several years post-recession, with some
California cities still operating under hiring freezes. Most peer cities reported critically assessing their
operations to identify opportunities to increase efficiency and reduce non-essential services. Four peer
cities froze pay for 3-5 years, and two laid off staff. Most cities reported leaving positions vacant when
staff retired or left, and slowing hiring because of increasing pension and benefit costs. All peer cities
reported that their staff are spread thin, and there is concern about fiscal growth in the future. The
National League of Cities reported recently that city revenue growth is slowing nationwide, which may
further impact services.26
SANTA M ONICA PRACTICES
Unlike most cities in California, Santa Monica’s uniquely diverse and strong revenue base enabled the City
to operate as usual during and post-recession. With the exception of the state-mandated dissolution of the
Redevelopment Authority, the City did not lay off employees. Modest cost of living increases were still
provided, and services continued to be delivered normally. While most other cities cut staff, Santa
Monica’s employee count increased 5% from 2,206 in FY 2008 to 2,293 in FY 2017.
Santa Monica did not lay off, furlough, or freeze pay for employees during the recession, nor did the City
offer early retirement or institute a hiring freeze. Most peer cities reported using one or more of these
strategies to limit cash compensation during the recession. Some also reported higher wage increases in
recent years as revenues have rebounded to compensate for wage freezes or reductions.
Santa Monica’s total operating budget is higher than the peer city average. Unlike most municipalities,
Santa Monica’s revenues were largely insulated from the impact of the global recession that began in
2007. Exhibit 20 demonstrates the peer city operating cost decline that began in 2008 and reached its
lowest in 2009, with gradual recovery through 2016.
25 Gordon, Tracy. “State and Local Budgets and the Great Recession.” Brookings. December 31, 2012.
26 National League of Cities. “New National League of Cities Research Shows Contracting Fiscal Growth in US Cities for Second
Year Running.” September 12, 2017.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 41
Exhibit 20
While other cities experienced a decline in revenues that led to cuts in staffing levels, personnel costs, and
operating costs beginning in FY 2010, Santa Monica’s staffing and service levels remained stable, which
may explain a portion of the cost differences noted. Many cities also froze cost-of-living pay increases,
instituted furloughs, and froze or reduced employer benefit contributions in response to the recession. As
shown in Exhibit 21, peer city personnel costs have increased at a slower average pace in comparison with
Santa Monica.
Exhibit 21
$-
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
20
0
7
-
0
8
20
0
8
-
0
9
20
0
9
-
1
0
20
1
0
-
1
1
20
1
1
-
1
2
20
1
2
-
1
3
20
1
3
-
1
4
20
1
4
-
1
5
20
1
5
-
1
6
20
1
6
-
1
7
FY2007-2016 Operating Costs Comparison
Santa Monica Peer City Average
$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
$350,000,000
20
0
7
-
0
8
20
0
8
-
0
9
20
0
9
-
1
0
20
1
0
-
1
1
20
1
1
-
1
2
20
1
2
-
1
3
20
1
3
-
1
4
20
1
4
-
1
5
20
1
5
-
1
6
20
1
6
-
1
7
Total Personnel Costs
Santa Monica Peer City Average
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 42
C. STAFFING AND EMPLOYEE TENURE
9
OBSERVATION
Santa Monica has the highest number of employees among
peers. Similar to peers, tenure at the City tends to be long with
77.3% of employees being paid within 10% of the top salary step for the position.
Santa Monica has the largest number of employees (2,293) among
peers and dedicates approximately two-thirds of its operating budget
to personnel costs. However, it is important to note that many peer
cities outsource a variety of services that are employee-intensive, such
as solid waste and public landscape. Santa Monica operates several
regional services, such as transit, library, and the beach. Similar to
peers, employee tenure in the City tends to be very high, which can
increase per-employee compensation rates.
RECOMMENDATION
Explore strategies for mitigating personnel costs, such as hiring personnel at lower steps, and leveraging training programs to
equip personnel to take on greater responsibility earlier in their
career.
Personnel costs are the largest portion of any City’s operating budget.
Peer cities leverage outsourcing, reduce programs and services, and
limit overtime to reduce personnel costs. Other strategies the City
could consider include:
• Hiring employees at lower steps in position salary ranges.
• Improving staff capabilities and productivity through targeted
training programs.
• Avoiding costs associated with burnout and turnover by using
temporary, contract, or as-needed staff to manage workload
spikes or special projects.
• Cross-training employees for operational flexibility, especially for
specialist roles.
• Assessing department operations to identify potential
redundancies or opportunities for inter-departmental
collaboration to achieve efficiencies and economies of scale.
• Leveraging technology to automate tasks where appropriate
PEER PRACTICES
Most peer cities reported relatively low turnover among their staff. All cities reported that employees
often cite commute times as being the reason they resign, with many reporting that staff will leave for
lateral positions closer to home. All cities also reported difficulty in recruiting mid-level management and
niche roles, and that in general there are more jobs than people in specialized local government roles in
the Los Angeles area. HR directors in peer cities reported intense competition for public safety, dispatch,
and experienced manager positions.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 43
Outsourcing was largely reported to be unpopular among peer cities. Like Santa Monica, some peers
reported strong community and Council values of insourcing services to provide jobs. Of those who
reported outsourcing, most are maintenance functions: commercial trash hauling, park and golf course
maintenance, custodial, landscaping, and tree trimming. Few peers outsourced professional services, with
the exception of Beverly Hills, which contracts attorney services, and Culver City, which contracts for a
variety of discrete projects.
SANTA MONICA PRACTICES
STAFFING LEVELS
Santa Monica’s City Council and City Manager determine the City’s staffing and service philosophy. The
Council has long held two values related to City staff: 1) a strong preference for insourcing services and 2)
a commitment to providing a living wage. Insourcing services result in overall higher staffing levels when
compared to peers; many municipalities outsource services that Santa Monica insources, including
worker’s compensation claim review, custodial, solid waste, and legal services. In FY 2017, Santa Monica
had 2,293 budgeted FTEs, while peer cities averaged 1,273 FTEs. In addition, the City has enacted a living
wage for employees and City contractors. When combined with the greater number of city employees, this
contributes to higher personnel costs; in FY 2017, Santa Monica budgeted $332,403,182 in personnel
costs in comparison to the peer city average of $203,719,094. Exhibit 22 presents peer city budget
comparisons for FY 2017 in descending order of operating costs.27
Exhibit 22
CITY FTES PERSONNEL
COSTS
OPERATING
COST
PERCENT OF
OPERATING COST
SPENT ON PERSONNEL
Anaheim 1,929 $548,193,097 $1,211,064,662 45.3%
Glendale 1,579 $241,734,363 $776,178,909 31.1%
Burbank 1,422.5 $189,101,953 $584,894,183 32.3%
Pasadena 2,218.6 $246,638,000 $522,151,000 47.2%
Santa Monica 2,293 $332,403,182 $507,991,516 65.4%
Peer Cities Average 1,273 $203,719,094 $472,202,326 43.1%
Beverly Hills 951.7 $143,519,287 $382,515,878 37.5%
Torrance 1,498.7 $201,152,441 $299,328,883 67.2%
Inglewood 726.8 $100,320,585 $224,324,072 44.7%
Culver City 691.1 $108,323,470 $162,223,113 66.8%
Redondo Beach 439 $54,488,652 $87,140,236 62.5%
27 Santa Barbara and El Segundo were not included, as personnel costs were not adequately reported in budget documents.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 44
As noted earlier, some cities, such as Burbank, Pasadena, Glendale and Anaheim, operate electric utilities
that require large contracts to purchase electricity, and in the case of Anaheim, large contracts for the
operation of their convention center, arena, and stadium. These functions increase the non-salary portion
of the operating budget significantly and therefore the proportion of personnel costs relative to operating
costs appears to be significantly lower for these cities.
EMPLOYEE TENURE
As reported in the City’s 2017 Enterprise Risk Assessment, employee turnover is low, averaging 5% over
the past three years. Employee tenures are long; 41% of employees have more than 10 years with the City,
and the average tenure of a City employee is 11 years. Compared to the private sector, these tenures are
very long; in 2016, the median number of years that US workers had been with their current employer was
4.2 years, across all sectors and regions. The median tenure of all government sector employees was 7.7
years; local government employee tenure was 8.3 years; and the private-sector median was 3.7 years.
Employee tenure is generally higher among older workers than younger ones. About three in four public-
sector employees were age 35 and over, compared with about three in five private wage and salary
workers.28
Exhibit 23 shows the percent of positions used in the compensation analysis where the individual’s
regular pay was within 10% of the position’s maximum salary for Santa Monica and peer cities. This data
indicates that employee tenures are long in most peer cities, with compounding annual cost of living
increases moving employees to the top of salary ranges. For example, 74.7% of Santa Monica’s positions
used in the study were compensated within 10% of the top salary step, compared to 75.0% in Beverly Hills
and 86.1% in Santa Barbara. In both Santa Monica and most peer cities, candidates are typically hired
above the minimum salary for the position, depending on qualifications and experience. These factors
contribute to higher total compensation costs.
Exhibit 23
28 Source: “Employee Tenure Summary.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Sep. 2016. <www.bls.gov>.
19.4%25.0%
77.8%
14.7%23.4%
57.6%
24.1%20.1%13.9%25.3%24.1%31.6%
80.6%75.0%
22.2%
85.3%76.6%
42.4%
75.9%79.9%86.1%74.7%75.9%68.4%
Analyzed Positions within 10% of Maximum Salary Range
Remaining Within 10% of Max
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 45
D. CITYWIDE SERVICE OFFERINGS
10
OBSERVATION
Santa Monica employs more personnel than peers, in part,
because it operates a variety of unique service offerings and
responds to the service needs of a significant tourist population.
Similar to peer cities, the Santa Monica community is highly engaged
and holds its city government to high standards. Santa Monica
operates several unique services, including a municipal cemetery, an
airport, a pier and beach, and a large transit system. The specialized
needs of a large visitor population require the City to provide services
to a population beyond its residential population, while those visitors
provide the City revenues via sales and tourism taxes. In addition, the
City’s reputation as a leader in local government innovation leads to
frequent requests for new services and programs to address emerging
community needs and interests.
RECOMMENDATION
Implement an evaluation framework to assess the lifecycle costs
of proposed new programs and services, and evaluate
outsourcing options, where applicable.
The City’s strategic goals and supporting department business plans
should serve as a decision framework that provides a foundation for
evaluating new initiatives. For example, will an initiative support the
long-term vision for the community? Will it help to achieve the City’s
goals and objectives? Will it align with the values of the organization?
A comprehensive planning framework will help the City to evaluate
and prioritize issues in an evolving political environment.
The Council should adopt a policy and procedure for evaluating the
costs and benefits of proposed initiatives that are not included in the
biennial budget. Whether mandated or discretionary and proposed by
the Council or a department, new initiatives should be evaluated in a
consistent manner. Each proposal should define lifecycle costs,
including staffing requirements, and identify whether existing
resources will need to be reallocated or current programs or services
will need to be deprioritized in favor of the new initiative. An analysis
of the costs and benefits of outsourcing should also be included. The
impacted or proposing department/agency should be responsible for
performing this analysis with the support of the City Manager.
PEER PRACTICES
Santa Monica is a full-service city, and provides many programs and services beyond that of a typical city.
Many peers also provide additional unique programs and services. For example, Pasadena operates the
Rose Bowl, Anaheim operates the largest convention center in the West, Santa Barbara provides regional
recreation services, and Beverly Hills provides driveway roll-out trash can service. In addition, some peer
cities operate their own electric utilities.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 46
Several peers noted that they look to Santa Monica, Palo Alto, and Berkeley as “innovation labs” of local
government in California, because they have the employees, culture, and resources to explore innovative
programming and services. When something works in these cities, others use their example and expertise
to implement similar programs. The cities of Berkeley and Palo Alto provided insights on managing the
unique culture and community expectations they share with Santa Monica. Both cities reported that,
similar to Santa Monica, the culture of high levels of service was driven by the community, elected
officials, and employees. HR across all three cities reported that employees in are high achievers who are
drawn to the fast pace and have high workloads; City leadership reported that new hires typically have
more experience and education than a typical new hire. As a result, compensation is an area of public
concern in all three cities.
During interviews, most peer cities reported high community expectations. Berkeley and Palo Alto noted
their highly engaged and educated communities, with long public meetings and significant effort made to
quickly respond to citizen requests. Several peer cities reported a perception that their public meetings are
not as long as Santa Monica’s, nor do they require as much staff time to support.
SANTA MONICA PRACTICES
Santa Monica operates in a unique environment, providing a wide range of services to a population
beyond its residents. Because Santa Monica has a high level of tourism and many employers in the city, its
typical daytime population swells to double or triple its approximately 92,000 residents on any given day.
More than 7.5 million people visit Santa Monica each year. Additionally, the City offers a variety of
services that are somewhat unique among peers. Exhibit 24 lists the four least common city services
offered by Santa Monica and their rate of occurrence in the 11 peer cities:
Exhibit 24
SANTA MONICA PEER CITIES OFFERING
SIMILAR SERVICES (#) SERVICE
OPERATING
BUDGET (FY2016)
FTES
(FY2016)
Cemetery $2,132,759 8.1 0
Airport $5,946,610 8.9 2
Pier/Waterfront $18,469,223 25.3 3
Large Transit System* $74,893,876 462.9 0
*A large transit system is defined by having more than 10 million annual passengers.
Additional services offered by peer cities include electric (Cities of Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale, and
Pasadena); hospital (City of Santa Barbara); stadium, convention center and arena (Anaheim); Rosebowl
(Pasadena); and sewer/wastewater treatment (six cities).
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 47
E. CITYWIDE SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL ANALYSIS
1 1
OBSERVATION
In general, Santa Monica has a higher workload and higher
costs than peer cities. Citywide, productivity is comparable to
peers, although productivity varies by program and service, and a comprehensive service level study was not conducted.
The City could more strategically utilize key performance
indicators to measure and communicate operational and
individual efficiency and effectiveness.
Santa Monica reported a higher workload for 52.7% of measures and
a higher cost for 62.3% of measures included in the departmental
analysis. However, the City historically has not leveraged
performance management frameworks to communicate individual or
department workload and service levels. The City recently shifted its
budget development process to connect departmental work to six
overarching outcomes, the Sustainable City Plan, and the Wellbeing
Project.
RECOMMENDATION
Continue initiatives already underway to develop a strategic
plan, comprehensive performance indicators, and leverage the
City’s data for decision-making.
The City should continue to use data to increase transparency and
accountability through the use of outcome reporting and
performance measures tied to strategic goals. It is best practice to use
data to inform decision-making. In addition, providing frequent,
accessible, transparent, credible, and accurate performance reports
can increase public trust. SaMoStat, the City’s performance
management program, began in 2017. Five Council strategic goals
inform the reporting to be delivered, with an action plan developed
for each goal. Departmental performance metrics are in development
and the City plans to produce a citywide performance dashboard this
year.
CITYWIDE SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL ANALYSIS
This section presents citywide trends related to departmental wage averages, inputs, outputs, and
performance indicators that were collected through the SCO’s GCC website data, FY 2017 budget
documents, census data, and a voluntary survey sent to peer cities. There are many variables that impact
comparison between cities, including operating budgets, community priorities, level of outsourcing,
geography, and departmental organization. This analysis draws from the departmental service level,
staffing, and compensation analysis presented in Section IV. For a complete methodology and discussion
of data limitations, please see Appendix A: Wages and Benefits Comparison Methodology.
Overall, the Departmental data demonstrate that Santa Monica provides a high volume of services at
higher costs. The City reported higher workloads than the peer average for 52.7% of measures included in
this analysis. Additionally, 62.3% of the City’s cost measures were also higher than peer averages. Several
departments also operate unique services that were not compared to peers, and further demonstrate their
workload.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 48
At the initiation of this study, the City did not have a citywide performance management framework.
Departments often included performance measures and related data in budget documents, but these
measures were not explicitly aligned with a broader city strategy and performance improvement process.
The City has recently initiated a revised approach to budgeting that aligns the work of city departments to
create and maintain “A Sustainable City of Wellbeing,” This new approach is based on the City’s
Sustainable City Plan and the Wellbeing Project—a custom measurement tool to measure community
well-being. The vision to become “A Sustainable City of Wellbeing” rests on six key outcome areas:
community, place and planet, learning, health, economic opportunity, and governance. The City has also
established SaMoStat, a process that enables data-driven performance, to support these outcomes and the
City’s vision.
As of January 2018, Departments were developing performance metrics that align with the six outcome
areas. Together with the City Manager’s Office, departments will begin developing an approach to track
and monitor progress on metrics. The City also plans to develop a citywide dashboard to communicate
progress toward its objectives.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 49
IV. DEPARTMENTAL WAGE, SERVICE LEVEL, AND STAFFING ANALYSIS
A. DATA SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS
This section compares service levels, operating costs, staffing levels, per-employee output, and cash
compensation for each department. Service, staffing, and cost data was collected through FY 2017 budget
documents, census data, and a voluntary survey sent to peer cities. Compensation data was sourced from
employee W-2 compensation data that cities report annually to the California SCO. Private sector cash
compensation data was sourced from Economic Research Institute (ERI) compensation databases, based
on the factors identified in the data notes provided in Appendix A: Wages and Benefits Comparison
Methodology. For a detailed methodology of the peer benchmarking, please see Appendix B: Peer
Benchmarking Methodology.
There are many variables that impact comparison between cities, including operating budgets,
community priorities, level of outsourcing, geography, and departmental organization. For a complete
methodology and discussion of data limitations, please see Appendix A. Demographic information for
peer cities is included in Appendix E: Peer City Demographic and Economic Data.
B. CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
Typical City Attorney’s offices advise city officials and staff on legal matters, provide cities with legal
representation, review contracts and leases, and draft and review proposed ordinances. Most cities choose
to hire a limited number of attorneys and seek outside counsel in the event of certain types of litigation.
The City of Santa Monica’s City Attorney’s Office provides unique services and conducts most litigation
using in-house attorneys. The City Attorney’s Office has five divisions that provide wide-ranging services
and expertise to City staff.
• Administrative Unit: The Administrative Unit oversees and coordinates the work of the entire City
Attorney’s Office, including providing legal services to the City Council and City management.
• Municipal Law Division: In addition to drafting ordinances, resolutions, contracts, leases, and
other legal documents used by the City, the Municipal Law Division also handles land use,
constitutional, and other specialized litigation.
• Criminal Division: The Criminal Division prosecutes thousands of criminal cases on behalf of the
People annually. Cases range from serious Penal Code violations to local infractions. Additionally, this
division staffs the City’s drug and homeless courts, which are diversion programs designed to address
the underlying causes of defendants’ unlawful conduct.
• Civil Litigation Division: The Civil Litigation Divisions defends the City in state and federal court.
Cases vary widely, and may include personal injury, personnel claims, Civil Rights suits, and contract
disputes. This division works closely with the City’s Risk Management Division and provides advice to
help avoid legal claims against the City.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 50
• Consumer/Fair Housing Division: The Consumer/Fair Housing Division handles complaints
about violations of consumer protection and fair housing laws and provides educational services for
community members related to their legal rights in litigation to stop illegal housing and business
practices.
The services provided by the Criminal Division and Consumer/Fair Housing Division are particularly
unique in relation to other municipalities. In FY 2017, the City Attorney’s Office recouped $12.1 million in
revenues for the City through settlements and other legal actions.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=2)29
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Formal legal opinions 1,986 347.5 6 743
Lawsuits received 82 15 11 19
Lawsuits resolved by settlement 59 14.5 14 15
Budgeted FTEs 45.7 19.11 19 19.23
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
30
Operating cost $10,921,265 $7,360,316 $3,565,953 $11,154,678
Operating cost per department FTE $238,977 $383,874.10 $187,682 $580,066.46
Operating cost per city FTE $4,763 $4,785.61 $2,506.82 $7,064.39
Operating cost per capita $117 $45 $34 $55
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Santa Monica’s City Attorney’s Office has the highest median compensation among peer cities,
particularly at the Assistant City Attorney level. Although the City Attorney’s office employees are
compensated at levels that exceeds peers, private sector counterparts are largely compensated between 15
and 40% more. As discussed above, Santa Monica’s City Attorney’s Office manages a unique caseload
including consumer protection and criminal litigation, using primarily in-house employees. Most other
City Attorney offices do not handle these cases, and typically outsource prosecution.
29 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank and Glendale.
30 Contract costs are not typically reported for peers because peer information depended on the nature of legal issues faced by each
city and was not consistently available.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 51
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
City Attorney $315,707 $268,567 $519,288 14.9% -64.5%
Assistant City
Attorney $306,583 $197,202 $405,973 35.7% -32.4%
Deputy City
Attorney III $229,441 $182,525 $272,553 20.4% -18.8%
Paralegal $86,748 $75,644 $85,373 12.8% 1.6%
Exhibit 25 31
31 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$1
8
1
,
5
6
4
$1
5
3
,
0
3
1
$1
5
1
,
6
8
3
$1
4
3
,
0
8
8
$1
2
7
,
7
4
5
$1
2
6
,
7
6
1
$1
2
6
,
6
7
1
$1
1
7
,
7
1
6
$1
0
9
,
8
8
7
$9
9
,
1
5
4
$127,628
48
7
16
10 9
32
11
17
21
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
$200,000
Peer Wage Comparison
City Attorney's Office Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 52
C. CITY CLERK
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
A typical City Clerk provides support for the City Council, records meetings, manages records, responds to
public requests for information, and serves as the Elections Official on behalf of candidates and voters. A
significant component of the City Clerk’s duties includes the impartial administration of elections to
ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations and in a manner that promotes voter
participation. Santa Monica’s Clerk manages four consecutive elections for the City Council, Rent Control
Board, School Board, and College Board.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)32
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Public records requests 1,018 1,203 450 2,885
Agenda items processed 33 302 525 311 774
Boards and Commissions supported 24 15 11 20
Annual Meetings Supported 225 193 172 226
Candidates processed for election 34 - - -
Budgeted FTEs 13.5 7 3 9
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $3,035,235 $1,077,533 $775,490 $1,349,630
Operating cost per department FTE $224,832 $182,975 $118,639 $258,497
Operating cost per city FTE $1,324 $868 $712 $1,121
Operating cost per capita $33 $11 $7 $20
In addition to these services, Santa Monica’s City Clerk Department also manages a mail room, print
shop, and serves as a passport acceptance facility. To better understand the City Clerk’s activities, the
Department also provided the following workload data:
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Pieces of outgoing mail processed ~350,000
Print jobs processed each month <1,500
Print job turnaround time 2 business days
Passport applications processed 2,000
32 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, and Torrance.
33 Only those agenda items including a staff report.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 53
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Three positions in Santa Monica’s City Clerk’s Office were benchmarked against peer cities, all of which
were compensated at levels above the peer median. Overall, the City Clerk’s Office median wage falls
approximately in the middle of peer wages and is slightly below the median. The discrepancy between the
higher position-to-position compensation and lower departmental median compensation is likely because
Santa Monica’s City Clerk provides additional services (such as the print shop) using in-house staff.
POSITION SANTA MONICA
MEDIAN PEER MEDIAN % DIFF. FROM PEER
City Clerk $181,317 $155,908 16.3%
Assistant City Clerk $139,608 34 $101,126 38.1%
Deputy City Clerk $83,174 $81,451 2.1%
Exhibit 26 35
34 This is the minimum salary for this position, and not what was paid out by the city – 2016 was a year of transition
35 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$1
1
9
,
7
9
9
$1
0
8
,
0
7
3
$8
6
,
2
5
0
$7
3
,
6
8
8
$7
2
,
9
6
0
$6
8
,
4
1
8
$6
4
,
8
0
1
$6
5
,
2
5
4
$6
0
,
7
6
9
$5
5
,
1
3
5
$5
5
,
0
4
0
$5
1
,
6
4
6
$68,418
2 2
5
2
7
1
9
6
1
6
10
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Peer Wage Comparison
City Clerk's Office Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 54
D. CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
Typical City Manager’s Office duties include City Council support, performance management, leadership,
program and budget oversight, government relations, and strategic planning. Santa Monica’s City
Manager directly oversees a number of additional functions, including emergency management,
communications, a cable television station, and an office dedicated to wellbeing 36. In order to more
effectively compare to peers, performance tables are broken out by each division within Santa Monica’s
City Manager’s Office.
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: ADMINISTRATION
The Administration Division provides direction to operating departments, oversight of major City
projects, advocates to other government bodies, and is responsible for the efficient and effective
administration of City programs.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=1)37
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Budgeted FTEs 12.1 9 - -
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $3,111,455 $2.242.000 - -
Operating cost per division
FTE $257,145 $249,111 - -
Operating cost per city FTE $1,357 $1.108 - -
Operating cost per capita $33 $16 - -
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: COMMUNITY AND
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
The Community and Government Relations Division produces and disseminates strategic Citywide
communications in multiple forms, including print materials, social media, and web content. The Division
also conducts public outreach, provides neighborhood organization support, and assists in the provision
of public information.
36 During FY 2016-17, the Wellbeing Office was located in the Community and Cultural Services Department. Therefore, the
Wellbeing Office FTEs, budget, and other analysis is not included in the City Manager’s Performance Section.
37 Peer city comparisons includes data from Beverly Hills’s FY 2016-17 budget documents.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 55
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=3)38
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Budgeted FTEs 8.0 2.7 2 3.5
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $1,497,738 $1,108,939 $555,000 $1,703,522
Operating cost per division
FTE $187,217 $293,576 $277,500 $309,651
Operating cost per city FTE $653 $698 $274 $1,123
Operating cost per capita $16 $13 $4 $30.1
To better understand the Community and Government Relations Division’s activities, the Department
also provided the following workload data 39:
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram followers 46,176
Social media video views 413,562
Smgov.net homepage views 3,543,741
Press releases 227
Media articles 2,267
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: CITY TV
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=6)40
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Budgeted FTEs 10.7 10.8 6.7 18.3
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $1,298,000 $1,458,180 $526,212 $5,320,963
Operating cost per division
FTE $121,308 $179,610 $112,977 $290,763
Operating cost per city FTE $566 $1,275 $333 $3,550
Operating cost per capita $14 $18 $3 $36
38 Peer city comparisons includes data from Beverly Hills’s, Pasadena’s, and Anaheim’s FY 2016-17 budget documents.
39 This workload data is reflective of activities taking place between January-September 2017.
40 Peer city comparisons includes data from Beverly Hills, Burbank’s, El Segundo’s, Glendale’s, Torrance’s, and Santa Barbara’s FY
2016-17 budget documents.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 56
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL DATA: OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
The Office of Sustainability and the Environment is responsible for policy initiatives and practices that
promote environmental sustainability, resource management, and conservation. The Office oversees
integration of energy efficient utilities in many of Santa Monica’s buildings and provides sustainability
training to residents, students, and businesses. The Office also provides education and outreach to
increase consumer awareness, promote water conservation, improve urban runoff management, and
support bans of leaf blowers, plastic bags, and non-recyclable food containers.
In FY 2018, the City moved the Office of Sustainability and the Environment into the Public Works
Department.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=1)41
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Budgeted FTEs 20.3 1.4 - -
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $4,593,629 $377,539 - -
Operating cost per division FTE $226,287 $269,671 - -
Operating cost per city FTE $2,003 $397 - -
Operating cost per capita $49 $11 - -
To better understand the Office of Sustainability and the Environment’s activities, the Department also
provided the following workload data:
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Reduction in annual water demand 101 acre feet
Solar installations 616.86 KW
Streetlights retrofitted with LED lights 1,200
Water efficiency product installations 2,941
Residents engaged in Sustainable Works Environmental
Education Programs 3,119
Businesses engaged in the Green Business Program 30
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
The Office of Emergency Management is responsible for the City’s emergency response and planning
efforts, including mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery to any community-wide hazard or
41 Peer city comparisons includes data from Beverly Hills’ FY 2016-17 budget document.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 57
disaster. This division also includes the City’s dispatch operations for its Police and Fire Departments,
which comprises the majority of staff.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)42
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Budgeted FTEs 34 43 1.4 1 2.1
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $5,339,564 $313,073 $201,600 $475,566
Operating cost per division
FTE $157,046 $230,038 $201,600 $262,054
Operating cost per city FTE $2,328 $432 $184 $611
Operating cost per capita $57 $9 $2 $14
To better understand the Office of Emergency Management’s activities, the Department also provided the
following workload data 44:
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Disaster preparedness and resilience education
attendees 500
Percent of 911 calls answered within 15 seconds 95
Disaster exercises hosted 2
Community Emergency Response Team training
attendees 60
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Six positions in Santa Monica’s City Manager’s Office were benchmarked against peer cities, most of
which were compensated at levels above the peer median. Overall, the City Manager’s Office median wage
falls approximately in the middle of peer wages and is slightly below the median. The discrepancy
between the higher position-to-position compensation and lower departmental median compensation is
likely because Santa Monica’s City Manager’s Office provides a significant amount of unique services,
such as the Office of Sustainability and the Environment and the Office of Emergency Management.
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
City Manager $341,131 $301,095 $499,077 13.3% -31.6%
42 Peer city comparisons includes data from Beverly Hills, Burbank’s, and El Segundo’s’ FY 2016-17 budget documents.
43 29 FTEs operate the City’s dispatch center.
44 This workload data is reflective of activities taking place between January-September 2017.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 58
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Assistant City Manager $301,623 $245,354 $472,722 22.9% -36.2%
Deputy City Manager $188,921 $180,769 $270,449 4.5% -30.1%
Assistant to City
Manager $135,658 $140,279 -- -3.3% --
Administrative Staff
Assistant $72,104 $72,062 -- 0.1% --
Executive Assistant $78,158 $68,641 $89,455 13.9% -12.6%
Exhibit 27 45,46
45 Only administrative positions close to the City Manager are included in this analysis. Excluded functions include communications,
City TV emergency management, and sustainability offices.
46 Only administrative positions close to the City Manager are included in this analysis. Excluded functions include communications,
City TV emergency management, and sustainability offices.
$2
4
6
,
1
1
5
$2
3
4
,
5
8
4
$2
0
1
,
0
1
6
$1
5
7
,
8
2
3
$1
4
6
,
1
2
9
$1
4
2
,
0
2
2
$1
3
6
,
3
9
4
$1
3
2
,
0
3
1
$1
3
0
,
4
8
2
$1
0
2
,
3
9
6
$9
4
,
9
1
9
$9
1
,
4
5
7
$151,281
2
5
2
4
8
3
8
9
8
17
10
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
Peer Wage Comparison
Department Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 59
E. COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL SERVICES
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
Most community and cultural services departments manage community recreation, including recreation
programming and permitting for the use of parks, beaches, and recreational facilities serving a local and
regional population of participants. Santa Monica’s facilities include aquatics facilities, a teen center, two
gyms, a community playhouse, and community activity rooms. The City also operates a 245-acre state
beach, including amenities such as the public beach club and event venue.
In addition to these services, Santa Monica’s Community and Cultural Services Department offers several
unique services and emphasizes inclusive programming. The Department manages six council appointed
City Commissions as well as a number of advisory boards and committees that support work in the areas
of children and families, the arts, community gardens, and field sports.
The Department operates five grant programs that support local arts activities that are provided by local
nonprofit organizations. Santa Monica houses over 1,700 arts-related businesses that employ over 14,500
people; support of these organizations allows the public to have ample access to a variety of free or low
cost cultural activities and programs that promote self-sufficiency, health, and wellbeing. Programs are
offered throughout the community, including at city venues. The Department also manages the City’s
comprehensive public art program.
Additionally, the Department manages a robust human services grants program equaling $8.2 million
annually to ensure a broad spectrum of supportive services that are easily accessible to the Santa Monica
community. In FY 2016, the Human Services Grants program partnered with 21 grantees to support 41
community programs. To augment the work of local non-profits, the Department also provides
neighborhood-based educational, fitness, and cultural programs and events, and runs after school
programs at seven elementary and two middle school campuses providing homework assistance,
enrichment classes and sports.
In other cities, the functions in Community & Cultural Services may be located in a consolidated parks,
recreation, and libraries department; parks and recreation services may be separate; and human services
may not be provided. In addition, some cities do not support cultural and arts programming, many do not
manage grant programs, nor do all cities have beaches. Parks services typically receive a portion of their
funding through fees for usage, events, and parking.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 60
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)47
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Sports teams 1,012 348 12 684
Parks operated48 32 38 27 43
Parks per 10,000 residents 3.4 2.9 2.0 4.2
Acres of parks 135 49 263 141 360
Acres of parks per 10,000 residents 1.5 2.2 1.3 3.9
Programmed community facilities 16 20 6 43
Community events (permitted) 1,390 31 21 36
Budgeted FTEs 171.8 153.9 97.3 250.9
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $37,311,461 $26,618,702 $17,375,351 $45,370,596
Operating cost per department FTE $217,179 $171,362 $162,164 $182,274
Operating cost per capita $401 $190 $165 $228
To better understand the Cultural and Community Services Department’s activities, the Department also
provided the following workload data:
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Community classes offered 4,762
Total community class registrations 45,007
Number of unique enrollments in community classes 10,674
Pieces of public art maintained 44
Art Bank Collection pieces maintained 104
Beach acres managed 245
Human Services Program grantees 21
Cultural Arts Grants Programs Managed 5
Beach Concession Leases Managed 3 50
Sites staffed for afterschool programs 9
47 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Santa Barbara, Torrance, and Glendale.
48 Santa Monica’s Parks are maintained by Public Landscape staff in Public Works
49 Does not include 245 beach acres,
50 Leases are managed at 8 locations
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 61
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING 51
Five positions in Santa Monica’s Community and Cultural Services Department were benchmarked
against peer cities, three of which were compensated at levels above the peer median. Overall, the Cultural
and Community Services department median wage is above the peer median, and is the fourth highest
amongst the peer cities. The City’s Community and Cultural Services Department does not include public
landscape personnel, like most other peer departments, which may contribute to overall higher median
wages.
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Director Community
Cultural Services $241,728 $186,883 -- 29.3% --
Assistant Director
Community Cultural
Services
$189,150 $160,441 -- 17.9% --
Program Supervisor 52 $76,452 $78,496 -- -2.6% --
Program Manager53 $130,130 $105,069 $112,513 23.9% 15.7%
Program Specialist54 $45,952 $54,984 $95,233 -16.4% -51.7%
51 Many of the programs run out of the Community and Cultural Services Department have no private-sector equivalent. Therefore,
there is little equitability in comparing against private sector positions.
52 Generalized position title: examples of types of position titles included in analysis are recreation supervisor; community services
supervisor; community services program supervisor.
53 Generalized position title: examples of types of position titles included in analysis are nature center manager; recreation services
manager; social services manager
54 Generalized position title: examples of types of position titles included in analysis are recreation specialist; community services
specialist; human services specialist; community garden program specialist
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 62
Exhibit 28 55
F. FINANCE
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
A typical finance department manages the City’s financial affairs, including forecasting, budgeting,
procurement, financial reporting and operations such as payroll and accounts payable, and collection of
fees and taxes. Santa Monica’s Finance Department includes meter collection and counting of meter and
Big Blue Bus farebox cash. The Department also supports the City’s Audit Subcommittee, which meets
quarterly at a minimum, and the internal audit program in conjunction with the City Manager’s Office.
In addition to managing these affairs, Santa Monica’s Finance Department manages many functions that
are typically outsourced in other cities. The City manages its own investment portfolio and debt, and
operates a utilities billing and collections function for the City’s water, wastewater and resource recovery
and recycling programs. The City also prepares its own Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Further, the Finance Department manages and administers the risk management program, which is
responsible for procuring and managing the City’s insurance program (e.g., liability, workers’
55 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$7
7
,
7
4
6
$7
4
,
4
8
3
$6
7
,
3
8
5
$6
6
,
8
8
6
$6
6
,
8
8
0
$6
2
,
7
4
8
$6
2
,
0
2
0
$5
8
,
5
0
5
$5
4
,
9
8
4
$5
4
,
2
6
4
$4
9
,
3
6
4
$4
7
,
4
7
3
$62,839
40
20
75
60
84
10
44
58
93
61
19
34
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
Peer Wage Comparison
CCS's Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 63
compensation, property, etc.), adjusting liability and workers’ compensation claims with in-house staff,
coordinating the citywide safety program, providing risk management and contractual risk transfer
guidance to all departments, and implementing programs that reduce the City’s exposure to unnecessary
risk.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=5)56
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Invoices paid 102,542 57,350 28,090 90,432
P-card purchases 10,450 5,061 2,365 8,958
Solicitations posted 285 73 25 157
Business licenses issued 24,951 5,728 866 13,623
City total operating budget $507,991,516 $548,840,441 $220,109,311 $819,533,134
City capital budget $113,723,338 $59,441,129 $20,343,398 $105,812,551
Budgeted FTEs 78.0 45.8 32.8 65.25
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $15,815,478 57 $6,814,671 $4,516,967 $11,096,000
Operating cost per department
FTE $202,763 $146,760 $120,866 $170,054
Operating cost per city FTE $6,897 $5,535 $3,175 $9,593
Operating cost per capita $170 $76 $30 $167
To better understand the Finance Department’s activities, the Department also provided the following
workload data:
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA)
Dollars reported $35,839,659
Utility bills processed 100,924
New workers’ compensation claims processed 341
Parking meter collection revenue $15,564,684
Paychecks processed 66,756
56 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
57 Insurance premiums were removed from the city’s operating cost.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 64
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Seven positions in Santa Monica’s Finance Department were benchmarked against peer cities, most of
which were compensated at levels above the peer median. In comparison to the private sector, most
positions fell below the median for similar positions. Overall, the Finance Department’s median wage falls
near the middle of peer wages and approximates the median. As noted in the section above, the City’s
Finance department operates additional services such as risk management and workers’ compensation
claims in-house.
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Director Finance $225,814 $204,423 $576,000 10.5% -60.8%
Assistant Director Finance $178,002 $148,214 $275,403 20.1% -35.4%
Accounting Manager $142,592 $139,353 $148,326 2.3% -3.9%
Risk Manager $171,968 $142,536 $143,100 20.6% 20.2%
Accountant $78,717 $72,568 $84,211 8.5% -6.5%
Billing Specialist $59,555 $57,952 $61,369 2.8% -3.0%
Financial Analyst Senior 58 $103,237 $105,468 $109,579 -2.1% -5.8%
58 Generalized position title: examples of types of position titles included in analysis are revenue analyst; treasury analyst; finance
analyst; grants analyst
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 65
Exhibit 29 59
G. FIRE
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
The Fire Department provides fire prevention and emergency response services for firefighting and
emergency medical services. The Department develops and implements programs that help prevent or
reduce the magnitude of emergencies and inspects buildings within city limits to enforce fire codes. The
Department responds to calls for service, including fire mitigation, emergency medical services, urban
search and rescue, and emergencies related to hazardous materials.
The Santa Monica Fire Department (SMFD) provides services for a daytime community that can swell to
250,000 on any day, making its operations somewhat unique.
59 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$8
6
,
3
4
7
$8
2
,
2
3
9
$7
8
,
6
8
1
$7
5
,
6
8
3
$7
3
,
0
6
9
$7
2
,
0
7
0
$6
9
,
7
9
7
$6
9
,
5
6
9
$6
7
,
5
4
1
$6
6
,
4
7
0
$6
4
,
7
9
9
$6
4
,
2
6
6
$75,206
40
72
27
49
36
71
57
10
46
35
53
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
Peer Wage Comparison
Finance Department's Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 66
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=5)60
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Annual service calls 16,384 13,913 6,106 19,421
Service calls per firefighter 156 130.9 96.2 231.1
Service calls per 10,000 residents 1,762 1,305 966 1986
Service calls per 10,000 daytime
visitors 966 959.1 672 1,433
Inspections 10,592 5,665 2,996 9,556
Stations 4 6.4 3 9
Service calls per stations 4,096 2,154 1,797 2,500
Average response time (minutes) 5.47 5.48 4.50 6.12
Budgeted FTEs 135.8 110.8 60.9 157
Firefighters 105 110.8 60.9 157
Firefighters per 10,000 residents 11.3 10.4 7.8 15.4
Firefighters per 10,000 daytime visitors 6.2 7.1 6.2 7.7
Firefighters per station 26.3 18.1 9.9 24.2
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $39,669,180 $36,762,793 $22,277,646 $61,302,902
Operating cost per department FTE $292,115 $258,659 $240,990 $309,584
Operating cost per capita $427 $347 $275 $561
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Eight positions in SMFD were benchmarked against peer cities, six of which were compensated at levels
above the peer median. Overall, SMFD median is the highest of peer wage, likely due to the amount of
overtime most sworn employees work. For more information on the sources of SMFD’s overtime, please
see Section V-B.
POSITION SANTA MONICA
MEDIAN PEER MEDIAN % DIFF. FROM
PEER
Fire Chief 61 $225,110 $239,058 -5.8%
Deputy Fire Chief $238,621 $239,506 -0.4%
60 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Santa Barbara, and Torrance.
61 Fiscal year 2016 data reflects a position in transition
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 67
POSITION SANTA MONICA
MEDIAN PEER MEDIAN % DIFF. FROM
PEER
Battalion Chief $239,198 $233,097 2.6%
Fire Marshall $252,980 $198,434 27.5%
Fire Captain I $231,925 $194,970 19.0%
Fire Engineer I $208,883 $170,940 22.2%
Fire Inspector I $196,915 $119,982 64.1%
Fire Fighter I $193,551 $143,066 35.3%
Exhibit 30 62,63
62 Includes overtime as a component of cash compensation.
63 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$2
0
8
,
5
3
2
$1
8
8
,
8
9
7
$1
7
2
,
8
8
2
$1
6
1
,
7
0
7
$1
5
8
,
6
2
7
$1
5
7
,
8
1
5
$1
5
6
,
6
8
0
$1
5
5
,
5
6
8
$1
5
2
,
5
3
0
$1
5
2
,
2
7
9
$1
3
9
,
1
8
9
$161,976
115
91
67
150 154
46
255
207
123
60
106
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
Peer Wage Comparison
Fire Department Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 68
H. HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
A typical Housing and Economic Development Department administers affordable housing programs,
including managing rental subsidy programs and supporting affordable housing development by making
loans to non-profit affordable housing developers. Economic Development primarily focuses on helping
attract and retain businesses within the City.
In other cities, the functions in Housing & Economic Development are typically co-located with Planning
& Community Development services. Most cities do not manage the extent of city property that Santa
Monica owns and leases, and rental assistance may not be provided.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=3)64
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Housing vouchers 1,441 1,765 960 2,936
Housing vouchers per 10,000 residents 156.7 112.2 91.1 146.1
Budgeted FTEs 36.4 27.6 6.7 48.5
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $25,078,357 $20,736,735 $1,340,569 $36,368,636
Operating cost per department FTE $688,966 $652,839 $200,085 $505,592
Operating cost per capita $270 $123 $13 $181
Macroeconomic indicators are typically used to measure economic development performance. However,
the City has limited impact on community-wide measures such as these and therefore they are not
included in this analysis.
Santa Monica’s Housing and Economic Development Department provides additional services, such as
operating the farmers’ markets, monitoring deed-restricted affordable residents for regulatory
compliance, coordinating the Buy Local campaign, working with business districts and organizations,
leasing and licensing of City property, and coordinating management of the Santa Monica Pier. To better
understand the Housing and Economic Development Department’s activities, the Department also
provided the following workload data:
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Number of city commercial leases and licenses managed 157
Annual revenues from city commercial leases and licenses $10,150,000
Annual revenues from City-operated farmers markets $18,150,000
64 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 69
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Annual dollar value of investments in production and
preservation of affordable housing $15,000,000
Annual dollar value of rental housing subsidies $18,000,000
Portfolio of deed-restricted residences monitored 4,500
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING 65
Three positions in Santa Monica’s Housing and Economic Development Department were benchmarked
against peer cities, all of which were compensated at levels above the peer median. Overall, the Housing
and Economic Development Department’s median wage falls above the median.
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Director Housing &
Economic Development $213,867 $184,091 $270,449 16.2% -20.9%
Economic Development
Manager $162,215 $145,626 -- 11.5% --
Housing Specialist $85,560 $84,003 -- 1.9% --
65 Many of the programs run out of the Housing & Economic Development Department have no private-sector equivalent (housing
assistance, and economic development efforts overall). Therefore, there is little equitability in comparing against private sector
positions.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 70
Exhibit 31 66
I. HUMAN RESOURCES
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
Typical human resources departments manage personnel matters, including recruitment, employee
training and development, retention, labor negotiations, and employee grievances.
The City operates the Santa Monica Institute, a program that promotes professional growth and
development of City staff. The Department also supports wellness programs for employees and conducts
labor negotiations using in-house staff.
66 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$1
3
7
,
1
8
0
$1
2
5
,
5
6
3
$1
0
6
,
0
1
3
$8
8
,
4
7
0
$8
7
,
5
4
9
$7
9
,
1
8
9
$7
7
,
2
4
6
$7
4
,
6
2
8
$7
0
,
0
6
9
$6
8
,
5
4
9
$6
8
,
0
6
9
$77,416
1
9
5 5
26 27 26
12
4
61
21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
Peer Wage Comparison
HED Department Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 71
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=5)67
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Labor groups 11 7 6 9
Recruitments 224 147.6 45 352
Applications 22,018 9,822 1,570 19,587
Applications per recruitment 98.3 70.4 34.9 124.4
Classification and compensation studies
conducted 21 17 16 18
Internal training classes offered 99 77.8 13 214
Budgeted FTEs 26.2 26 7 55
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $4,504,004 $3,913,295 $1,312,166 $6,608,000
Operating cost per department FTE $171,909 $166,455 $111,922 $201,771
Operating cost per city FTE $1,964 $2,755 $1,531 $4,327
Operating cost per capita $48 $39 $17 $58
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Four positions in Santa Monica’s Human Resources Department were benchmarked against peer cities,
all of which were compensated at levels above the peer median. Overall, the Human Resource
Department’s median wage falls approximately in the middle of peer wages and is slightly above the
median.
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Director Human
Resources $224,535 $172,294 $411,567 30.3% -45.4%
Human Resources
Manager $153,399 $124,444 $142,429 23.3% 7.7%
Human Resources Analyst $92,984 $65,961 $84,457 41.0% 10.1%
Human Resources
Specialist $66,567 $53,385 $51,956 24.7% 28.1%
67 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 72
Exhibit 32 68
J. INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
Most information services departments manage city technology services and provide help desk support to
support users.
In addition to providing these services, Santa Monica’s Information Services Department also provides
free public Wi-Fi services to residents and fast and affordable business class broadband to local
businesses. The Department continually expands the City’s fiber network to support access to wireless
broadband throughout Santa Monica.
68 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$1
3
2
,
6
6
1
$9
6
,
0
3
1
$9
4
,
1
7
4
$9
3
,
0
8
5
$9
2
,
4
6
0
$8
9
,
0
9
5
$8
8
,
9
3
3
$8
8
,
4
1
4
$8
1
,
8
8
2
$7
8
,
0
8
3
$5
5
,
4
6
0
$87,857
3
8
6
38
15
20
7
9
3
21
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
Peer Wage Comparison
HR Department Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 73
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)69
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Help desk tickets 19,490 9,745 3,368 21,723
Help desk tickets per ISD FTE 397.8 209.4 129.3 273.2
Work stations 2,350 1,664 769 2,805
Work stations per IT FTE 48 40.5 35 51.3
Users 3,125 1,505 1,017 1,900
Users per IT FTE 63.8 43.7 23.9 67.8
Budgeted FTEs 49 45.1 15 79.5
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $9,179,862 $10,324,174 $3,281,761 $17,463,324
Operating cost per department FTE $187,344 $230,281 $116,632 $386,613
Operating cost per city FTE $4,003 $6,305 $3,152 $11,060
Operating cost per capita $99 $67 $32 $112
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Six positions in Santa Monica’s Information Services Department were benchmarked against peer cities,
most of which were compensated at levels equal to or slightly below the peer median. Overall, the
Information Services Department’s median wage falls is the highest among peers. The discrepancy
between the lower position-to-position compensation and higher departmental median compensation is
likely because Santa Monica’s Information Services Department provides additional highly technical
services, such as city Wi-Fi, using in-house staff. This function requires high caliber employees that likely
earn a higher wage, which may skew the City’s median compensation up.
69 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Barbara, and Torrance.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 74
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Chief Information Officer $182,55670 $200,158 $441,960 -8.8% -58.7%
Information Systems Manager $164,367 $142,774 $166,095 15.1% -1.0%
Software Engineer $116,438 $117,203 $128,022 -0.7% -9.0%
Network Engineer $121,560 $116,977 $126,062 3.9% -3.6%
Information Systems Analyst $93,691 $93,746 $90,941 -0.1% 3.0%
IT Support Specialist $85,328 $86,136 $98,496 -0.9% -13.4%
Exhibit 33 71
70 This represents the minimum salary level for this position; SCO data did not include an entire year’s worth of salary data for fiscal
year 2016 in Santa Monica.
$1
1
2
,
3
9
7
$1
0
7
,
4
8
1
$1
0
4
,
4
7
3
$9
8
,
9
0
5
$9
7
,
2
3
3
$9
0
,
9
6
3
$9
0
,
9
6
2
$8
6
,
7
9
5
$8
6
,
7
0
1
$8
4
,
3
0
2
$8
1
,
9
4
6
$7
8
,
5
3
9
$90,178
35 36
29
14
25
37
1
14 13
4
9
106
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Peer Wage Comparison
IS Department Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 75
K. LIBRARY
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
Typical library departments provide community access to books and media and offer programming to
children, teens, and adults that support lifelong learning and literacy.
In addition to these services, Santa Monica’s libraries allow members of neighboring communities to
access their services, expanding the reach of the Library Department’s customers. The Library
Department also has ambitious programming that advances the elements included in its strategic plan,
which includes being a vibrant learning center, wellbeing cultivator, dynamic third place, and a
community and cultural connector.
In other cities, library systems may be operated as a division of Parks and Recreation, or provided by the
county or a library district.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=5)72
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Libraries 5 6.8 3 10
Programs offered 2,284 2,139 698 4,735
Program participants 74,143 52,126 31,469 76,000
Average participants per program 32.5 34.8 13.3 54.7
Library visits 1,257,746 932,685 603,162 1,554,135
Total Circulation 1,479,414 1,199,929 900,774 1,777,779
Budgeted FTEs 112 78 37 108
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $12,852,539 $8,903,804 $5,382,402 $14,063,000
Operating cost per department FTE $114,755 $132,461 $99,543 $155,920
Operating cost per capita $138 $65 $52 $100
Library expenditures per visit $10.22 $10.97 $3.46 $17.55
71 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
72 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Barbara, and Torrance.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 76
To better understand the Library’s activities, the Department also provided the following workload data:
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Borrowers 28,650
Questions requested 249,714
Virtual visits 960,649
Internet and early learning computer usage sessions 194,407
Active borrowers 69,969
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Five positions in Santa Monica’s Library Department were benchmarked against peer cities, all of which
were compensated at levels above the peer median. Across all positions, the Library Department’s median
wage falls approximately in the middle of peer wages, and is slightly above the median.
POSITION SANTA MONICA
MEDIAN PEER MEDIAN % DIFF. FROM
PEER
Library Director 73 $163,396 $164,732 -0.8%
Librarian III $100,641 $96,773 4.0%
Librarian II $89,217 $85,501 4.3%
Circulation Supervisor $81,857 $79,261 3.3%
Librarian I $80,282 $74,164 8.2%
73 Library Director left position in July 2016
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 77
Exhibit 34 74
L. PLANNING AND C OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
A typical Planning and Community Development Department conducts community planning and ensures
land use and transportation decisions reflect the community’s values and vision. In addition to these
activities, Santa Monica’s Planning and Community Development Department encompasses planning,
building safety, parking, code enforcement, mobility, and traffic management.
In other cities, the functions of Planning & Community Development are typically co-located with
Housing & Economic Development. Code enforcement functions may be located in the Police Department
or Public Works; planning and building safety may be combined with some engineering functions; and
traffic management may be in Public Works transportation engineering.
74 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$8
7
,
1
8
8
$8
2
,
2
5
3
$7
3
,
3
8
1
$6
8
,
3
3
8
$6
6
,
7
5
4
$6
5
,
9
2
2
$6
0
,
7
0
2
$5
9
,
7
3
9
$5
8
,
2
6
6
$4
7
,
9
6
7
$67,231
9
33
30
42
44
33
22
11
36
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
Peer Wage Comparison
Library Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 78
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)75
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Building permit fees collected $3,845,772 $5,063,2004 $2,400,000 $9,900,000
Code enforcement cases 3,614 1,103 377 1,794
Budgeted FTEs 124.1 84.1 61.5 121
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $21,883,752 76 $12,291,220 $7,647,676 $22,094,132
Operating cost per department FTE $176,340 $155,441 $64,566 $275,625
Operating cost per capita $235 $90 $52 $126
Santa Monica’s planning and development processes are more complex than other cities’ processes, given
the City’s unique environmental considerations and community standards. Planners support three
commissions and boards, providing advice and expertise as projects move through the planning and
development processes. The table below presents the number of commission and board meetings held in
2017, and the average time an associate planner spends processing each case. In addition to these
meetings, the Department supports development and update of community plans including the
Downtown Community Plan (108 community meetings held), Local Coastal Program, neighborhood
plans, and corridor plans.
COMMISSION/
BOARD
2017
MEETINGS
NUMBER OF
ITEMS HEARD
AVERAGE
MEETING LENGTH
AVERAGE ASSOC.
PLANNER HOURS
TO PROCESS ONE
CASE
Landmarks
Commission 13 59 4.5 hours 23 hours
Architectural Review
Board 20 134 4 hours 18 hours
Planning Commission 22 58 4 hours 100 hours
75 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Glendale, Santa Barbara, and Torrance.
76 Excludes parking operations that are contracted out ($14,803,547). Parking is typically a division within Public Works
departments.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 79
To better understand the Planning and Community Development Department’s activities, the Department
also provided the following workload data:
ACTIVITY WORKLOAD DATA
Building permits issued 2,877
Building plan checks completed 4,749
Building inspections performed 24,080
Percentage of next date building inspections 99%
Customers served at Transportation Planning Counter 3,805
Transportation Planning plan checks 583
Non-street meter parking transaction totals $19,200,000
Parking permits processed 70,957
Code enforcement cases investigated 3,614
Administrative citations issued 561
Government outreach requests received and investigated 1,063
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Four positions in Santa Monica’s Planning and Community Development Department were benchmarked
against peer cities, all of which were compensated at levels above the peer median. Overall, the Planning
and Community Development Department’s median wage is the highest among peers. However, as noted
in the section above, Santa Monica operates a more complex planning and community development
processes, including the support of three commissions and boards.
P OSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Director Planning
Community Development $239,598 $202,817 $225,814 18.1% 6.1%
Plan Check Engineer
Senior $122,692 $104,127 -- 17.8% --
Planning Senior $119,839 $109,507 $104,631 9.4% 14.5%
Building & Safety
Inspector $87,940 $78,272 $103,667 12.4% -15.2%
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 80
Exhibit 35 77
M. POLICE
S ERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
Typical police departments operate patrol services, respond to calls for service, uphold the law, protect
residents and visitors, and investigate crimes.
The Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) provides services for a daytime community that swells to
250,000 on an average day, making its operations somewhat unique. Additionally, the Department
operates community services, a local jail, animal control, the homeless liaison program, and traffic
enforcement.
77 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$1
0
1
,
1
7
9
$9
8
,
0
9
3
$9
3
,
0
4
7
$8
9
,
7
7
2
$8
9
,
4
5
2
$8
4
,
1
4
4
$8
3
,
3
9
6
$7
9
,
7
7
2
$7
8
,
8
5
7
$7
7
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
9
8
6
$7
1
,
5
1
4
$83,143
74
49
13
6
61 62
77
25 24
42
107
82
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Peer Wage Comparison
PCD Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 81
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=6)78
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Annual service calls 118,957 70,250 48,923 115,233
Service calls per officer 531 392 290 484
Service calls per 10,000 residents 12,793 6,727 4,643 13,289
Service calls per 10,000 daytime visitors 7,014 4,206 3,046 5,646
Average response time (minutes)79 5.7 8.48 3.8 18.22
Clearance rate: violent crimes 54% 61% 56% 66%
Clearance rate: property crimes 9% 23% 16% 44%
Serious crime rate per 100,000 residents 362.9 230.4 94.4 427.2
Property crime rate per 100,000
residents 3,248.5 2,503.5 1,559.3 4,279.5
Budgeted FTEs 435.7 284.1 159.8 369.8
Officers 224 185 109 243
Officers per 10,000 residents 24.1 11.3 9.8 12.3
Officers per 10,000 daytime visitors 13.2 11.1 9.8 12.3
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $86,664,147 $59,915,944 $37,772,840 $78,998,760
Operating cost per department FTE $198,908 $211,675 $189,057 $236,346
Operating cost per capita $932 $554 $393 $952
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Six positions in SMPD were benchmarked against peer cities, all of which were compensated at levels
above the peer median. The discrepancy between the higher position-to-position compensation and lower
departmental median compensation is likely because SMPD provides additional services, such as
community services, animal control, and a homeless liaison program. Where possible and appropriate,
the City also leverages civilian employees to reduce its operating and personnel costs.
78 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Barbara, and Torrance.
79 Average response time reflects only high priority calls. However, Police Departments triage calls according to different categories
therefore this analysis may not provide a one-to-one comparison.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 82
POSITION SANTA MONICA
MEDIAN PEER MEDIAN % DIFF. FROM PEER
Police Chief $309,287 $268,435 15.2%
Deputy Police Chief $291,626 $269,394 8.3%
Police Captain $253,864 $218,341 16.3%
Police Lieutenant $203,211 $177,044 14.8%
Police Sergeant $199,985 $171,936 16.3%
Police Officer $149,338 $127,370 17.2%
Records Management
Specialist $66,028 $61,999 6.5%
Exhibit 36 80
80 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$1
4
6
,
2
5
7
$1
4
2
,
5
8
5
$1
3
4
,
4
7
3
$1
3
2
,
8
6
5
$1
2
9
,
1
7
1
$1
2
8
,
7
0
9
$1
1
9
,
6
9
8
$1
1
8
,
9
1
7
$1
1
8
,
8
9
0
$1
1
8
,
5
5
7
$1
1
6
,
9
7
9
$1
1
3
,
0
8
3
$126,645
286
540
170
334
73
143
206
134
206
285
308
175
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
Peer Wage Comparison
Police Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 83
N. PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works organization structures vary significantly between cities. Some cities operate electric, water,
and wastewater utilities, while others receive those services from the county or special purpose districts.
Airports, when provided by other cities, may be separate departments, and most cities operate
transportation engineering (transit) as a division of Public Works. Many cities outsource maintenance
functions, including facilities, streets, fleet, and landscape. Architecture and sustainability services may
not be provided. As a result, the analysis below includes selected Public Works functions that are readily
comparable to peer cities. Where possible, electric utility positions were removed from this analysis.
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: PUBLIC LANDSCAPE
The Public Landscape Division manages maintenance of land and parks, including tree trimming and
maintenance of exterior infrastructure. Santa Monica’s Public Landscape Division maintains over 700
acres of parks, athletic fields, landscape, urban forest, and downtown district areas. Additionally, the
division maintains 245 acres of beach in the City.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)81
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Trees trimmed 9,008 9,288 4,000 15,197
Acres of natural land maintained 461 893 559 1,227
Parks maintained 32 38 27 43
Budgeted FTEs 101 37.5 7 67.6
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $17,265,230 $6,913,521 $2,854,377 $12,256,000
Operating cost per division FTE $174,396 $421,427 $161,394 $921,585
Operating cost per capita $186 $83 $14 $163
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: STREET AND FLEET
The Street and Fleet Services Division maintains city streets, signs, parking meters, and sidewalks and the
city’s fleet, including procurement, preventive maintenance, and responding to repair requests. Santa
Monica’s street maintenance division maintains over 257 miles of streets, alleys, sidewalks, curbs, and
gutters. The Division also maintains street signs, crosswalks, and equipment.
81 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Culver City, Glendale, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 84
STREETS
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)82
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Square footage of asphalt repairs 269,297 137,778 9,000 458,000
Sidewalk patches 7,210 36,779 623 72,934
Potholes repaired 863 83 7,915 429 15,400
Budgeted FTEs 37 45 32.9 52
Co
s
t
Da
t
a
Operating cost $7,257,655 $9,515,170 $7,803,180 $12,151,931
Operating cost per division FTE $196,153 $270,693 $171,466 $369,922
Operating cost per capita $78 $84 $39 $132
FLEET
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)84
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
Da
t
a
Vehicles maintained 932 773 478 1,100
Budgeted FTEs 29 15 85 - -
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $6,886,852, $9,807,201 $3,590,743 $16,023,658
Operating cost per division FTE $237,478 $239,383 - -
Operating cost per capita $74 $59 $39 $80
Maintenance cost per vehicle $7,307 $7,251 $6,364 $8,138
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: CIVIL ENGINEERING
The Civil Engineering Division provides design, construction, and construction management for city
public infrastructure. The Division also provides services related to land development, such as permit
review, right-of-way inspections, and utility coordination.
82 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
83 Santa Monica permanently repairs potholes rather than filling them.
84 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
85 Only one peer FTE counts were available.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 85
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)86
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
Da
t
a
Filming permits issued 415 108 13 298
Annual CIP Project Budget $113,723,338 $98,573,466 $8,113,568 $287,246,930
Budgeted FTEs 27 32.5 13 52
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $5,636,496 $5,133,733 $2,014,704 $8,247,000
Operating cost per division FTE $208,759 $156,787 $154,977 $158,596
Operating cost per capita $61 $40 $19 $59
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: RESOURCE RECOVERY AND
RECYCLING
The Resource Recovery and Recycling Division performs street sweeping, collects residential and
commercial municipal waste, including refuse, organics, and commingled recycling. The City of Santa
Monica developed a Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan, which drives implementation of innovative
sustainable programs.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=5)87
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Tons of refuse collected 74,088 56,469 32,820 90,603
Tons of recycling and green food
waste diverted 27,268 23,504 11,745 34,088
Tons of waste generated per capita 0.80 0.60 0.28 1.02
Curb miles swept 26,520 29,568 17,995 44,000
Budgeted FTEs 90.7 42.9 35 51
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $24,289,019 $16,696,016 $6,375,000 $22,939,098
Operating cost per division FTE $267,795 $300,148 $182,143 $484,114
Operating cost per capita $261 $178 $45 $301
Cost per curb mile swept $840 $841 $470 $1,196
Refuse collection cost per ton of waste $263 $267 $174 $335
86 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
87 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 86
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: WATER RESOURCES
The Water Resources Division provides safe, reliable, and sustainable water for residents and businesses.
In Santa Monica, this includes operation of the City’s potable and recycled water production, water
pollution prevention programs, groundwater basin clean-ups, and maintenance of the wastewater
collection and conveyance system. Santa Monica’s water systems serves a network of 1,300 fire hydrants.
1,070 fire sprinkler connections, and over 86,00 residential and business customers.
WATER
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=2)88
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Water and main service breaks 46 27.5 14 41
Linear feet of water main replaced 2,269 11,900 - -
Total linear feet of water and sewer
pipes 813,120 847,500 475,000 1,220,000
Response time to service breaks
(hours) 0.6 3.5 - -
Budgeted FTEs 89 47 - - -
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
90
Operating cost $22,760,951 - - -
Operating cost per division FTE $484,276 - - -
Operating cost per capita $245 - - -
88 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Glendale and Pasadena.
89 Peer FTE counts are not available due to significant differences in departmental organization. For example, many peer water
departments include power or other functions that cannot be easily separated from water and wastewater costs.
90 Peer operating costs are not available due to significant differences in departmental organization. For example, many peer water
departments include power or other functions that cannot be easily separated from water and wastewater costs.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 87
WASTEWATER
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=5)91
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Sanitary sewer overflows 6 19 5 46
Total linear feet of water and sewer
pipes 813,120 1,186,267 475,000 1,863,800
Budgeted FTEs 92 22.2 26.7 11.4 42
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $12,955,026 $15,120,837 $8,385,551 $26,899,480
Operating cost per division FTE $583,560 $487,615 $239,655 $735,575
Operating cost per capita $139 $192 $110 $255
Maintenance cost per linear foot of
water and sewer pipe $20.95 $12.85 $1.18 $18.77
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON: FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
The Facilities Maintenance Division provides custodial services to city-owned and leased buildings, as
well as preventive maintenance and repairs. Santa Monica’s Facilities Maintenance Division also
maintains the beach house, pier, airport, and cemetery. The Division employs skilled trades staff such as
carpenters, electricians, painters, and plumbers. Staff also oversee some contracted services for
renovations and maintenance of building automated and security systems.
PERFORMANCE DATA SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=5)93
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
D
a
t
a
Maintenance work orders 7,612 3,691 333 8,433
Square footage occupied 94 2,860,543 852,942 280,000 1,348,814
Average response time 10.9 days 6.75 days 2 days 20 days
Budgeted FTEs 128.9 31.2 9.5 48
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $22,184,503 $6,720,487 $1,800,000 $9,000,000
Operating cost per department FTE $172,106 $207,546 $187,500 $240,323
Operating cost per capita $239 $60 $39 $83
Cost per square foot occupied $7.76 $14.13 $5.52 $27.19
91 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
92 Peer FTE counts are not available due to significant differences in departmental organization. For example, many peer water
departments include power or other functions that cannot be easily separated from water and wastewater costs.
93 Peer cities that responded to the survey include Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
94 Includes leased and owned property.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 88
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
AIRPORT
Santa Monica’s airport employs 8.9 FTEs and has an operating cost of $5.9 million. The airport operates
as a general aviation airport, with no commercial or scheduled services. Staff enforce curfew and noise
regulations, administer leases, host Certified Flight Instructor trainings, and overall provide a safe,
secure, and sustainable airport.
ARCHITECTURE SERVICES
Santa Monica operates an Architecture Services Division with 17 FTEs and an operating budget of $2.8
million. The Division designs and constructs City-owned or leased facilities including libraries, parks,
recreational facilities, and parking structures.
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING
Seventeen positions in Santa Monica’s Public Works Department were benchmarked against peer cities,
nine of which were compensated at levels below the peer median. Overall, the Public Works Department’s
median wage falls approximately in the bottom third of peer wages and is below the median. Unlike most
peers, Santa Monica in-sources most public works functions, including trash pick-up, public landscape,
and maintenance services. These functions are typically lower paid, which may contribute to Santa
Monica’s lower median wage.
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Director Public Works 95 $225,057 $198,738 $410,037 13.2% -45.1%
Assistant Director Public
Works $162,322 $159,474 $189,621 1.8% -14.4%
Facility Manager 96 $159,925 $124,949 $113,120 28.0% 41.4%
Operations Manager 97 $156,513 $147,054 $134,375 6.4% 16.5%
Operations Supervisor $102,931 $105,823 $85,577 -2.7% 20.3%
Maintenance Worker 98 $52,537 $51,374 $59,304 2.3% -11.4%
Maintenance Worker
Supervisor $89,434 $80,820 $92,408 10.7% -3.2%
Equipment Operator $62,983 $72,418 $68,818 -13.0% -8.5%
95 Fiscal year 2016 data reflects a position in transition
96 Generalized position title: examples of types of position titles included in analysis are Facilities Manager; Warehouse Manager;
Convention Center Manager; Transit Facilities Manager
97 Generalized position title: examples of types of position titles included in analysis are Public Works Operations Manager;
Streetscape Manager; Environmental Programs Manager; Water Systems Manager
98 Generalized position title: examples of types of position titles included in analysis are Construction and Maintenance Worker;
General Repair Worker; Facilities Maintenance Worker; Public Works Maintenance Worker
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 89
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Fleet Mechanic $59,645 $62,128 $64,794 -4.0% -7.9%
Fleet Services Supervisor $107,890 $98,309 $118,318 9.7% -8.8%
HVAC Mechanic $89,205 $83,418 $73,283 6.9% 21.7%
Landscape Worker $53,658 $55,669 $34,645 -3.6% 54.9%
Mechanic $60,865 $91,325 $65,320 -33.4% -6.8%
Electrician $73,256 $89,611 $74,235 -18.3% -1.3%
Plumber $71,107 $75,621 $71,891 -6.0% -1.1%
Carpenter $71,215 $73,375 $47,186 -2.9% 50.9%
Welder $63,951 $73,472 $61,774 -13.0% 3.5%
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 90
Exhibit 37 99
O. TRANSIT
SERVICE AND STAFFING LEVEL COMPARISON
Santa Monica operates a regional transit system, Big Blue Bus, that serves 59 square miles surrounding
Santa Monica. Four peer cities also operate transit systems, including buses, dial-a-ride, and some taxi
services. In other cities, transit services are provided by multi-jurisdictional transit agencies. Cities that
operate their own transit systems typically include transit as a division of Public Works. No peer city
operates a standalone transit agency structured like Big Blue Bus.
99 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$8
7
,
7
7
7
$8
3
,
1
3
8
$7
7
,
2
3
5
$7
5
,
1
3
1
$7
2
,
9
5
1
$7
1
,
8
1
6
$6
9
,
9
1
5
$6
8
,
6
5
1
$6
7
,
0
7
0
$6
5
,
5
5
6
$6
4
,
5
6
7
$6
1
,
6
3
6
$72,659
480
163
538
420
50
298
147
230
306
466
120
91
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
Peer Wage Comparison
Public Works Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 91
Transit agencies are largely funded through grants awarded by the federal government and also are
expected to recover 20% of costs through bus fares.
PERFORMANCE DATA100 SANTA
MONICA
PEER CITIES (N=4)
AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Wo
r
k
l
o
a
d
Da
t
a
Passenger miles 73,953,419 10,622,181 599,978 22,728,316
Average weekday trips 63,238 8,670 647 19,343
Operating expenses per passenger
mile $0.89 $2.44 $0.84 $5.66
Operating expenses per vehicle
revenue mile $13.38 $9.16 $6.79 $11.81
FTEs 462.9 180.9 167.3 194.4
Co
s
t
D
a
t
a
Operating cost $74,893,876 $21,241,502 $4,924,176 $37,086,761
Operating cost per department FTE $161,793 $195,061 $190,776 $199,346
Operating cost per capita $805 $319 $48 $934
CASH COMPENSATION BENCHMARKING 101
Five positions in the Big Blue Bus were benchmarked against peer cities, all of which were compensated at
levels above the peer median. Overall, the Big Blue Bus’s median wage falls in the middle of peer wages
and is slightly above the median.
POSITION
SANTA
MONICA
MEDIAN
PEER
MEDIAN
PRIVATE
SECTOR
% DIFF.
FROM
PEER
% DIFF.
FROM
PRIVATE
Director Transit $241,550 $236,075 $262,814 2.3% -8.1%
Transit Manager $134,084 $125,294 $123,838 7.0% 8.3%
Maintenance Worker $64,000 $63,389 $58,452 1.0% 9.5%
Management Analyst $86,667 $82,388 $95,233 5.2% -9.0%
Bus/Coach/Motor
Operator $70,636 $67,905 $53,361 4.0% 32.4%
100 Passenger miles, average weekday trips, and performance indicators were sourced from National Transit Database 2014 Annual
Agency Profiles. Cost data was sourced from FY 2017 agency budgets. Peer transit agencies include Culver City, Glendale,
Redondo Beach, and Torrance.
101 Note: Transit positions amongst peers are difficult to reliably identify and compare, since transit in peer cities a minor part of a
larger transportation department or simply within Public Works.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 92
Exhibit 38 102,103
102 The data reported to the GCC did not provide enough detail to confidently break out additional peer city cash wages from
Glendale and Redondo Beach.
103 Positions with cash compensation reported as less than the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in
order to better compare and analyze annual full-time compensation data.
$7
8
,
1
0
6
$7
4
,
3
7
9
$6
1
,
0
0
8
106
340
97
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
Torrance Santa Monica Culver City
Transit Department Peer Wage Comparison
Department Median Total Cash Wage Peer Median Positions Compared
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 93
V. PUBLIC SAFETY OVERTIME
A. POLICE OVERTIME
1 2
OBSERVATION
Although SMPD’s overtime expenditures increased by $1.2
million between FY 2014 and FY 2016, the overtime rate for an
existing employee costs an estimated 7.1 to 14.6% less than the
hourly rate of a new employee, suggesting that the use of
overtime provides cost savings to the department.
SMPD’s overtime expenditures have increased from $7.1 million in
FY 2014 to $8.6 million in FY 2016, although they remained a
consistent proportion of the department’s overall budget. However,
the overtime rate for an existing employee is between 7 and 14% less
expensive than the hourly rate of a new, fully burdened employee.
The three largest drivers of the department’s overtime are workload
requirements, personnel shortages, and workers’ compensation.
RECOMMENDATION
In accordance with best practice, continue to evaluate police
staffing levels and use of overtime.
One of the most critical administrative and operational
responsibilities of a police department is to effectively staff and
schedule a 24-hour / 365-day patrol operations that have workload
demand that varies by time of day and day of the week. The Police
Department should continue to asses staffing levels through detailed
analysis of historical and reliable call-for-service data.
BACKGROUND
SMPD consists of four divisions employing sworn and civilian personnel. These divisions are summarized
in Exhibit 39.
Exhibit 39
DIVISION RESPONSIBILITIES
Administrative
Services
Manages employee benefits, purchasing, and employment; prepares department-wide training;
establishes policies and procedures to ensure SMPD operates as efficiently as possible.
Criminal
Investigation
Processes crime scenes, retains and safeguards evidence, prepares and presents evidence to
the judicial system, manages public law enforcement records, conducts crime analyses and
Uniform Crime Reporting, investigates crimes, and operates youth and family services.
Operations
Preserves peace and the protection of life and property, responds to calls for service from
members of the public, practices community-oriented policing, and provides security, rescue, and
major first aid services to people on the pier, ocean, and beach areas through the Harbor Unit.
Strategic
Services
Includes Downtown Services, Community Services, Jail Custody, Animal Control, Traffic
Services, homelessness patrol, and traffic enforcement.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 94
Within these divisions, some employees are eligible for overtime pay (non-exempt), while others are not
(exempt). For example, most administrative staff and sworn police officers operating in a management
capacity are not eligible for overtime, but non-management police officers, civilian security staff, and
traffic enforcement employees can receive overtime pay. Among sworn personnel, police sergeants and
police officers are non-exempt, but their superior officers are exempt (see Exhibit 40).
Exhibit 40
During some large scale events such as the Twilight Concert Series and the Los Angeles Marathon in the
City, some exempt employees are able to accrue overtime at a straight time rate.
STAFFING MODEL
The SMPD organizes patrol areas into four beats. The department operates three shifts, each with
minimum staffing levels to ensure officer safety and responsiveness. Minimum staffing levels are
determined through external staffing studies and negotiations with the Police Officer’s Association and
institutionalized in the labor agreement contract with the City. The labor agreement contract allows
deviations from this target minimum for a short period of time due to operational needs or special
circumstances. Because minimum staffing levels must be met, and the SMPD backfills vacant positions,
the officer covering the shift accrues overtime. Shifts and minimum staffing levels are summarized in
Exhibit 41.
(1)
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 95
Exhibit 41
WATCH DUTY TIME MINIMUM STAFFING
A watch 6 a.m. – 6:30 p.m. 8 officers
B watch 2 p.m. – 2:30 a.m. 6 officers
C watch 6 p.m. – 6:30 a.m. 8 officers
Most officers on patrol work 12.5-hour shifts three days a week and have one 10-hour payback day every
four weeks which is typically used for training purposes. Officers staffing the Downtown Services Section
work a hybrid Sunday-Wednesday 4-10 schedule and Thursday-Saturday 3-12.5 schedule. Other SMPD
employees, such as administrative staff and detectives, work a 4-10 or 9-80 schedule.
VACANCIES
In FY 2016, the City approved three additional sworn officer positions. Across the three years of study, the
Department maintained a vacancy rate of approximately 6 percent. When taking officers’ use of sick,
vacation, and other leave into consideration, the SMPD’s overall vacancy rate increases to 8-10% on any
given day. Exhibit 42 shows the number of budgeted and filled positions in the SMPD between FY 201 and
FY 2016.
Exhibit 42
Sworn officer positions can be particularly challenging to fill in a timely manner due to civil service hiring
processes, including testing, interviewing, and extensive background investigations. Often, these positions
can take several months to fill and are filled in batches of three or four officers who graduated from the
academy and have undergone significant testing or made a lateral transfer from another agency.
Additional staff shortages can arise as officers retire or otherwise leave employment with the City, with
varying amounts of prior notice. Exhibit 43 demonstrates the number of net positions gained by the
SMPD for FY 2014-FY 2016, taking retirees and other separations into account.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Sworn Budget 221 224 224
Sworn Actual 205 210 211
Civilian Budget 178 178 179
Civilian Actual 170 162 162
0
50
100
150
200
250
Budgeted to Actual Police Staffing
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 96
Exhibit 43
The net gain of sworn personnel demonstrates that although the Department hired between 20 and 25
officers a year, approximately 10% of the sworn police force, the rate of separation has resulted in a
significantly smaller net gain in filled positions. The hiring process for sworn personnel and SMPD’s high
expectations of incoming officers likely contributes to insufficient hires in anticipation of officer
retirements and additional sworn budgets.
OVERTIME
Police officer overtime is governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as the terms laid out in
the Police Officer Association’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City. According to the
FLSA, an officer receives overtime pay if he or she worked in excess of 86 hours over a 14-day period. The
MOU also specifies overtime pay for additional tasks, including:
• Call Back Pay: If an officer would have normally been off duty for the entire time of an emergency
task, he or she receives at least four hours of overtime. If the time required to handle the task
coincides with the employee’s normal schedule, the officer receives overtime for the time between
beginning work and the start time of the normal shift.
• Court Appearances: Officers often appear in court for reasons related to their employment with
the City. When this occurs during the officer’s off-duty time, the officer receives a minimum of three
overtime hours.
The Police Officer Association’s MOU specifies that overtime will be based on hours worked, meaning that
officers who use sick, vacation, or other types of leave do not receive overtime on those hours.
Officers often work additional hours outside of their normal schedule, both voluntarily and involuntarily.
Officers make themselves available for overtime by providing the SMPD with a preferred availability
schedule. If an overtime shift arises that is within the officer’s preferred schedule, they are offered the
shift and have the option to accept or deny it. The Department uses various methods to ensure officers
receive an equal chance of being offered an overtime shift, such as using alphabetical or reverse
alphabetical order to offer shifts. SMPD does not require “rank-for-rank” shift coverage; therefore, any
officer can fill the vacant position. If no one accepts the shift, officers can be required to fill it, referred to
as “force-hiring,” based on seniority. The Department does not currently have the ability to track how
20
25
22
14
11
20
6
14
2
FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17
Sworn Officer Hires, Separations, and Net Gains
Hires Separations Net Gain
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 97
often force-hires occur, but staff report that it most often occurs for large city events such as the Twilight
Concert Series or the Los Angeles Marathon.
Although overtime is typical and necessary in most police departments, continued amounts of excessive
overtime may have negative implications on officer health and performance. To support officer well-being
and promote excellent service to the public, the SMPD has adopted a policy to avoid excessive overtime.
The policy states that employees should not exceed 80 hours during a work week or work more than 18
hours, with a minimum 5-hour break between shifts. It also provides that employees should have a
minimum of 8 hours between shifts, except in very limited circumstances. Adherence to this policy is
monitored by supervisors and payroll staff.
OVERTIME UTILIZATION
The SMPD requests a certain amount of overtime dollars each year as part of the budget process, which is
typical for public safety departments in municipalities. Between FY 2014 and FY2016, the Department’s
overtime budget increased by approximately $250,000, although its overtime expenditures increased by
over $1.2 million, as shown in Exhibit 44. Although overtime increased, the results of a breakeven analysis
presented later in this section demonstrate that the overtime rate for an existing employee costs an
estimated 7.1 to 14.6% less than the hourly rate of a new employee.
Exhibit 44
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET ACTUAL 104 OVERAGE
2014-15 $5,013,621 $6,721,110 $1,707,489
2015-16 $5,177,450 $6,979,441 $1,801,991
2016-17 $5,277,707 $7,985,365 $2,707,658
Overall, police operating expenditures have increased between FY 2014 and FY 2016. However, despite
the increase in overtime expenditures, the proportion of the SMPD’s budget spent on overtime remained
relatively constant at 9% as shown in Exhibit 45. Additionally, a portion of these overtime expenditures
are reimbursed to the general fund through external sources, such as film jobs. Reimbursed expenses are
discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
104 Actual overtime expenditures do not include overtime related to the LA Marathon or Twilight Concert Series. The total overtime
expenditures of these events for each fiscal year are:
• FY 2014: $354,953
• FY 2015: $362,084
• FY 2016, $591,843
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 98
Exhibit 45
Santa Monica has nearly the same amount of overtime as a percent of sworn officer total salary as the peer
cities. This suggests that the City’s use of overtime is in alignment with average peer utilization.
Exhibit 46
The three greatest drivers of overtime are workload requirements, personnel shortages, and special
details. Together, these overtime categories comprised over 75% of the SMPD’s annual overtime
expenditures.
Appendix F: Police Overtime Summary includes a table summarizing SMPD expenditures by category for
FY 2014-FY 2016.
WORKLOAD REQUIREMENTS
The largest driver of SMPD overtime expenditures was the workload managed by civilian staff and
officers. As shown in Exhibit 47, in FY 2017, this category of overtime was 39% of the SMPD’s overtime
expenditures. Officer overtime related to workload requirements includes pursuing investigative follow-
ups to solve crimes, attending POST-required training (basic, SWAT, mounted), and working special task
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Operating Budget $77,199,271 $83,653,269 $86,664,147
Overtime as a Percent of
Expenditures 8.71%8.34%9.21%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
Police Expenditures and Overtime as a Percent of
Expenditures
71.2%
12.6%16.2%
71.2%
12.8%16.1%
Regular Pay Special Pay Overtime
Percent of Total Pay from Overtime for Sworn Personnel
(FY 2016)
Santa Monica Peer Cities
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 99
forces with other entities such as LA Impact and the FBI. Additionally, a portion of this overtime is paid to
civilian officers who manage traffic control and investigate traffic accidents.
Exhibit 47
PERSONNEL SHORTAGES
The second largest driver of SMPD overtime expenditures was personnel shortages. Personnel shortages
occur anytime an officer is not available to work an assigned shift, and, therefore, includes vacancies as
well as use of sick, vacation, bereavement, workers’ compensation (below), and other kinds of leave.
Personnel shortages fluctuated slightly over the three years of study, comprising approximately 18% of all
overtime expenditures.
Exhibit 48
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Workers’ compensation also contributed to officers’ inability to participate in on-duty work and resulted
in lost duty days. This is a component of personnel shortages as mentioned in the above section. Exhibit
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Workload Requirement
Expenditures $2,179,165 $2,735,157 $3,314,644
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 30.80%37.26%38.64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
Workload Requirements Overtime Expenditures
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Personnel Shortages Overtime
Expenditures $1,286,682 $1,235,100 $1,481,278
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 18.18%16.82%17.27%
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%20%
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
Personnel Shortages Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 100
49 reports the number of workers’ compensation claims filed during FY 2015-FY 2017 as well as the
number of days personnel were paid for being off duty due to workers’ compensation claims (lost days).
Exhibit 49
FISCAL
YEAR
CLAIMS
ADDED
MODIFIED
DUTY
DAYS
LOST
DAYS
EMPLOYEE
VACANCY
EQUIVALENT
% OF
BUDGETED
POSITIONS
2014-15 83 548 2,245 6.2 FTE 2.8%
2015-16 82 828 2,432 6.7 FTE 2.9%
2016-17 81 1,633 4,376 12.0 FTE 5.4%
As the above chart demonstrates, the number of lost days translated to FTEs equaled between 6.3-9.0% of
SMPD’s budgeted sworn personnel.
SPECIAL DETAILS
Special details are the third largest driver of overtime for the SMPD, making up 18% of overtime
expenditures in FY 2017. The SMPD deploys special details for activities such as City Hall security
services, City Council details, dignitary visits, demonstrations, and additional staffing in key areas such as
downtown during holidays due to heightened crime patterns. Analysts have noted crime increases during
the summer months and holidays; the SMPD proactively addresses increased crime by increasing the
number of officers on duty during peak times. In particular, the SMPD increases staffing to deter criminal
activity in the downtown area, along the beach, and on the pier.
Exhibit 50
Santa Monica has a highly engaged citizenry, resulting in additional police overtime to ensure the safety of
protestors and visiting dignitaries. In FY 2015, the City had several high-profile political visits, such as
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, which contributed to an increase in related overtime expenditures. As
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Special Detail Overtime
Expenditures $1,188,215 $1,404,402 $1,411,599
Reimbursed Amount $687,982 $849,037 $864,026
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 16.79%19.13%16.46%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
Special Details Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 101
noted in the graph, almost half of special details are reimbursed by other City departments for security at
their events and facilities.
COURT APPEARANCES
Court appearances make up a relatively small portion of overtime, approximately 5-6% across all three
fiscal years analyzed. Police personnel appear in court most often for purposes within the scope of their
position and employment with the City. The Police Officers’ Association MOU provides overtime pay for
officers reporting for court outside of their normal work hours. For example, officers receive a minimum
of three overtime hours for appearing in court outside of their normal duty hours. Overtime expenditures
related to court appearances have decreased slightly over the last three fiscal years, although this is
dependent on court proceedings and other factors external to the SMPD.
Exhibit 51
EXTENSION OF SHIFT
Overtime related to shift extensions remained stable at approximately 5% of total overtime expenditures.
Officers extend their shift if they are actively working a call that requires immediate attention when their
shift officially ends. Often, officers are also required to complete the incident report before leaving for the
day, particularly if their next day of work does not occur for several days. Additionally, shift extension can
occur if an oncoming officer is appearing in court prior to the start of his or her shift. Because of the
minimum staffing levels established in the MOU, an officer may be required to stay on duty until another
officer arrives to cover the vacant shift.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Court Appearances Overtime
Expenditures $424,811 $407,295 $397,694
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 6.00%5.55%4.64%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
Court Appearances Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 102
Exhibit 52
NON-SWORN HOLIDAY PAY
Holiday overtime pay for civilian personnel made up 4% of the SMPD’s overtime expenditures in FY 2017.
In addition to officer overtime, the Department also incurs overtime on behalf of non-sworn personnel;
the SMPD leverages civilian positions to fill traffic enforcement and security positions. In accordance with
MOU terms, non-sworn personnel in the STA and MEA labor groups who are required to work on a City-
observed holiday earn overtime pay for those hours worked. The Department attempts to minimize
civilian overtime on holidays.
Exhibit 53
FILMS AND SPECIAL EVENTS
In addition to providing coverage for special events sponsored by the City, SMPD also covers film jobs and
externally-hosted special events.
Films jobs comprised approximately 3% of overtime expenditures in FY 2017. Because officers have a full
schedule for their normal duties, all time spent covering film jobs is considered overtime. The City
negotiates reimbursement rates with Film LA, the official film office for the LA area, and incorporates
public safety overtime for film jobs as a fee in the permit fee schedule.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Extension of Shift Overtime
Expenditures $328,821 $380,538 $419,760
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 4.65%5.18%4.89%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
Extension of Shift Overtime Expenditures
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Holiday Pay Overtime
Expenditures $382,157 $360,593 $327,090
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 4.65%5.18%4.89%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
Holiday Pay Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 103
Exhibit 54
As Exhibit 54 shows, the reimbursed amount exceeded expenditures, as other City services are utilized on
film jobs, including permitting and transportation. Film jobs are completed at the convenience of
filmmakers; therefore, the City has a limited ability to anticipate this type of overtime when determining
whether to incorporate significant fluctuations into its annual overtime budget.
A small portion of overtime expenditures, about 2%, came from reimbursed external special events
occurring in the City. Examples of these events vary from year to year, but may include the American Film
Institute, the Critics’ Choice Awards, City of Hope events, and others.
Exhibit 55
OTHER
A portion of SMPD’s overtime does not fall into specific categories and is therefore considered “Other.”
This category made up a small amount of the overall overtime expenditures and became significantly
smaller over time due to improvements in record keeping and systems in the Department.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Film Jobs Overtime
Expenditures $178,020 $147,301 $207,199
Reimbursed Amount $467,558 $290,660 $520,195
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 2.52%2.01%2.42%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Film Jobs Overtime Expenditures
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Special Events Overtime
Expenditures $232,509 $207,505 $174,388
Reimbursed Amount $472,715 $412,137 $332,074
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 3.29%2.83%2.03%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
Special Events Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 104
Exhibit 56
ADDITIONAL CITY EVENTS
Santa Monica hosts the Twilight Concert Series and the final leg of the Los Angeles Marathon. These
events result in significant public safety overtime; however, overtime expenditures deriving from these
events are paid through other City funds and do not appear in SMPD’s reported overtime expenditures.
Santa Monica hosted 10 concerts on the pier each summer between FY 2014 and FY 2016. These concerts
grew tremendously in popularity, resulting in increasingly higher numbers of attendees and spillover onto
the beach. In FY 2016, the City estimated between 15,000 and 20,000 people attended each summer
concert. As a result of increased crowds, the SMPD increased the number of public safety personnel
present at the concerts and often relies on personnel from neighboring police departments to augment its
public safety presence.
Exhibit 57
Overtime expenditures related to the Twilight Concert Series increased significantly in FY 2016, nearly
doubling from prior years. This increase was due to high attendance and the Fire Marshal’s safety
requirements. Public safety overtime for the concerts was paid by the City’s General Fund. Beginning in
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Other Overtime Expenditures $520,731 $101,549 $251,712
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 7.36%1.38%2.93%
0.0%
1.5%
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
7.5%
9.0%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Other Overtime Expenditures
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Twilight Concert Series
Overtime Expenditures $232,519 $240,314 $471,761
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 3.29%3.27%5.50%
0.0%
1.5%
3.0%
4.5%
6.0%
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
Twilight Concert Series Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 105
FY 2017, the City reduced the number of concerts from 10 to 8 to help reduce costs related to hosting the
concert series.
Santa Monica also hosts the final three miles of the Los Angeles Marathon each March. In March 2017, an
estimated 25,000 runners participated, in addition to several thousand spectators. To ensure the safety of
individuals participating and watching the marathon, the SMPD staffs the event with public safety
personnel. Marathon overtime expenditures have been consistent over the past three fiscal years. The
overtime incurred to provide a police presence at the marathon is fully reimbursed by the marathon.
Exhibit 58
BREAKEVEN ANALYSIS
Overtime hours and compensation is partially driven by an insufficient number of staff to fulfill service
level expectations of the community. It is a common practice among public safety agencies to use
overtime to help fill service gaps. The majority of overtime, especially those related to workload and
minimum staffing requirements, could be eliminated if the SMPD increased staffing levels; however, this
would need to be done at levels likely to exceed current budgeted amounts. However, increasing staffing
levels to reduce overtime expenditures would likely significantly increase the Department’s overall
operating expenditures and ultimately the cost of providing policing services.
Overtime pay is calculated at 1.5 times an employee’s regular rate of pay (including any bonuses or special
pays) and does not have an impact on the employee’s retirement or medical costs. In FY 2017, the City
spent 38.1% of an officer’s total cost of employment on health and retirement benefits. When the
Department hires a new employee, the City has to pay this additional cost in benefits. The cost of benefits
and additional training often makes hiring an employee more expensive than paying an existing employee
to work overtime.
To determine if it is more cost-effective to hire additional staff or fulfill service level requirements or
continue paying overtime, we analyzed hourly rates for overtime eligible positions. Our analysis compared
the hourly rate of a new employee, including retirement and medical costs, to the hourly rate paid for
overtime using 2016 GCC compensation data. Exhibit 59 summarizes the results of this analysis.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Twilight Concert Series
Overtime Expenditures $122,434 $121,770 $120,082
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 1.73%1.66%1.40%
0.0%
1.5%
3.0%
$0
$25,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$125,000
$150,000
Los Angeles Marathon Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 106
Appendix H: Break-Even Analysis contains a description of the methodology used for this analysis and
additional data elements.
Exhibit 59
MINIMUM MEDIAN MAXIMUM
Se
r
g
e
a
n
t
Fully Burdened Rate $104.83 $137.77 $153.07
Overtime Rate $97.35 $121.16 $137.66
Percent Difference of Overtime
Rate and Fully Burdened Rate -7.1% -12.1% -10.1%
Of
f
i
c
e
r
Fully Burdened Rate $79.14 $104.84 $117.36
Overtime Rate $70.83 $89.56 $102.99
Percent Difference of Overtime
Rate and Fully Burdened Rate -10.5% -14.6% -12.2%
The results of this analysis show that the hourly overtime rate for an existing employee estimated to cost
between 7.1 and 14.6% less than the hourly rate of a new employee, depending on the position and step
level of the employee.
B. FIRE OVERTIME
1 3
OBSERVATION
Although SMFD’s overtime expenditures increased by approximately $800,000 between FY 2014 and FY 2016, the
overtime rate for an existing employee costs an estimated 9.3%
less to 6.5% more than the hourly rate of a new employee,
suggesting that the use of overtime may provide cost savings to
the department.
SMFD’s overtime expenditures increased from $6.2 million in FY
2014 to $7.0 million in FY 2016, although they remained a consistent
proportion of the department’s overall budget (18%). However, the
overtime rate for an existing employee is between 9.3% less and 6.5%
more than the hourly rate of a new, fully burdened employee
depending on their position and step level.
The primary drivers of departmental overtime are maintaining
constant staffing level requirements to cover the use of vacation leave,
sick leave, absences due to workers’ compensation claims, and staff
vacancies.
RECOMMENDATION In accordance with best practice, conduct a staffing study to
evaluate on-duty staffing demand, staffing levels, and use of overtime.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 107
SMFD has not conducted a staffing study since 2000 and reports that
employees are often required to work overtime that they did not elect
to work. To ensure that staffing levels are adequate for the
Department’s operations, the City should conduct a staffing study to
determine if additional personnel are needed. Adding new staff to the
department will likely result in increased operating costs, although
benefits of additional staff may be seen by reduced burn out and
stress among firefighters.
A staffing study provides an independent assessment of the
appropriate on-duty staffing level to provide fire and emergency
medical services to the community. Typically, staffing studies
compare the department using performance measures for similar
communities and apply national standards, where applicable.
BACKGROUND
SMFD consists of four divisions employing sworn and civilian personnel. The divisions and their
respective responsibilities are summarized in the table below.
Exhibit 60
DIVISION RESPONSIBILITIES
Administration
Establishes policies and procedures, evaluates operational effectiveness, implements
improvements, manages capital projects, and oversees communications and software
programs used for emergency response.
Fire Prevention
Develops and implements programs that prevent and reduce the magnitude of emergencies
(loss of life and property, personal injury, environmental damage), inspects new construction
and existing buildings, and evaluates provisions for emergency access.
Fire Suppression and
Rescue
Responds to and mitigates fire, medical, urban search and rescue, hazardous materials-
related emergences, residential inspections, public education, and maintains facilities,
apparatus, and equipment.
Training Provides and manages training for each division and maintains cyclical certification
requirements.
Similar to the Police Department, most administrative staff and sworn firefighters that serve in a
management capacity are not eligible for overtime (exempt). Among sworn personnel, firefighters, fire
engineers, captains, and battalion chiefs are non-exempt, while the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chiefs are
exempt. Exhibit 61 illustrates which ranked positions are overtime eligible.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 108
Exhibit 61
105
STAFFING MODEL
The SMFD has a total of five stations located across the City; administrative staff work out of the Public
Safety Administration Building. Most fire departments operate on a minimum staffing model that
specifically defines the number and skills of staff on duty 24/7. The SMFD has a minimum staffing level of
35 sworn personnel each day. According to MOU requirements, each shift must comprise of one battalion
chief, seven captains, eight fire engineers, and 19 firefighters. Of these 35 personnel, 16 must be certified
paramedics.
The SMFD’s work schedule is a modified 24- hour work schedule, also known as the ¾ schedule. On this
schedule, firefighters work a 24-hour shift followed by a day off, another 24-hour shift followed by a day
off, then an additional 24-hour shift and four days off. The Department’s budgeted Suppression and
Rescue positions (105 sworn FTEs) exactly align with the minimum staffing level requirements.
Therefore, anytime a firefighter is out of work for training, use of leave, vacation, injury, or other purpose,
another firefighter must backfill that position and will earn overtime. Overtime shifts are primarily filled
using a “rank-for-rank” system: they must be filled with personnel within or above the rank of the vacant
position. For example, a fire engineer would be allowed to backfill for another fire engineer or a
firefighter, although they would not be able to fill a vacant captain or battalion chief position. On
infrequent occasions, the overtime shift can be filled with qualified personnel working in an out-of-class
capacity to fill the temporarily vacant position.
Vacant positions can be filled voluntarily or involuntarily. SMFD management report that most overtime
is filled voluntarily, although the Department still typically force-hires staff to fill a vacancy once or twice
per day. When the SMFD must involuntarily fill a vacant position, they use a number of rules that are
105 Four captains work Administrative Assignments.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 109
integrated into the scheduling system. The system assigns overtime shifts within the parameters of the
department’s policies and firefighter preferences. Battalion chiefs also monitor overtime assignments.
Prior to the 2017-2020 MOU, the Fire Department did not have a policy or otherwise monitor the amount
of overtime taken by staff. Overtime is common and required in most fire departments, although
continued amounts of excessive overtime may have negative implications on employee health and
performance. With the implementation of the new MOU, firefighters are not allowed to work more than
five consecutive days without a break, although the Fire Chief may grant exceptions.
VACANCIES
The SMFD operated with a 6-12% vacancy rate due to unfilled budgeted positons during FY 2014-FY
2016. The SMFD had between 9 and 14 vacancies during the three years of this study. The Department
has not requested a staffing study that would determine if additional positions are required to satisfy
service level requirements since 2000.The Department added 6 sworn firefighter positions each in FY
2015 and FY2017.
Exhibit 62
Exhibit 63 demonstrates the number of net positions filled by the SMFD during FY 2014-FY 2016, taking
retirees and other separations into account. The relatively small net gain demonstrates that although the
SMFD hired between 8 and 18 positions over the last three fiscal years, amounting to 10-20% of the total
firefighter workforce, the overall increase in staff was minimal with the exception of FY 2017 when the
Department added 6 new positions. The lengthy hiring process for firefighters likely contributed to
increased vacancies, particularly due to existing personnel separating from the Department, being
promoted out of fire suppression services, or taking a position in Fire Prevention.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Sworn Budget 114 114 120
Sworn Actual 101 103 113
Civilian Budget 15 15 15.8
Civilian Actual 14 14 13.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Budgeted to Actual Fire Staffing
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 110
Exhibit 63
OVERTIME
Firefighter overtime is governed by the FLSA as well as the terms and conditions laid out in the
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 1109’s MOU with the City. According to the FLSA,
firefighters may work up to 212 hours in a 28-day period before receiving overtime pay. If the work period
differs, the same ratio of days to hours still applies. The MOU also specifies overtime pay for special
circumstances, including:
• Emergency work: If a firefighter is called into work for an emergency situation outside of their normal
schedule, they are credited with a minimum of four overtime hours.
• Non-emergency work: If firefighters are required to perform additional work that is considered non-
emergency outside of their normal schedule, they are credited with the greater of three hours or actual
hours in overtime pay.
• Extension of shift: Firefighters working beyond their shift receive at least two hours of overtime.
• Court appearances: Firefighters may be required to appear in court due to a matter relating to their
employment with the City. If this appearance occurs when the employee would normally be off-duty,
they are paid a minimum of three hours of overtime.
The MOU also provides overtime pay based on hours paid rather than hours worked. Therefore, if a
firefighter typically works Monday and Wednesday, but takes those two days off and picks up a shift on
Thursday, the shift on Thursday would be paid on an overtime basis.
OVERTIME UTILIZATION
Similar to the Police Department, the SMFD requests a certain amount of overtime dollars each year as
part of the budget process to account for planned vacancy coverage and special events. Between FY 2014
and FY 2016, the Department’s overtime budget and actual expenditures both increased by approximately
$800,000. Although overtime increased, the results of a breakeven analysis presented later in this section
demonstrate that the overtime rate for an existing employee costs an estimated 9.3% less to 6.5% more
than the hourly rate of a new employee.
10
8
18
8 7
10
2 1
8
FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
Sworn Fire Hires, Separations, and Net Gains
Hires Separations Net Gain
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 111
Exhibit 64
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET ACTUAL OVERAGE
2014-15 $5,774,665 $6,217,553 $442,888
2015-16 $6,254,373 $7,008,102 $763,729
2016-17 $6,565,535 $7,041,682 $476,147
Exhibit 65
The proportion of SMFD’s operating budget spent on overtime remained approximately constant at
around 18%, as shown in Exhibit 66. In FY 2016, there was a significant increase in overtime due to strike
team deployments across the state of California to fight wildfires.
Santa Monica’s total firefighter wages comprise approximately the same percentage of overtime as peer
cities. This suggests that the City’s use of overtime is aligned with average overtime among peer cities.
Exhibit 66
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Operating Budget $32,755,878 $35,903,531 $39,669,180
Overtime as a Percent of
Expenditures 18.98%19.52%17.75%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
Fire Expenditures and Overtime as a Percent of
Expenditures
60.0%
11.6%
28.9%
61.4%
11.1%
27.5%
Regular Pay Special Pay Overtime
Fire Percent of Total Pay from Overtime
(FY 2016)
Santa Monica Peer Cities
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 112
The four greatest drivers of SMFD overtime are coverage due to vacation leave, vacancies, sick leave, and
training. These categories make up nearly 75% of the Department’s total expenditures in FY 2017.
Appendix G: Fire Overtime Summary includes a table summarizing SMFD expenditures by category for
FY 2014-FY 2016.
VACATION LEAVE
Vacation leave was the largest driver of SMFD overtime in FY 2017; coverage for firefighters taking
vacation leave made up 26% of total overtime expenditures. Due to constant staffing level requirements,
any time a firefighter takes vacation leave another firefighter must backfill the vacant position, resulting
in overtime. The amount of vacation leave a firefighter accrues increases each year, up to a maximum of
two days per month after 20 years of service. As the Department’s workforce increases in tenure, the
amount of overtime related to backfilling positions for firefighters taking vacation leave may increase.
This may explain the slight increase in vacation coverage overtime in FY 2017.
Exhibit 67
VACANCY COVERAGE
Vacancy coverage was the second greatest driver of SMFD overtime. Vacancy coverage overtime results
from a firefighter separating from the Department, whether for retirement, a lateral move, or termination.
Most vacant firefighter positions take months to fill because of the lengthy hiring processes. The percent
of total overtime expenditures decreased slightly over the three years of study, largely due to a decrease in
the number of vacancies in the SMFD.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Vacation Leave Overtime
Expenditures $1,400,245 $1,581,792 $1,855,498
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 21.90%21.96%25.64%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
Vacation Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 113
Exhibit 68
SICK LEAVE
Sick leave was the third largest driver of SMFD overtime, making up 17% of total overtime expenditures in
FY 2017. Firefighters who are unable to work their assigned shift due to illness must have their position
backfilled by another sworn employee. Overtime related to backfilling positions for firefighters who are
out sick increased 5% between FY 2014 and FY 2016.
Exhibit 69
TRAINING
Coverage for firefighters during training was the fourth largest driver of SMFD overtime, comprising 12%
of total overtime expenditures in FY 2017. During FY 2017, 4 firefighters attended paramedic training and
18 recruits were trained in the Fire Academy. Firefighters receive training to become and maintain
certification as a firefighter and, for some, a paramedic. Overtime related to training for grant-reimbursed
training, paramedic school training, and training academy are represented in Exhibit 70.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Vacancy Coverage Overtime
Expenditures $1,051,086 $1,174,846 $1,003,009
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 16.44%16.31%13.86%
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
18%
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
Vacancy Coverage Overtime Expenditures
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Sick and Vacation Leave
Overtime Expenditures $796,511 $921,385 $1,204,851
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 12.46%12.79%16.65%
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
18%
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
Sick Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 114
Exhibit 70
Overtime expenditures for outside training fluctuates year-to-year based on the number of firefighters
who are training in the academy, in paramedic school, and in specialty disciplines like Urban Search and
Rescue and Hazardous Materials. Paramedic school training requires a 9-month commitment and the
training academy typically takes 3-4 months. Some training costs are reimbursed through grants.
Firefighters also receive additional internal trainings related to the scope of their duties, which is included
in the “Other” category discussed below.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Overtime related to firefighters missing work due to a workers’ compensation claim varied year-to-year.
Between FY 2014-FY 2016, overtime from injuries ranged from 5% to 14% of total overtime expenditures.
Due to the nature of the job, firefighters are susceptible to injury in the course of their employment. While
the Department takes measures to help prevent injury, firefighters remain at risk of injury.
Exhibit 71
Exhibit 72 shows the number of claims, lost duty days, and light duty days between FY 2014 and FY 2016.
Between 2.7% and 4.4% of firefighters were out on workers’ compensation over the course of the fiscal
year.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Training Overtime Expenditures $766,977 $679,547 $806,954
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 11.99%9.43%11.15%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
Training Overtime Expenditures
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Workers' Compensation
Overtime Expenditures $493,491 $993,049 $375,999
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 7.72%13.78%5.20%
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
Workers' Compensation Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 115
Exhibit 72
FISCAL
YEAR
CLAIMS
ADDED
LOST
DAYS
LIGHT DUTY
DAYS
EMPLOYEE
VACANCY
EQUIVALENT
(LOST)
% OF
BUDGETED
POSITIONS
2014-15 20 1143 71 3.1 FTE 3.0%
2015-16 39 1,685 220 4.6 FTE 4.4%
2016-17 23 1,018 172 2.8 FTE 2.7%
OTHER LEAVE
Overtime expenditures related to firefighters taking other forms of leave comprise a small portion of the
SMFD’s overall overtime. Other types of leave include bereavement leave, jury duty, military service, and
administrative leave. In FY 2017, there was a spike in administrative leave which caused an increase in
overtime.
Exhibit 73
EXTERNAL EVENTS
The Fire Department assists with two primary types of external events: film jobs and strike team
deployments. As discussed earlier, film jobs are requested through Film LA, an agency that has a
negotiated rate with the City to film within city limits and provide public safety personnel to redirect
traffic and maintain set boundaries 106. Film companies reimburse the Department’s overtime costs.
106 The Fire Department does not track overtime expenditures related to Movie Jobs specifically; therefore, the reimbursed amount
is used to approximate expenditures.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Other Leave Overtime
Expenditures $132,542 $195,715 $310,719
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 2.07%2.72%4.29%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
Other Leave Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 116
Exhibit 74
Movie jobs are an unpredictable source of overtime as they are completed at filmmakers’ convenience.
Therefore, increases in related overtime expenditures are challenging to include in SMFD’s requested
overtime budget.
In addition to movie jobs, the SMFD also participates in strike team deployments to fight wildfires when
requested by Cal Fire. The overtime incurred as a result of these deployments is reimbursed by the state
through a contracted rate 107. Rates are set by a statewide committee, including base administrative rate,
personnel base rate, and equipment rates.
Exhibit 75
In 2015, California’s wildfire season was particularly trying, resulting in nearly 900,000 burned acres.
The SMFD deployed a number of strike teams in the summer of 2015 to help contain wildfires across the
state of California. No teams were deployed during FY 2017.
107 The Fire Department does not track overtime expenditures related to Strike Team deployments specifically; therefore, the
reimbursed amount is used to approximate expenditures.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Movie jobs $306,379 $461,451 $360,391
Reimbursed Amount $306,379 $461,451 $360,391
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 4.79%6.41%4.98%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
Movie Job Overtime Expenditures
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Strike Team Overtime
Expenditures $71,261 $505,347 $-
Reimbursed Amount $71,261 $505,347 $-
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 1.11%7.01%0.00%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Strike Team Overtime Expenditures
FY 2014-15 to FY 2016-17
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 117
CITY EVENTS AND SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS
City events and special assignments comprise a small portion of the SMFD’s total operating expenditures.
Overall, these expenditures decreased between FY 2014 and FY 2016. The SMFD participates in city
events to help provide emergency services and crowd control. These events include demonstrations,
parades, and other local events. Additionally, this category of overtime also includes special assignments
and investigations into fires occurring within Santa Monica city limits.
Exhibit 76
OTHER OVERTIME EXPENDITURES
This category of overtime encompasses all additional reasons for overtime, including internal trainings,
additional workload, and administrative matters. The amount of overtime included in this category is also
partially influenced by the data tracking of other overtime sources, which explains a portion of the year-
to-year variance.
Exhibit 77
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
City Events and Special
Assignments $151,104 $105,102 $86,066
Reimbursed Amount $69,159 $59,461 $34,400
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 2.36%1.46%1.19%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
City Events and Special Assignments Overtime
Expenditures
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Other Overtime Expenditures $1,047,956 $389,868 $1,038,194
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 16.39%5.41%14.35%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
Other Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 118
ADDITIONAL CITY EVENTS
Santa Monica hosts the Twilight Concert Series and the final leg of the Los Angeles Marathon. As noted
earlier, these events result in significant public safety overtime; however, overtime expenditures deriving
from these events are paid through other City funds and do not appear in SMFD’s reported overtime
expenditures.
Santa Monica hosted 10 concerts on the pier each summer between FY 2014 and FY 2016, and the
concerts grew significantly in popularity. In FY 2016, the City estimated between 15,000 and 20,000
people attended each summer concert. The SMFD provides emergency and medical services to
concertgoers. Overtime expenditures related to the Twilight Concert Series increased over the study
period due to high attendance. Public safety overtime for the concerts is paid through the City’s general
fund.
Exhibit 78
Santa Monica also hosts the final three miles of the Los Angeles Marathon each March; an estimated
25,000 runners participated in 2017. The SMFD provides emergency and medical services to runners and
spectators. The overtime incurred to provide a public safety presence at the marathon is fully reimbursed
by the marathon.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Other Overtime Expenditures $82,545 $104,985 $108,232
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 1.29%1.46%1.50%
0%
4%
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Twilight Concert Series Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 119
Exhibit 79
BREAKEVEN ANALYSIS
Overtime hours and compensation is driven by an insufficient number of staff to fulfill service level
expectations of the community. It is a common practice among public safety agencies to use overtime to
help fill service gaps. The majority of overtime could be eliminated if the SMFD increased staffing levels to
a level likely to exceed the current budgeted amounts. However, increasing staffing levels to reduce
overtime expenditures would likely significantly increase the Department’s overall operating expenditures
and ultimately the cost of providing fire and emergency medical services.
Overtime pay is calculated as 1.5 times an employee’s regular-rate salary and does not have an impact on
the employee’s retirement or medical costs. In FY 2017, the City spent 33.3% of a firefighter’s total cost of
employment on health and retirement benefits. When the Department hires a new employee, the City has
to pay these additional costs in benefits. The cost of benefits often makes hiring an employee more
expensive than paying an existing employee to work overtime.
To determine if it is more cost-effective to hire additional staff or fulfill service level requirements or
continue paying overtime, we analyzed hourly rates for overtime eligible positions. Our analysis compared
the hourly rate of a new employee, including retirement and medical costs, to the hourly rate paid for
overtime using 2016 GCC compensation data. Exhibit 80 summarizes the results of this analysis.
Appendix A: Wages and Benefits Comparison Methodology contains a description of the methodology
used for this analysis and additional data elements.
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Other Overtime Expenditures $94,504 $91,093 $85,438
Percent of Total Overtime
Expenditures 1.48%1.26%1.18%
0%
4%
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000 $90,000
$100,000
Los Angeles Marathon Overtime Expenditures
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 120
Exhibit 80
MINIMUM MEDIAN MAXIMUM
Ba
t
t
a
l
i
o
n
C
h
i
e
f
Fully Burdened Rate $100.99 N/A – Not Enough Data $101.24
Overtime Rate $94.66 N/A – Not Enough Data $98.25
Percent Difference of Overtime
Rate & Fully Burdened Rate -6.3% N/A – Not Enough Data -3.0%
Fi
r
e
Ca
p
t
a
i
n
Fully Burdened Rate $83.01 $93.29 $100.53
Overtime Rate $75.33 $91.15 $100.91
Percent Difference of Overtime
Rate & Fully Burdened Rate -9.3% -2.3% 0.4%
Fi
r
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
Fully Burdened Rate $65.44 $79.17 $84.40
Overtime Rate $63.41 $76.10 $83.09
Percent Difference of Overtime
Rate & Fully Burdened Rate -3.1% -3.9% -1.6%
Fi
r
e
f
i
g
h
t
e
r
Fully Burdened Rate $44.76 $66.34 $71.41
Overtime Rate $43.99 $64.44 $76.04
Percent Difference of Overtime
Rate & Fully Burdened Rate -1.7% -2.9% 6.5%
The results of this analysis show that the hourly overtime rate for an existing employee is estimated to
cost 9.3% less to 6.5% more than the hourly rate of a new full-time employee, depending on the position
and step level of the employee.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 121
APPENDIX A: WAGES AND BENEFITS COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
A. DATA SOURCE
STATE CONTROLLER’S OFFICE’S GOVERNMENT COMPENSATION IN
CALIFORNIA
The State Controller's Office’s (SCO) Government Compensation in California (GCC) website initially
collected government compensation data as a component of the financial transaction reports from cities,
counties, and special districts, but in 2014 the Legislature explicitly authorized the SCO to collect
compensation data and required this data be published on its website. In August 2017, Moss Adams
downloaded the available compensation data files for city employee compensation in California from
fiscal years 2012 through 2016. The information presented is posted as submitted by each reporting
public employer. The SCO notes that it is not responsible for the accuracy of this information.
ECONOMIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ERI)
ERI provides robust salary, cost-of-living, and executive compensation survey data through multiple
databases comprised of data collected from thousands of salary surveys. Analysis is conducted on wages
by geographic area, size of company, years of experience, and industry. Data values are automatically
updated to match market movement rates, which allows for historical and future modeling.
Data inputs for creating position profiles included:
• Industry: All Industry Aggregate
• Location: Santa Monica, CA
• Operating Cost: $507,991,516
• Median of Base Pay (regular plus special pay)
B. DATA ANALYSIS
In order to provide a more thorough review of Santa Monica’s total employee costs and the overall
compensation, including comparison against the identified peer cities, Moss Adams reviewed the data and
the reported departments, and in good faith standardized the departments to better match Santa Monica’s
structure. Limited data cleanup was also conducted on position titles (e.g., changing “Admin Analyst” to
match “Administrative Analyst” and “Dir” to “Director”) to better facilitate the peer position analysis.
Over 103,000 lines of data were imported into PowerBI, a data visualization tool, to analyze five years of
compensation data from the GCC across the identified peer cities. PowerBI allowed Moss Adams to
provide a more in-depth look across all compensation categories and peer cities over the past five years.
Calculations were made on this data in order to calculate average costs for cash compensation, benefits,
and retirement (see glossary for equations).
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 122
In order to better compare full-time positions (and filter out positions that were reported as vacant or
temporary), the GCC data was filtered to remove any position with reported Regular Pay less than the
minimum salary classification amount for that position. Positions such as “City Temporary Worker” and
“Intern” were also excluded from this analysis.
C. LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA
The GCC does not provide a systemized way to distinguish between or separate full- and part-time
positions, or between employees in transition (new hires; promoted employees; retired employees). There
is no timely way to validate the accuracy of the data.
Cities that report many zero or low amounts of regular pay (e.g., Santa Barbara) may be skewing the
overall averages and percentiles.
D. GLOSSARY
• Average (Mean): The sum of two or more values divided by the total number of values.
• Base Pay: The sum of regular pay and special pay (such as incentive and bonus pay), not including
overtime or lump-sum payments.
• Cash Compensation: The sum of regular pay and overtime pay.
• Deferred Compensation Plan: The dollar amount paid by the employer toward the employee's
defined contribution/deferred compensation plan. This includes 401(a), (b), (k), 403(b), and 457
plans.
• Defined Benefit Plan Contribution: A portion of the total contribution paid by the employer
towards the defined benefit plan for the year, which sometimes includes payment toward the
unfunded liability. The defined benefit plan contribution is paid directly to the employer sponsored
retirement plan and is not a part of the employee’s compensation for that calendar year. The amount
of retirement benefits paid to an employee upon retirement are determined using a formula, based in
part on an employee's age at retirement, final average salary, and length of service. Cities, counties,
and special districts began reporting this data starting with 2011.
• Employee's Retirement Cost Covered: The dollar amount paid by the employer toward the
employee's share of pension costs.
• Health/Dental/Vision Contribution: The dollar amount paid by the employer toward the
employee's health, dental, and/or vision care plans.
• Lump-Sum Pay: The dollar amount paid to the employee for one-time cash outs (such as paid
excess vacation and sick leave).
• Max Classification Salary: The maximum annual salary as reported by the local government for
the particular classification. Position listings on this site do not distinguish between full-time and
part-time employees.
• Median: The middle value in a series of values laid out in numerical order – the middle point of a
data set.
• Min Classification Salary: The minimum annual salary as reported by the local government for
the particular classification. Position listings on this site do not distinguish between full-time and
part-time employees.
• Overtime Pay: The dollar amount paid to the employee for working more than normal hours.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 123
• Position: The job title provided by the employer. Position listings on this website do not distinguish
between full-time and part-time employees.
• Regular Pay: The dollar amount paid to the employee for working regular hours. GCC data does not
distinguish between full-time and part-time employees.
• Retirement Total Cost: The summing of Defined Benefit Plan Contribution, Deferred
Compensation Plan, and Employee’s Retirement Cost Covered, as defined above.
• Special Pay: The dollar amount paid to the employee for any special pay not reported as regular pay,
overtime pay, or lump-sum pay (such as car allowances, meeting stipends, special pay, bonus pay,
etc.).
• Total Compensation: Total payroll wages reported by the employer on a W-2. Amounts listed may
include regular pay, overtime, cash payments for vacation and sick leave, and bonus payments.
Position listings on the GCC site do not distinguish between full-time and part-time employees.
• Total Retirement and Health Cost: Amount paid by the employer toward the employer
sponsored retirement plan plus health, dental, and/or vision benefits for the employee and
dependents. This amount sometimes includes payments toward the unfunded liability of the employer
sponsored retirement plan.
• Total Wages: The sum of all wages paid by a city.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 124
APPENDIX B: P E ER BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY
More than 130 positions across the cities from each department and/or division were identified for
comparison of Santa Monica compensation to peer cities, based on commonality between cities. Positions
that may be common across multiple departments (e.g., Administrative Assistant) are grouped together
for a holistic view. Positions were categorized through a review of city organization charts, budgets, and
job descriptions. At the department level, the hierarchy for position levels matches Santa Monica
nomenclature (e.g. City Clerk to Assistant City Clerk to Deputy City Clerk).
Cash compensation was compared across eleven cities, which include Anaheim, Beverly Hills, Burbank,
Culver City, El Segundo, Glendale, Pasadena, Redondo Beach, Santa Barbara, and Torrance. Cash
compensation data includes regular pay, overtime pay, and special pay (excluding lump sum payments) in
FY 2016. The data was sourced from employee W-2 compensation data that cities are required to report to
the California SCO. Appendix A: Wages and Benefits Comparison Methodology provides a detailed
methodology and other notes on the data used in this analysis. Employees who only worked a portion of
the year are excluded from this analysis because their compensation falls below the minimum base pay for
their positions, which would skew the data down.
Over 60 positions were selected for comparison to the private sector. Private sector cash compensation
data is sourced from ERI compensation databases, based on the factors identified in the data notes
provided in Appendix A: Wages and Benefits Comparison Methodology. ERI compensation position
reports are customized by factors including geography (including cost-of-living); organizational size
(complexity of organization); and reflect an industry-neutral aggregate (all-industry average).
The public and private-sector workforces differ in several significant ways that limit the value of
comparing compensation between the two sectors. A larger portion of government employees work in
professional occupations, which generally require more formal training or experience. Partly because of
that difference, the average age of government employees is substantially higher than that of private-
sector employees. Additionally, the greater concentration of employees in professional occupations also
means that they are more likely to have a bachelor’s degree. According to the Congressional Budget Office,
while the average wages of government workers with a bachelor’s degree or less exceeded the average
wages of their private-sector counterparts, public-sectors employee with higher degree earned 24% less
per hour, on average, than similar workers in the private sector.108
• 25th Percentile: the point at which 25% of cash compensation values are lower.
• Median (50th Percentile): the middle value of cash compensation.
• 75th Percentile: the point at which 25% of cash compensation values are higher.
• Peer Average: the average (mean) value of cash compensation.
108 Source: Congressional Budget Office. “Comparing Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees 2011 to 2015.”
Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Congress. Apr. 2017. <www.cbo.gov>.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 125
APPENDIX C: PEER CITY PENSION FORMULAS
CITY EMPLOYEE
TYPE
HIRE
DATE
BENEFIT
FORMULA
BENEFIT
VESTING
SCHED.
RET. AGE
MO.
BENEFITS AS
% OF COMP.
EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
EMPLOYER
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
Sa
n
t
a
M
o
n
i
c
a
Miscellaneous
>7/1/2012 2.7% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.7% 8% 19.36%
7/1/2012-
12/31/2012 2.0% @ 55 5 years 50-62 1.43-2.42% 7% 19.36%
1/1/2013+ 2% @ 62 5 years 52-67 1-2.5% 6.25% 19.36%
Police
>12/31/2012 3% @ 50 5 years 50 3% 9% 42.32%
1/1/2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 12.75% 42.32%
Fire
>12/31/2012 3.0% @55 5 years 50-55 2.4-3.0% 9% 32.21%
1/1/2013 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 11.25% 32.21%
An
a
h
e
i
m
Miscellaneous
>2013 2.7% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.70% 8% 26.37%
2013+ 2% @ 62 5 years 52-65 2% 6.75% 26.37%
Police
>2013 3% @ 50 5 years 50 3% 9% 35.47%
2013+ 2.7% @ 52 5 years 52-57 2.7% 12.75% 35.47%
Fire
>2013 3% @ 50 5 years 50 3% 9% 38.10%
2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 11.25% 38.10%
Be
v
e
r
l
y
H
i
l
l
s
Miscellaneous
>2013 2.5% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.0-2.5% 8% 18.78%
2013+ 2% @ 62 5 years 52-67 1.0-2.5% 6.25% 18.78%
Safety
>2013 3% @ 50 5 years 50 3% 9% 41.34%
2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 12% 41.34%
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 126
CITY EMPLOYEE
TYPE
HIRE
DATE
BENEFIT
FORMULA
BENEFIT
VESTING
SCHED.
RET. AGE
MO.
BENEFITS AS
% OF COMP.
EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
EMPLOYER
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
Bu
r
b
a
n
k
Miscellaneous
>2013 2.5% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.0-2.7% 8% 16.53%
2013+ 2% @ 62 5 years 52-67 1.0-2.5% 6.75% 16.53%
Police
>2013 3% @ 50 5 years 50 3% 9% 33.03%
2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 12.75% 33.03%
Fire
>2013 3% @ 55 5 years 50 3% 9% 20.01%
2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 11.25% 20.01%
Cu
l
v
e
r
C
i
t
y
Miscellaneous
>7/1/2011 2.5% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.0-2.5% 8% 19.06%
7/1/2011-
12/31/2012 2% @ 60 5 years 50-63 1.092%-2.418% 7% 19.06%
1/1/2013+
(Prior
PERS)
2% @ 60 5 years 50-63 1.092-2.418% 7% 19.06%
1/1/2013+
(New to
PERS)
2% @ 62 5 years 52-67 1.0-2.5% 6.25% 19.06%
Police
>7/1/2011 3% @ 50 5 years 50-55 3% 9% 39.231%
7/1/2011-
12/31/2012 3% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.4-3.0% 9% 39.231%
1/1/2013+
(Prior
PERS)
3% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.4-3.0% 9% 39.231%
1/1/2013+
(New to
PERS)
2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 12.25% 39.23%
Fire >7/1/2011 3% @ 50 5 years 50-55 2.4-3.0% 9% 39.231%
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 127
CITY EMPLOYEE
TYPE
HIRE
DATE
BENEFIT
FORMULA
BENEFIT
VESTING
SCHED.
RET. AGE
MO.
BENEFITS AS
% OF COMP.
EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
EMPLOYER
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
7/1/2011-
12/31/2012 3% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.4-3.0% 9% 39.231%
1/1/2013+
(Prior
PERS)
3% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.4-3.0% 9% 39.231%
1/1/2013+
(New to
PERS)
2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 12.25% 39.23%
El
S
e
g
u
n
d
o
Miscellaneous
>1/1/2013 2% @ 55 5 years 50-55 1.4-2.4% 7% 17.73%
2013+
Classic 2% @ 60 5 years 50-60 1.1-2.4% 7% 17.73%
2013+ New
to PERS 2% @ 62 5 years 52-62 1.0-2.5% 7% 17.73%
Safety
>10/6/2012 2% @ 50/55 5 years 50 2.4-3.0% 9% 46.60%
2013+
Classic 3% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.4-3.0% 9% 46.60%
2013+ New
to PERS 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 9% 46.60%
Gl
e
n
d
a
l
e
Miscellaneous
>1/1/2011 2% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.0-2.5% 0.0-3.0% 17.829%
1/1/2011-
12/31/2012 2% @ 55 5 years 50-63 1.426-2.418% 0.0-3.0% 17.892-20.892%
2013+ 2% @ 62 5 years 52-67 1.0-2.5% 0.0-3.0% 17.892-20.392%
Safety
>1/1/2011 3% @ 50 5 years 50-55 3% 3.5-3.75% 41.34%
1/1/2011-
12/31/2012 3% @ 55 5 yeas 50-55 2.4-3.0% 3.5-3.75% 34.538-34.788%
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 128
CITY EMPLOYEE
TYPE
HIRE
DATE
BENEFIT
FORMULA
BENEFIT
VESTING
SCHED.
RET. AGE
MO.
BENEFITS AS
% OF COMP.
EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
EMPLOYER
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 3.5-3.75% 34.538-34.788%
In
g
l
e
w
o
o
d
Miscellaneous
>2013 2.5% @ 55 5 years 50 2.0-2.5% 8% 18.3%
2013+ 2% @ 62 5 years 52 1.0-2.5% 8% 18.3%
Safety
>2013 3% @ 50 5 years 50 2.4-3.0% 9% 35.06%
2013+ 2% @ 57 5 years 50 1.426-2.0% 9% 35.06%
Pa
s
a
d
e
n
a
Miscellaneous
>2013 2.5% @ 55 5 years 50 2.0-.25% 7.97% 17.38%
2013+ 5 years
Safety
>2013 3% @ 55 5 years 50 2.4-3.0% 9% 27.22%
2013+ 5 years
Re
d
o
n
d
o
B
e
a
c
h
Miscellaneous
>5/1/2012 2% @ 55 5 years 50-63 1.426-2.418% 7% 18.18%
5/1/2012-
12/31/2012 2% @ 60 5 years 50-63 1.092-2.418% 7% 18.18%
2013+ 2% @ 62 5 years 52-67 1.0-2.5% 6.5% 18.18%
Safety
>5/1/2012 3% @ 50/55 5 years 50-55 2.4-3.0% 9% 48.06%
5/1/2012-
12/31/2012 3% @ 55 5 yeas 50-55 2.4-3.0% 9% 48.06%
2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.0-2.7% 11.25% 48.06%
Sa
n
t
a
B
a
r
b
a
r
a
Miscellaneous
>2013 2.7% @ 55 5 years 50 2.0-2.7% 8% 24.73%
2013+ 2% @ 62 5 years 52 1.0-2.5% 6.75% 24.73%
Police >2013 3% @ 50 5 years 50 3% 9% 35.96%
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 129
CITY EMPLOYEE
TYPE
HIRE
DATE
BENEFIT
FORMULA
BENEFIT
VESTING
SCHED.
RET. AGE
MO.
BENEFITS AS
% OF COMP.
EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
EMPLOYER
CONTRIBUTION
RATE
2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50 2.0-2.7% 12.75% 25.96%
Fire
>2013 3% @ 50 5 years 50 3% 9% 36.92%
2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50 2.0-2.7% 12.75% 36.92%
To
r
r
a
n
c
e
Miscellaneous
>2013 2% @ 55 5 years 50-55 2.0% 7% 15.18%
2013+ 2% @ 62 5 years 52-65 2% 6.75% 15.18%
Police
>2013 3% @ 50 5 years 50 3% 9% 54.05%
2013+ 2.7% @ 52 5 years 50-57 2.7% 12.75% 54.05%
Fire
>2013 3% @ 50 5 years 50 3% 9% 46.70%
2013+ 2.7% @ 57 5 years 50-57 2.7% 11.25% 46.70%
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 130
APPENDIX D: BENEFITS OFFERED
CITY MEDICAL DENTAL VISION EAP DISABILITY LIFE
INSURANCE FSA RHS 457 WELLNESS
PROGRAM COMMUTE
Santa
Monica X X X X X X X X X X
Anaheim X X X X X X X X X X X
Burbank X X X X X X X X X X
Beverly
Hills X X X X X X X X
Torrance X X X X X X X X X X
Culver
City X X X X X X X X
Pasadena X X X X X X X X X X X
Glendale X X X X X X X X X X
Inglewood X X X X X X X X X
El
Segundo X X X X X X X X X
Santa
Barbara X X X X X X X X X X X
Redondo
Beach X X X X X X X X
# Peers 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 11 9 5 5
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 131
APPENDIX E : PEER CITY DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DATA
SANTA
MONICA ANAHEIM BEVERLY
HILLS BURBANK CULVER
CITY
EL
SEGUNDO GLENDALE INGLEWOOD PASADENA REDONDO
BEACH
SANTA
BARBARA TORRANCE
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
10
9
Population 92,987 351,043 34,871 105,368 39,691 17,063 201,020 11,095 140,881 69,494 91,930 148,495
Square miles 8.41 50.92 5.71 17.34 5.11 5.46 30.45 9.07 22.97 6.20 21.10 20.48
Persons per
square mile 11,057 6,894 6,107 6,077 7,767 3,125 6,602 1,313 6,133 11,209 4,357 7,251
Daytime
population
(employment)
126,600 352,302 68,476 136,692 59,850 62,172 196,152 101,727 173,396 55,147 105,766 170,104
Daytime
population
(employment +
visitors)110
169,592 431,831 96,967 160,601 - 67,799 204,105 - 193,086 62,197 127,432 192,040
Ci
t
y
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
11
1
Operating cost $507,991,516 $1,743,524,375112 $448,119,185 $659,018,444113 $220,109,311 $123,109,311 $819,533,134 114 $103,192,627 $690,440,000 115 $83,875,745 $355,141,316 $299,328,883
FTEs 2,293 1,929 951.7 1422.5 691.7 330 1579 Unavailable 2024 439 1,030 1498.7
Net Pension
Liability $386,760,127 $383,378,000 $202,469,000 $275,441,000 $143,401,863 $109,933,608 $430,182,000 $227,011,005 $386,000,000 $129,892,979 $249,860,418 $374,022,800
Operating cost
per capita $5,463 $4,967 $12,851 $6,254 $5,546 $7,215 $4,077 $8,668 $4,901 $1,207 $1,207 $2,016
Operating cost
per FTE $221,540 $903,849 $470,862 $463,282 $318,215 $373,011 $519,020 Unavailable $341,189 $191,061 $191,061 $199,726
FTEs per 10,000
residents 246.6 54.9 272.9 135 174.3 193.4 78.6 Unavailable 143.6 63.2 63.2 100.9
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
11
6
Median
household
income
$76,580 $60,752 $97,327 $66,076 $81,189 $85,727 $52,574 $42,044 $72,402 $105,145 $66,017 $79,549
Median home
price $1,030,500 $431,400 $1,727,600 $586,200 $632,000 $784,800 $619,200 $335,000 $628,000 $736,100 $846,400 $638,700
Median rental
cost $1,593 $1,374 $1,928 $1,409 $1,655 $1,575 $1,296 $1,103 $1,372 $1,751 $1,514 $1,473
Percent owner-
occupied homes 26.1 27.9 24 26.1 25.6 22.9 27.1 30.1 43.6 49.9 39.9 55.1
109 2010 Census Data
110 Population (also referred to as Resident Population) is the number of people who live in each city according to the 2014 US Census. Daytime Population is calculated for each city by taking Total Population (Table B01003 of 2014 US Census); adding the Worker Population (B08604); subtracting
Workers who work in place of residence (B08008); subtracting Workers who work outside place of residence (B08008); and then adding an approximation for tourism (annual visitor numbers sourced from Visitor Bureaus or City Economic Development Departments, as available, divided by 365).
111 Data collected from FY 2017 budget documents.
112 Includes electric utility.
113 Includes electric utility.
114 Includes electric utility.
115 Includes electric utility.
116 2010 Census Data
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 132
APPENDIX F : POLICE OVERTIME SUMMARY
The table below presents the GCC data for Police Departments in each city, showing what percentage each
component - regular pay, special pay, and overtime pay – represents of cash compensation.
77
.
1
%
68
.
4
%
66
.
1
%
69
.
4
%
68
.
1
%
75
.
7
%
64
.
0
%
80
.
1
%
63
.
3
%
85
.
6
%
71
.
2
%
65
.
2
%
0.
9
%
10
.
6
%
20
.
1
%
19
.
9
%
20
.
9
%
10
.
7
%
13
.
5
%
1.
7
%
21
.
2
%
2.
0
%
12
.
6
%
19
.
2
%
21
.
9
%
21
.
1
%
13
.
7
%
10
.
7
%
10
.
9
%
13
.
6
%
22
.
5
%
18
.
2
%
15
.
4
%
12
.
3
%
16
.
2
%
15
.
5
%
Police Department Components of Cash Compensation
by Peer City
Regular Pay Other Pay Overtime Pay
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 133
OVERTIME DRIVER FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17
$ % $ % $ %
Los Angeles Marathon* $122,434.11 1.73% $121,770.33 1.66% $120,082.37 1.40%
Twilight Concert Series* $232,518.88 3.29% $240,313.50 3.27% $471,760.65 5.50%
Films and special events $410,529.47 5.80% $354,806.70 4.83% $381,586.94 4.45%
Special details $1,188,214.53 16.79% $1,404,402.14 19.13% $1,411,599.47 16.46%
Workload requirements $2,179,164.97 30.80% $2,735,157.05 37.26% $3,314,644.22 38.64%
Holiday overtime pay $382,156.62 5.40% $360,593.44 4.91% $327,089.71 3.81%
Court appearances $424,810.89 6.0% $407,295.13 5.55% $397,694.46 4.64%
Extension of shift $328,820.51 4.65% $380,537.99 5.18% $419,760.02 4.89%
Shortage of personnel $1,286,682.49 18.18% $1,235,100.08 16.82% $1,481,278.40 17.27%
Other $520,731.15 7.36% $101,549.22 1.38% $251,712.24 2.93%
Total $7,076,063.62 100% $7,341,525.58 100% $8,577,208.48 100%
*Overtime for these events is paid through the City, not through the Department. Therefore, these figures are not included in the
Department’s overtime budget.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 134
APPENDIX G : FIRE OVERTIME SUMMARY
The table below presents the GCC data for Fire Departments in each city, showing what percentage each
component - regular pay, special pay, and overtime pay – represents of cash compensation.
68
%
70
%
59
%
58
%
57
%
66
%
63
%
55
%
68
%
60
%
50
%
0.
9
%
6.
7
%
13
.
9
%
20
.
3
%
16
.
0
%
5.
7
%
0.
1
%
16
.
1
%
1.
6
%
11
.
6
%
30
.
0
%
30
.
7
%
23
.
2
%
27
.
0
%
22
.
0
%
27
.
4
%
28
.
8
%
37
.
1
%
28
.
8
%
30
.
6
%
28
.
9
%
19
.
9
%
Fire Department Components of Cash Compensation
by Peer City
RegularPay OtherPay OvertimePay
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 135
OVERTIME DRIVER FY2014-15 FY2015-16 FY2016-17
$ % $ % $ %
Los Angeles Marathon* $94,503.86 1.48% $91,092.87 1.26% $85,438.23 1.18%
Twilight Concert Series* $82,545.35 1.29% $104.984.81 1.46% $108,231.76 1.50%
Reimbursed external events $377,640.10 5.91% $966,798.30 13.42% $360,391.00 4.98%
City events and special
assignments $151,104.28 2.36% $105,101.69 1.46% $86,065.66 1.19%
Vacancies $1,051,086.40 16.44% $1,174,846.40 16.31% $1,003,009.28 13.86%
Sick leave $796,511.25 12.46% $921,385.39 12.79% $1,204,851.12 16.65%
Vacation leave $1,400,244.89 21.90% $1,581,791.89 21.96% $1,855,498.28 25.64%
Other leave $132,542.28 2.07% $195,715.21 2.72% $310,719.32 4.29%
Training $766,977.34 11.99% $679,546.94 9.43% $806,954.24 11.15%
Workers’ compensation $493,490.84 7.72% $993,048.60 13.78% $375,999.32 5.20%
Other $1,047,955.65 16.39% $389,867.58 5.41% $1,038,193.78 14.35%
Total $6,394,602.21 100% $7,204,179.68 100% $7,235,351.99 100%
*Overtime for these events is paid through the City, not through the Department. Therefore, these figures are not included in the
Department’s overtime budget.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 136
APPENDIX H : BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS
Using 2016 GCC compensation payroll data, we filtered out the over-time related positions in Public
Safety (Police and Fire) with cash compensation less than the position’s classification minimum salary, in
order to remove less than full time positions. We then selected the payroll data for the positions that
represented the minimum, median, and maximum values for each group, based on individual cash
compensation. Using this spread of data provides an approximation of what the range of costs are
associated with a full time employee (FTE).
Base pay costs – a combination of regular pay and “PERS-able” special pay - is the basis for the overtime
hourly rate calculation, and excludes overtime paid. The “Estimated Regular Pay Rate” is calculated by
dividing the position’s base pay by the average annual hours worked (2,080 for Police; 2,912 for Fire).
This became the hourly rate that we used to calculate an approximation of the position’s typical overtime
rate range – regular salary rate times one and a half.
Total compensation costs represent the costs associated with employees above and beyond cash
compensation, including lump-sum payments, total retirement costs, and total health benefit costs
(including vision & dental). Similarly, the “Estimated FTE Hourly Rate” was calculated by dividing this
total compensation cost by the average annual hours worked (2,080 for Police; 2,912 for Fire), in order to
allow for a comparison against the calculated overtime rate. For more detailed information on the overall
approach and data methodology, please see Appendix A: Wages and Benefits Comparison Methodology.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 137
A. POLICE
POLICE SERGEANT
POLICE SERGEANT 117
COMPENSATION MIN MEDIAN MAX
Regular Salary $111,809 $134,916 $140,407
Special Pay $23,181 $33,099 $50,483
Base Pay Total Cost 118 $134,990 $168,015 $190,890
Lump-Sum Pay $194 $17,255 $6,279
Total Retirement Costs $74,488 $92,200 $99,961
Health Vision Dental Costs $8,367 $9,098 $21,263
Benefits Total Cost $82,855 $101,298 $121,224
Total Compensation Costs 119 $218,039 $286,568 $318,393
Estimated FTE Hourly Rate 120 $104.83 $137.77 $153.07
Estimated Regular Pay Rate 121 $64.90 $80.78 $91.77
Overtime Comparison – Police Sergeant
2016 Overtime Paid $11,604 $62,985 $64,053
Overtime Hourly Rate 122 $97.35 $121.16 $137.66
Percent Difference of Cost for Overtime
from FTE 123 -7.1% -12.1% -10.1%
117 There were 29 GCC positions used in this analysis
118 Does not include overtime costs
119 Does not include overtime costs
120 Total compensation cost divided by 2,080
121 Regular Salary + Special Pay Divided by 2,080
122 Regular Rate multiplied by 1.5
123 Overtime rate minus full employee rate, divided by full employee rate
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 138
POLICE OFFICER
POLICE OFFICER 124
COMPENSATION MIN MEDIAN MAX
Regular Salary $94,104 $101,003 $101,484
Special Pay $4,110 $23,187 $41,335
Base Pay Total Cost 125 $98,214 $124,190 $142,819
Lump-Sum Pay $411 $3,425 $8,316
Total Retirement Costs $44,714 $69,184 $71,707
Health Vision Dental Costs $21,263 $21,263 $21,263
Benefits Total Cost $65,977 $90,447 $92,970
Total Compensation Costs 126 $164,602 $218,062 $244,105
Estimated FTE Hourly Rate 127 $79.14 $104.84 $117.36
Estimated Regular Pay Rate 128 $47.22 $59.71 $68.66
Overtime Comparison – Police Officer
2016 Overtime Paid $27,086 $7,514 $88,425
Overtime Hourly Rate 129 $70.83 $89.56 $102.99
Percent Difference of Cost for Overtime
from FTE 130 -10.5% -14.6% -12.2%
124 There were 135 GCC positions used in this analysis
125 Does not include overtime costs
126 Does not include overtime costs
127 Total compensation cost divided by 2,080
128 Regular Salary +Special Pay Divided by 2,080
129 Regular Rate multiplied by 1.5
130 Overtime rate minus full employee rate, divided by full employee rate
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 139
B. FIRE 131
BATTALION CHIEF
BATTALION CHIEF 132
COMPENSATION MIN MEDIAN MAX
Regular Salary $180,815 N/A – not enough data 133 $183,576
Special Pay $2,956 N/A – not enough data $7,164
Base Pay Total Cost 134 $183,771 N/A – not enough data $190,740
Lump-Sum Pay $18,443 N/A – not enough data $10,524
Total Retirement Costs $67,579 N/A – not enough data $68,439
Health Vision Dental Costs $24,291 N/A – not enough data $25,115
Benefits Total Cost $91,870 N/A – not enough data $93,554
Total Compensation Costs 135 $294,084 N/A – not enough data $294,818
Estimated FTE Hourly Rate 136 $100.99 N/A – not enough data $101.24
Estimated Regular Pay Rate 137 $63.11 $65.50
Overtime Comparison – Battalion Chief
2016 Overtime Paid $45,531 N/A – not enough data $58,353
Overtime Hourly Rate 138 $94.66 N/A – not enough data $98.25
Percent Difference of Cost for Overtime
from FTE 139 -6.3% N/A – not enough data -3.0%
131 Excludes the Administration and Training divisions from this analysis
132 There were 2 GCC positions used in this analysis
133 One of the four possible positions was a Captain for most of the year so special pay included bonuses not given to Battalion
Chiefs; a second did not work a full year.
134 Does not include overtime costs
135 Does not include overtime costs
136 Total compensation cost divided by 2,912
137 Regular Salary + Special Pay Divided by 2,912
138 Regular Rate multiplied by 1.5
139 Overtime rate minus full employee rate, divided by full employee rate
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 140
FIRE CAPTAIN
FIRE CAPTAIN 140
COMPENSATION MIN MEDIAN MAX
Regular Salary $135,967 $145,152 $154,569
Special Pay $10,273 $31,808 $41,337
Base Pay Total Cost 141 $146,240 $176,960 $195,906
Lump-Sum Pay $11,197 $8,250 $2,577
Total Retirement Costs $55,482 $62,165 $65,428
Health Vision Dental Costs $28,820 $24,291 $28,820
Benefits Total Cost $84,302 $86,456 $94,248
Total Compensation Costs 142 $241,739 $271,666 $292,731
Estimated FTE Hourly Rate 143 $83.01 $93.29 $100.53
Estimated Regular Pay Rate 144 $50.22 $60.77 $67.28
Overtime Comparison – Fire Captain
2016 Overtime Paid $81,177 $57,507 $78,348
Overtime Hourly Rate 145 $75.33 $91.15 $100.91
Percent Difference of Cost for Overtime
from FTE 146 -9.3% -2.3% 0.4%
140 There were 23 GCC positions used in this analysis
141 Does not include overtime costs
142 Does not include overtime costs
143 Total compensation cost divided by 2,912
144 Regular Salary + Special Pay Divided by 2,912
145 Regular Rate multiplied by 1.5
146 Overtime rate minus full employee rate, divided by full employee rate
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 141
FIRE ENGINEER
FIRE ENGINEER 147
COMPENSATION MIN MEDIAN MAX
Base Salary $103,031 $123,030 $123,030
Special Pay $20,071 $24,714 $38,270
Base Pay Total Cost 148 $123,102 $147,744 $161,300
Lump-Sum Pay $2,178 $2,997 $291
Total Retirement Costs $41,713 $50,977 $55,886
Health Vision Dental Costs $23,561 $28,820 $28,291
Benefits Total Cost $65,274 $79,797 $84,177
Total Compensation Costs 149 $190,554 $230,538 $245,768
Estimated FTE Hourly Rate 150 $65.44 $79.17 $84.40
Estimated Regular Pay Rate 151 $42.27 $50.74 $55.39
Overtime Comparison – Fire Engineer
2016 Overtime Paid $53,717 $93,555 $82,476
Overtime Hourly Rate 152 $63.41 $76.10 $83.09
Percent Difference of Cost for Overtime
from FTE 153 -3.1% -3.9% -1.6%
147 There were 23 GCC positions used in this analysis
148 Does not include overtime costs
149 Does not include overtime costs
150 Total compensation cost divided by 2,912
151 Regular Salary + Special Pay Divided by 2,912
152 Regular Rate multiplied by 1.5
153 Overtime rate minus full employee rate, divided by full employee rate
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 142
FIREFIGHTER
FIRE FIGHTER 154
COMPENSATION MIN MEDIAN MAX
Regular Salary $87,261 $91,164 $98,156
Special Pay -$1,854 $33,945 $49,464
Base Pay Total Cost 155 $85,407 $125,109 $147,620
Lump-Sum Pay $2,089 $11,636 $402
Total Retirement Costs $30,964 $44,543 $41,528
Health Vision Dental Costs $11,882 $11,882 $18,406
Benefits Total Cost $42,846 $56,425 $59,934
Total Compensation Costs 156 $130,342 $193,170 $207,956
Estimated FTE Hourly Rate 157 $44.76 $66.34 $71.41
Estimated Regular Pay Rate 158 $29.33 $42.96 $50.69
Overtime Comparison – Fire Fighter
2016 Overtime Paid $53,700 $83,919 $85,484
Overtime Hourly Rate 159 $43.99 $64.44 $76.04
Percent Difference of Cost for Overtime
from FTE 160 -1.7% -2.9% 6.5%
154 There were 39 GCC positions used in this analysis
155 Does not include overtime costs
156 Does not include overtime costs
157 Total compensation cost divided by 2,912
158 Regular Salary + Special Pay Divided by 2,912
159 Regular Pay Rate multiplied by 1.5
160 Overtime rate minus full employee rate, divided by full employee rate
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 143
APPENDIX I : HIGHEST COMPENSATED CITY EMPLOYEES
CITY HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
SECOND
HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
THIRD
HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
FOURTH
HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
FIFTH HIGHEST
PAID
EMPLOYEE
Santa Monica
Title City Manager City Attorney Police Chief Fire Captain –
Suppression Deputy City Attorney
Cash Compensation $341,131 $315,707 $309,287 $309,287 $306,583
New York 161
Title Administrative
Engineer
Captain Deputy
Inspector
Pension Investment
Advisor
Supervisor Ship
Carpenter Chief Actuary
Cash Compensation $672,309 $355,861 $332,081 $282,772 $278,886
Los Angeles 162
Title Chief Port Pilot II Port Pilot II Chief Port Pilot II Port Pilot II Fire Captain II
Cash Compensation $570,840 $490,010 $476,710 $467,110 $457,300
Chicago 163
Title Commissioner of
Aviation
Superintendent of
Police Mayor Fire Commissioner First Deputy Fire
Commissioner
Cash Compensation $300,000 $260,004 $216,210 $202,728 $197,736
Houston 164
Title Police Chief Public Works Director City Attorney Deputy Chief Policy
Officer Aviation Director
Cash Compensation $280,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000
161 Source: NYC Open Data
162 Source: Los Angeles City Controller (Payroll Explorer)
163 Source: Chicago Data Portal
164 Source: Texas Tribune Government Salaries Explorer
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 144
CITY HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
SECOND
HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
THIRD
HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
FOURTH
HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
FIFTH HIGHEST
PAID
EMPLOYEE
Philadelphia 165
Title Medical Examiner Deputy Mayor/Police
Commissioner
Deputy Medical
Examiner Mayor Assistant Medical
Examiner
Cash Compensation $268,533 $240,000 $238,450 $218,255 $216,773
Anaheim
Title Fire Battalion Chief Fire Engineer III City Manager Fire Fighter III Fire Captain III
Cash Compensation $333,166 $326,262 $301,815 $295,891 $282,361
Beverly Hills
Title Police Officer Police Sergeant City Manager Fire Battalion Chief Fire Battalion Chief
Cash Compensation $367,918 $316,176 $304,646 $301,365 $283,153
Burbank
Title City Manager Police Chief Fire Captain Fire Captain Police Lieutenant
Cash Compensation $301,095 $273,549 $257,756 $257,068 $254,880
Culver City
Title Police Chief Fire Chief Assistant Police
Chief City Manager City Attorney
Cash Compensation $331,958 $303,156 $282,353 $281,890 $277,324
El Segundo
Title Fire Captain Battalion Chief Fire Captain Fire Captain Fire Captain
Cash Compensation $312,748 $274,610 $264,671 $257,242 $250,515
Glendale Title City Manager Fire Engineer
Paramedic Fire Battalion Chief Firefighter Paramedic City Attorney
165 Source: Open Data Philly
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 145
CITY HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
SECOND
HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
THIRD
HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
FOURTH
HIGHEST PAID
EMPLOYEE
FIFTH HIGHEST
PAID
EMPLOYEE
Cash Compensation $282,881 $279,793 $261,752 $256,098 $251,526
Inglewood
Title City Manager Police Chief City Attorney Assistant City
Manager
Assistant City
Manager-CFO
Cash Compensation $317,227 $286,733 $259,809 $245,354 $234,584
Pasadena
Title City Manager Police Chief City Attorney Police Sergeant Fire Fighter II
Cash Compensation $266,762 $265,134 $261,447 $258,559 $247,748
Redondo Beach
Title City Attorney Firefighter/Paramedic City Manager Fire Captain Fire Captain
Cash Compensation $284,207 $270,945 $266,435 $265,215 $238,141
Santa Barbara
Title Police Sergeant City
Admin/Clerk/Treasurer City Attorney Assistant City
Administrator
Fire Ops Division
Chief
Cash Compensation $294,425 $275,669 $254,917 $254,651 $235,703
Torrance
Title City Attorney Police Officer City Manager Assistant City
Manager Police Chief
Cash Compensation $330,454 $306,829 $300,937 $282,378 $274,649
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 146
APPENDIX J: MEDICAL BENEFITS OFFERED
CITY TYPE OF PLAN EMPLOYEE ONLY EMPLOYEE +1 EMPLOYEE +FAMILY
Cafeteria HMO/PPO Employee Cost City Cost
Employee
Cost City Cost
Employee
Cost City Cost
Santa Monica X $40-$74 $538-$759 $79-$148 $1,061-$1,975 $112-$193 $1,494-$2,567
Peer Average 4 7 $59-$281 $639-$800 $142-$659 $1,016-$1,234 $232-$974 $1,265-$1,538
Anaheim X $60-$324 $503-$1,050 $121-$655 $1,007-$2,094 $171-$942 $1,425-$2,949
Burbank X
Beverly Hills X
Torrance X $22-$323 $392 $44-$646 $785 $57-$840 $1,020
Culver City X $732 $1,271 $1,584
Pasadena X
Glendale X $152-$196 $359-$406 $403-$425 $742-$1,026 $573-$601 $1,067-$1,454
Inglewood X
El Segundo X $1,200 $1,200 $1,200
Santa Barbara X $0 $485-$1,019 $0-$910 $955-$1,110 $127-$1,511 $1,110
Redondo
Beach X $800 $1,150 $1,450
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 147
APPENDIX K: HISTORICAL WAGE & BENEFITS DATA
Exhibit 81 166
166 The data presented here is unfiltered/unedited GCC data; the total sum of all reported wage and benefits data in Santa Monica, for the past 5 fiscal years.
70.2%71.0%70.7%71.2%71.8%
11.4%10.9%10.9%10.1%9.5%
18.5%18.1%18.4%18.7%18.7%
2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Santa Monica -Historical Wage & Benefits
Retirement
Health Dental Vision
Total Wages
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 148
Exhibit 82 167
FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
City Total Wages
Total
Benefits
Wages % of
Total Comp Total Wages
Total
Benefits
Wages % of
Total Comp Total Wages
Total
Benefits
Wages % of
Total Comp
Santa
Monica $194,966,491 $80,856,728 70.7% $213,263,795 $87,057,335 71.0% $215,657,115 $91,702,375 70.2%
Peer
Average $109,891,759 $39,768,956 73.0% $114,469,162 $41,266,831 73.2% $118,461,320 $44,912,922 71.9%
Anaheim $209,254,396 $77,083,865 73.1% $221,934,801 $80,291,009 73.4% $238,513,646 $80,254,667 74.8%
Beverly Hills $82,922,874 $26,389,733 75.9% $86,938,081 $30,719,252 73.9% $91,947,252 $34,410,323 72.8%
Burbank $122,337,266 $37,236,465 76.7% $119,070,538 $38,358,743 75.6% $123,541,146 $41,498,630 74.9%
Culver City $57,535,777 $20,584,564 73.7% $63,885,253 $23,773,624 72.9% $64,918,771 $25,291,980 72.0%
El Segundo $31,250,628 $11,599,542 72.9% $32,829,210 $12,672,278 72.1% $30,791,819 $12,477,534 71.2%
Glendale $149,590,930 $41,776,667 78.2% $145,590,040 $44,690,828 76.5% $150,387,512 $48,502,946 75.6%
Inglewood $52,510,233 $36,743,810 58.8% $51,798,194 $28,593,847 64.4% $54,880,327 $43,301,202 55.9%
Pasadena $162,138,309 $57,157,338 73.9% $167,963,631 $59,028,493 74.0% $171,745,544 $66,204,639 72.2%
Redondo
Beach $40,210,276 $15,045,891 72.8% $46,949,449 $16,178,804 74.4% $45,545,311 $16,593,559 73.3%
Santa
Barbara $91,164,811 $33,352,784 73.2% $95,725,340 $32,647,218 74.6% $97,517,327 $32,260,855 75.1%
Torrance $124,819,111 $39,400,081 76.0% $127,681,617 $41,190,544 75.6% $136,090,067 $46,456,359 74.6%
167 The data here is unfiltered/unedited GCC data; the total sum of all reported wage and benefits data by city, for the past 3 fiscal years.
Compensation and Staffing Review Report for City of Santa Monica 149
APPENDIX L : PERFORMANCE DATA METHODOLOGY
Burbank, Culver City, Glendale, Pasadena, Torrance, and Santa Barbara provided responses to the
voluntary survey used to collect performance data. Information in the performance data tables is limited
to cities participating in that specific department’s survey to provide appropriate comparisons. For each
data element, the average, minimum, and maximum of available peer responses is provided to show
typical amounts as well as the range of variation.
Performance data includes:
• Workload and outcome measure data provided by the City of Santa Monica (the City) and peers
• Operating cost and FTE data
• Key performance indicators
There are many variables that impact comparison between cities, including operating budgets,
community priorities, level of outsourcing, geography, and departmental organization. Governments
utilize many different methods to provide different levels and types of service. The following performance
indicator analysis is an attempt to compare similar services across cities using industry standard data. As
such, not all services are included in the analysis. Some departments provided additional activity data to
better communicate the extent of the other work they perform. Every effort was made to standardize
services and performance data based on Santa Monica’s organization structure.
To compare operating efficiency, each department is measured by operating cost per capita and per FTE;
internal service departments are also measured by operating cost per City FTE. In addition, Santa
Monica’s daytime population increases to 250,000 including workers and visitors, which impacts the level
of effort that is required to deliver service.
The comparison of peer city median cash compensation by department represents the median of all
position levels’ cash compensation (regular, other, and overtime) within the respective departments
reported to the GCC for fiscal year 2016. Positions titles, departments, and divisions were somewhat
standardized after reviewing city organizational charts, job descriptions, and city budgets in order to
create more comparable groupings to increase the relevancy of conducting a comparison between
departmental services and individual positions. Positions with cash compensation reported as less than
the position’s published minimum annual salary range were removed in order to better compare and
analyze annual full-time compensation data.
Unless otherwise noted, all wage, FTE, budget, and performance data is fiscal year (FY) 2016-17.
1
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN RESPONDING TO THE RE COMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMPENSATION AND STA FFING REVIEW
The City has prepared a plan to guide implementation of the recommendations provided in the Compensation and Staffing Review conducted by
Moss Adams, LLP. The implementation plan includes:
Suggested priority (high, medium, or low)
Difficulty to implement (high, medium, or low)
Responsible departments
Suggested timing
Whether the work can be performed internally or using external resources
A range of potential costs of externally resourced projects, depending on the level of City staff involvement and scope of se rvices
2
# RECOMMENDATION PRIORITY EFFORT
LEVEL
RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE:
FY 18 -19
RESOURCE COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL ACTION STE PS
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1 Enhance awareness and understanding
of personnel costs by making this
information readily accessible to the
general public and provide explanations
of each component of total
compensation.
High Moderate HR, Financ e, CMO Internal N/A Staff will develop new and fine-tune
existing online resources that clearly
explain the components of employee
compensation. This will include the
addition of a summary page to the current
Pension Overview slide deck, creating
additional links to the slide deck from the
City's home page and Human Resources
Department webpage, and clearer links to
an existing open data portal providing a
breakdown of salaries by employee, and
collective bargaining group memoranda
of understanding. In addition, staff will
develop a webpage showing a
breakdown of the value of total
compensation including all benefits.
2 Develop and implement a formal
compensation philosophy, including, but
not limited to, compensation and
benefits components, levels, and market
competitiveness, to guide labor
negotiations and set employee
expectations with respect to
compensation.
High High HR, City Manager’s
Office, and City Council
Internal and External $5,000 to
$15,000 for
external
facilitation
Human Resources will gather input from
stakeholders and then develop a formal
compensation philosophy to present to
City Council for adoption. This
philosophy will then guide the
development of a compensation policy.
3 Evolve the in-house position -level
compensation market study
methodology to include medians and
percentiles in accordance with best
practices, accounting for labor relation
requirements.
High Moderate HR Internal N/A Human Resources is discussing
additional compensation methodology
training for staff involved in compensation
studies so they will be prepared to use
medians and percentiles for future
studies. Additionally this will be
negotiated with bargaining units if
needed.
4 Continue to take steps whenever
possible to mitigate the financial threat
that pension liability places on the City.
High Moderate Finance Internal and External $20,000 Staff will continue its policy of making
expedited paydowns of its unfunded
liability as well as investigating alternative
ways to decrease its liability, such as
shorter amortization schedules or
3
# RECOMMENDATION PRIORITY EFFORT
LEVEL
RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE:
FY 18 -19
RESOURCE COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL ACTION STE PS
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
establishing a trust fund dedicated to
pension costs. Pending Council's
direction, management proposes to
develop a fiscal responsibility philosophy
that will include numeric targets and a
specific timeline for funding pension
liability, as well as parameters for
budgeting, program development and
labor negotiations.
5 Evaluate options to stabilize per-
employee health care costs.
High High HR, Finance Internal N/A Staff is already conducting analysis of
alternative service delivery methods,
although a full evaluation of options, and
their implementation, will require more
than one year due to the length of
memorandums of understanding with
collective bargaining groups.
6 Consider negotiating labor contracts in
the next cycle to expire at different times
and cover longer durations to reduce the
burden of negotiations on the City.
Medium Moderate HR Internal N/A Currently there are 9 contracts that will
expire in June of 2020. One will expire in
June of 2019 and one that is currently
being negotiated will likely be a 3 year
contract with an expiration in 2021. The
City will evaluate whether current three
year contracts should be extended
another year to more evenly stagger the
contracts. This could potentially lessen
the burden of negotiations.
7 Regularly assess the City’s charter,
municipal code, and civil service rules to
ensure they are aligned with
contemporary personnel practices and
meet the evolving business needs of the
City.
Medium Moderate HR and City Manager’s
Office
Internal N/A The last Charter change related to civil
service rules was in 2006. Other
changes have been made to the
municipal code, with major changes
taking place in 2007 and more minor
ones subsequently. The City will review
the municipal code and Charter this
summer for changes, with an anticipation
that Charter changes could go to the
voters during an appropriate major
election and municipal code changes
could be proposed during the next round
4
# RECOMMENDATION PRIORITY EFFORT
LEVEL
RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE:
FY 18 -19
RESOURCE COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL ACTION STE PS
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
of labor negotiations or as a separate
negotiation if applicable.
8 Develop financial and operational
strategies to prepare for possible future
recessions, since the City may not be
able to absorb a future recession as
easily.
High High Finance and City
Manager’s Office
Internal N/A Pending Council's direction, management
proposes to develop a fiscal responsibility
philosophy to be adopted by Council, and
extend financial forecasting from 5 to 10
years as part of the next biennial budget
process, beginning this summer. The City
is in the process of transitioning to a
performance management model for its
planning and therefore budgeting, with
the next biennial budget focusing on
reallocation of resources towards their
best use, and establishment of baseline
measures to capture program
effectiveness going forward.
9 Explore strategies for mitigating
personnel costs, such as hiring
personnel at lower steps and leveraging
training programs to equip personnel to
take on greater responsibility earlier in
their careers.
High High HR Internal N/A Higher step placements are already
reviewed individually to determine
feasibility and with new state laws
regarding disclosure of salary this will be
more challenging, however, an analysis
of step placement will be conducted on
each job offer above Step 1. The City will
continue to expand and review the Santa
Monica Institute, which is the internal
training venue for City staff. These are
open to all employees and are not limited
necessarily by someone's position.
10 Implement an evaluation framework to
assess the lifecycle costs of proposed
new programs and services, and
evaluate outsourcing options where
applicable.
High High Finance and City
Manager’s Office
Internal or External $15,000 to
$35,000 for
framework
development
facilitation
As noted in response to
Recommendation 7, staff will extend its
program cost and revenue projections
from 5 to 10 years and will transition to a
performance management model in order
to understand the effectiveness of capital
investments, services and
service delivery methods in leading the
City towards target outcomes.
5
# RECOMMENDATION PRIORITY EFFORT
LEVEL
RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE:
FY 18 -19
RESOURCE COST
ESTIMATE
POTENTIAL ACTION STE PS
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
11 Continue initiatives already underway to
develop a strategic plan, comprehensive
performance indicators, and leverage
the City’s data for decision-making.
Medium High City Manager’s Office
and Finance
Internal N/A Staff will continue to transition to a
performance management model based
on the Framework for a Sustainable City
of Wellbeing. The Framework is
structured around 6 outcomes and
metrics supporting them. Supporting the
outcomes are the City's 5 Strategic Goals
and department activities and projects
and their correlating metrics. The
framework will serve as the guide for the
FY 2019-21 Biennial Budget process, as
departments find ways to
reallocate resources towards projects that
will contribute to Framework outcomes.
12 In accordance with best practices,
continue to evaluate police staffing
levels and use of overtime.
Medium Moderate Police and HR Internal N/A Staff will continue to review staffing
needs and evaluate whether these needs
are best met using existing staff or
overtime.
13 In accordance with best practice,
conduct a staffing study to evaluate on -
duty staffing demand, staffing levels,
and use of overtime.
Medium Moderate Fire and HR
Internal and External $50,000 to
$100,000
Staff will continue to review staffing
needs and evaluate whether these needs
are best met using existing staff or
overtime. Additionally, a Standard of
Cover evaluation is being contemplated
as part of the FY 2018-20 CIP
budget. This evaluation would consider
items such as staffing.
1. Potential disproportionate impact on underrepresented employee groups
Given the continued discussion on wage and pension freezes, it's important that the city
examine average compensation by (at a minimum) race/ethnicity and gender in order to ensure
that underrepresented groups are not disproportionately impacted by any proposed freezes.
According to the 'Draft Compensation Study in Brief' document distributed at the February 28,
2018 meeting, Santa Monica “has the highest median cash compensation for management
positions.” It is therefore also important to review the breakdown of race and gender by agency
shop representation to understand representation throughout the org chart.
The conversation around diversity and inclusion in the public sector is gaining urgency, and
now is the time for Santa Monica to demonstrate its innovative and forward-thinking DNA.
Below are two examples of work being done in this area:
•UCLA has launched a 'Workforce Profile' dashboard that examines staff breakdowns,
including by race and gender (https://equity.ucla.edu/bruinx-dashboards/staff/).
•A local government professional organization, Engaging Local Government Leaders, is
launching a diversity dashboard focused exclusively on local government
(http://elgl.org/diversity-dashboard/)
2. City employee parking and impact on parking availability/prices
Parking in Santa Monica is a scarce resource, and Council is considering raising parking rates
for the general public in order to manage demand and availability. As free and subsidized
parking is part of City employee compensation, city employee parking policies should be
reviewed and discussed by the Compensation Committee.
Some general questions to explore:
◦What is the average number of spaces used by City employees commuting to Santa
Monica and how does this impact availability to downtown visitors?
◦What is the lost revenue / impact of offering free or subsidized employee parking?
◦What reward programs are in place for employees who take transit and carpool to work?
How can these rewards be increased to support alternative methods of transportation?
3. Increased Transparency of equity adjustments (raises), position changes, and Santa
Monica Personnel Board actions
The first key recommendation in the Draft Compensation Study in Brief is to 'enhance
awareness and understanding of personnel costs.' Santa Monica can increase transparency by
including additional information (especially definitions of civil service terminology) alongside
proposed equity adjustments and classification changes. Also, the decisions of the Personnel
Board have a major impact on employee compensation. The available Personnel Board agendas
provide little detail and there is not a clear connection between budget actions approved by
Council and Personnel Board decisions.
For example, on February 13, 2018 Council approved a number of personnel actions under item
8, raising the following questions:
◦New Classifications and Salary rates in Attachment B – only step 5 (max) of the proposed
Attachment D
compensation numbers were included, but there was no data on the amount of increase for
each classification, or the justification for the changes.
◦A number of personnel changes were included in Attachment C. Notes at the bottom were
brief. One justification reads: “Clean-up from review of Confidential Unrepresented
Employees Unit.” What's the clean up? What did the review say? What changes were made
and why? The clean up review documentation could be included and attached to the staff
report.
Regarding the Personnel Board, I would like to see justifications and proposed changes included
with all classification requests for approval. Currently, only the classification title is included in
the agenda and minutes of Personnel Board meetings. Not only does this information increase
transparency, but it allows stakeholders to identify trends in classification changes and
opportunities for improved efficiency and personnel management.
Finally, on page 69 of the Draft Compensation Study Report there is reference to 21
classification and compensation studies completed by the City. Since the City is going to
considerable effort to complete these classification and compensation studies, can the reports be
made available? Ideally, additional information and compensation analysis would come from
outside sources, either outside consultants or comparison with industry benchmarks as well as
from internal studies.
Compensation and Staffing Review
IMPLEMENTAT ION PLAN
May 8, 2018
City of Santa Monica | Compensation & Staffing Review | 5/8/2018
Implementat ion Plan Structure
•Recommendations rated by priority and level of effort required
•8 of 13 are high priority
•9 of 13 will begin within the first quarter of the year
•All will begin within the next fiscal year
•Progress reports: 6 months and annually thereafter
City of Santa Monica | Compensation & Staffing Review | 5/8/2018
Po te ntial Actions
Communication
•Greater access to total compensation detail, pension liability information
Po licy
•Adopt compensation and fiscal responsibility philosophies, review policies
Strategy
•Focus on pensions and healthcare, forecasting, performance-based
budgeting, staff development
Operational
•Adjust/assess peer comparison methodology, negotiation timing, overtime
staffing
City of Santa Monica | Compensation & Staffing Review | 5/8/2018
City of Santa Monica
Compensation Study
May 8, 2018
Overview
1.Scope and Methodology
2.Themes
3.Observations and Recommendations
2
The City retained Moss Adams to perform a review of:
•Wage and benefit setting processes
•Wage and benefit packages
•Staffing methodology and levels
•Public safety overtime
Scope of Work
•Interviews with labor representatives and department directors
•Review of relevant documents
•Peer city (11) and private sector data collection
•Peer city manager and human resources interviews
•Best practice research
•Identified opportunities for improvement
•Drafted recommendations
Methodology
5 Themes
•Wage and benefit setting practices and total personnel costs are similar to peers
•Santa Monica’s average cash compensation for employees is comparable to the average of peer
cities
•Median senior leadership compensation is the highest among peers
•The City does not have a formal compensation philosophy to guide strategy development and
decision-making
Wages and Benefits
•Council values of providing a living wage and insourcing services impact total cost of
compensation
•Santa Monica is a “full service plus” city, with several unique services
•Unlike peer cities, Santa Monica did not appreciably change employee compensation practices
or staffing levels during the recession
Drivers of Compensation
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
8
•SMPD and SMFD overtime has increased proportionally to operating costs in recent years
•Currently, an hour of overtime costs less than a fully burdened FTE
Public Safety Overtime
9
Observations &
Recommendations
•13 observations; opportunities for improvement
-Wages and benefits
-Compensation Drivers
-Public Safety Overtime
•Recommendations
-Policy
-Strategy
-Communications
-Operations
Observations and Recommendations
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
11
Observation #1
In relation to peer cities, Santa Monica exhibits the same distribution of personnel costs as peers across
wages, health benefits, and retirement.
Recommendation
Enhance awareness and understanding of personnel costs by making this information readily accessible
to the general public and provide explanations of each component of total compensation.
Communications
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
12
Observation #2
Santa Monica’s average cash compensation for employees is comparable to the average of peer cities,
although the City’s median senior leadership compensation is the highest among peers. When Santa
Monica’s median cash compensation was compared to peers, it was the third lowest, likely due to the
City’s strong preference to insource services that require a large number of relatively low paid workers.
For individual positions, Santa Monica met or fell below the peer median for 40% of the positions
included in the benchmarking study, while the remaining 60% of positions were compensated at levels
exceeding the peer median. Santa Monica lacks a formal philosophy to guide how compensation is
determined.
Recommendation
Develop and implement a formal compensation philosophy, including, but not limited to, compensation
and benefits components, levels, and market competitiveness, to guide labor negotiations and set
employee expectations with respect to compensation.
Policy (1 of 2)
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
13
Observation #7
Like most municipalities, Santa Monica operates a civil service system that is governed by state law and
the City’s charter, municipal code, and civil service rules. As a result, it is difficult to change personnel
practices as business needs evolve.
Recommendation
Regularly assess the City’s charter, municipal code, and civil service rules to ensure they are aligned with
contemporary personnel practices and meet the evolving business needs of the City
Policy (2 of 2)
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
14
Observation #4
Santa Monica has taken steps to reduce unfunded liability, including introducing an additional
retirement tier prior to the Public Employee Pension Reform Act and making $76 M in lump sum
payments. Similar to peer cities, the City’s overall unfunded pension liability remains high.
Recommendation
Continue to take steps whenever possible to mitigate the financial threat that pension liability places on
the City.
Observation #5
Similar to peers, Santa Monica’s employee medical insurance costs have risen steeply in recent years.
The City’s cash contribution to monthly individual employee medical insurance, which varies by plan, is
consistent with that of peers.
Recommendation
Evaluate options to stabilize per-employee health care costs.
Strategy (1 of 3)
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
15
Observation #8
Santa Monica largely operated as usual during the 2008 recession and did not need to reduce staffing
levels, while most peer cities had to significantly cut costs by increasing efficiency, outsourcing services,
and reducing staffing levels.
Recommendation
Develop financial and operational strategies to prepare for possible future recessions, since the City may
not be able to absorb a future recession as easily.
Observation #9
Santa Monica has the highest number of employees among peers. Similar to peers, tenure at the City
tends to be long with 77.3% of employees being paid within 10% of the top salary step for the position.
Recommendation
Explore strategies for mitigating personnel costs, such as hiring personnel at lower steps, and leveraging
training programs to equip personnel to take on greater responsibility earlier in their career.
Strategy (2 of 3)
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
16
Observation #10
Santa Monica employs more personnel than peers, in part, because it operates a variety of unique service
offerings and responds to the service needs of a significant tourist population.
Recommendation
Implement an evaluation framework to assess the lifecycle costs of proposed new programs and services,
and evaluate outsourcing options, where applicable.
Observation #11
In general, Santa Monica has a higher workload and higher costs than peer cities. Citywide, productivity
is comparable to peers, although productivity varies by program and service, and a comprehensive
service level study was not conducted. The City could more strategically utilize key performance
indicators to measure and communicate operational and individual efficiency and effectiveness.
Recommendation
Continue initiatives already underway to develop a strategic plan, comprehensive performance
indicators, and leverage the City’s data for decision-making.
Strategy (3 of 3)
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
17
Observation #3
The City uses peer city compensation averages for individual positions during its market analysis prior
to negotiations. Best practice is to expand the dataset used to include the median (midpoint) and
calculate percentiles when benchmarking position wages.
Recommendation
Evolve the in-house position-level compensation market study methodology to include medians and
percentiles in accordance with best practices, accounting for labor relation requirements.
Observation #6
Santa Monica is a highly unionized municipality that typically negotiates multiple labor contracts lasting
one to three years. Frequently, all 11 contracts expire simultaneously, requiring a significant amount of
work to negotiate.
Recommendation
Consider negotiating labor contracts in the next cycle to expire at different times and cover longer
durations to reduce the burden of negotiations on the City.
Operational (1 of 2)
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
18
Observation #12
Although SMPD’s overtime expenditures increased by $1.2 million between FY 14 and FY 16, the
overtime rate for an existing employee costs an estimated 7.1 to 14.6% less than the hourly rate of a new
employee, suggesting that the use of overtime provides cost savings to the department.
Recommendation
In accordance with best practice, continue to evaluate police staffing levels and use of overtime.
Observation #13
Although SMFD’s overtime expenditures increased by approximately $800,000 between FY 14 and FY
16, the overtime rate for an existing employee costs an estimated 9.3% less to 6.5% more than the hourly
rate of a new employee, suggesting that the use of overtime may provide cost savings to the department.
Recommendation
In accordance with best practice, conduct a staffing study to evaluate on-duty staffing demand, staffing
levels, and use of overtime.
Operational (2 of 2)
The material appearing in this presentation is for informational purposes only
and should not be construed as advice of any kind, including, without limitation,
legal, accounting, or investment advice. This information is not intended to
create, and receipt does not constitute, a legal relationship, including, but nor
limited to, an accountant-client relationship. Although this information may have
been prepared by professionals, it should not be used as a substitute for
professional services. If legal, accounting, investment, or other professional
advice is required, the services of a professional should be sought.
Assurance, tax, and consulting offered through Moss Adams LLP. Wealth
management offered through Moss Adams Wealth Advisors LLC. Investment
banking offered through Moss Adams Capital LLC.
2 0 1 7 C l o s e l y H e l d B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s C o n f e r e n c e
19