Phases of the Non-Represented Employee

Classification & Compensation Study

Phase 1 - District Senior Leadership

Development of classification specifications, definition of hierarchies, and
recalibration of the salary schedule to alleviate salary compression that was
identified previously

Phase 2 - District Building Administrators and Licensed Administrators Managing

Academic Programs and Operations
Identification of career ladders, development of classification specifications,
conduct salary surveys, and development of a new salary schedule.

Phase 3 - Remaining Non - Represented Employees (including business

operations and management)

In process – focusing on defining job families, developing classification

specifications, identifying career ladders, and conducting salary surveys.

Additionally, as part of this phase, the Division is focusing on review of the

current broadband classification system and compensation structure.
 NON – REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE
CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
AND
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 – Background and Introduction…………….……………………….…………..…2

Section 2 – Project Goals ……………..……………………………………..……….……….3

Section 3 – District Classification and Compensation Practices…………………………..5

Section 4 – Classification Study Methodologies ……………………………………...…….7

Section 5 – Classification Plan Recommendations…………………….……..…………..12

Section 6 – Compensation Study Methodologies …………………………………………15

Section 7 – Salary Schedule Proposals …………………………….………….….……….16

Section 8 – Compensation Philosophies………………………………...…….…………...28

Section 9 – Implementation Strategies and Recommendations ….………...…..……..31

Section 10 – Project Summary …………………………………………...……….…...……35

 Project Goals
The goal for this project is to support leadership’s commitment to students, parents, caregivers, stakeholders and constituents by
creating a classification and compensation plan that will facilitate the District’s ability to attract and retain diverse, highly qualified
employees through parity with the appropriate market (external comparability) and within the organization’s relationships
among/between classifications (internal equity and alignment). Staff has identified the following components as essential to meeting
the project objectives:
Classification review:

• Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the District’s Non-Represented employees’ classification structure and related policies
and practices.

• Beginning with the Information Technology Job Family and working through and across all Non-Represented employee job
families, develop a classification plan based on job analysis.

• Simultaneously review operational systems and structures for organizational efficiencies and opportunities relative to the
classification structure, identify career hierarchies, promotional ladders and means to promote access and opportunities for
under-represented populations reflective of the student population, as identified in the District’s Affirmative Action and Equity
Plans.

• Communicate results of study findings and develop an implementation plan with supporting procedures for operationalizing
the proposed classification system.
Compensation and salary schedule review:

• Review the existing compensation model and, based on survey research, develop and/or recommend a compensation structure
and philosophy to meet the District’s needs and objectives in compensation setting.

• Determine survey agencies based on appropriateness related to type of agency, similar jobs, geographic location, organization
size and special or unique needs of the Portland Public Schools.

• Conduct a comprehensive compensation survey, using appropriate benchmark classifications within the organizational
hierarchy.

• Prepare and present preliminary and final study reports of findings, recommendations and supporting documentation for
consideration.
 REVIEW CURRENT
CLASSIFICATION &
COMPENSATION PLANS

 
N o n - Re p re s e n te d E m p lo y e e
IDENTIFY "DESIRED STATE" C l a s s ifi c a ti o n & C o m p e ns a ti o n St ud y
Pr o c e s s F l ow C h a r t
 
Por t la n d P u b li c S c h o o ls
H u m a n R e s o u rc e s D e p a r t m e n t
CONDUCT  
COMPREHENSIVE
CLASSIFICATION STUDY

PREPARE AND PRESENT

PRELIMINARY REPORT
WITH DISCUSSION ITEMS
AND PRELIMINARY
RECOMMENDATIONS

GATHER
ADMINISTRATION'S
FEEDBACK

CONDUCT
COMPREHENSIVE
COMPENSATION STUDY

Project Scope PREPARE AND PRESENT

FINAL REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

This flow chart identifies the project tasks and

processes involved in completing this study. IMPLEMENT APPROVED
ACTIONS
 CRITICAL FACTORS IDENTIFIED AND
CONSIDERED IN DEVELOPING THE
CLASSIFICATION PLAN
 
Understanding the Concept and Value
of Job Analysis
 
Initiation of the PPS Study
 
Organizational Systems and
Structures Review
 
Identification of Career Hierarchies
and Promotional Ladders
 
Promote Access and Opportunities for
Under-Represented Populations:
 
Operationalizing a Non-
Discriminatory Classification Plan
Classification Study Overview
1
• Collect Employee Occupational Information and Prepare Job Analysis Materials
• Meet with Superintendent's Cabinet to Introduce Study Purpose, Process and
2 Objectives
• Meet with each Department's Leader to Introduce Study; Discuss Process,
Timelines,"As-Is" and "Desired State" of Department Organization Structures
3
• Hold Multiple All-Staff Department Meetings , Communications Liaison Meetings,
4
Make-Up Meetings and One-on-One Meetings to Provide Study Orientation and
Distribute Study Materials
• Collect and Review Position Description Questionnaires; Review Materials and
5 Identify Employees for Desk Audits and/or Follow-up
6
• Conduct Desk Audits and Follow-up Inquiries
• Prepare First Draft Class Specifications and Department Organizational Structure
7 Chart
• Submit to Department Leadership for Review and Feedback; Revise as
8 Appropriate
• Submit to Designated Department Management for Review and Feedback;
9 Revise as Appropriate; Schedule All-Staff Meeting for Employee Review
• Hold All Staff Meeting; Distribute Draft Class Specifications for Employee Feedback
10
• Revise Class Specification as Appropriate; Prepare Final Class Specifications and
11
Organization Chart; Review and Confirm Acceptance with Department
Leadership
• Prepare and Present Preliminary Report of Findings and Recommendations to
12
Superintendent of Schools and Board of Directors for Review, Discussion and
Direction
• Provide Approved Class Specifications to Employees; Initiate Compensation Study
13
COMPENSATION STUDY METHODOLOGIES

RECOMMEND
RECOMMEND
LONG-TERM
INITIAL
COMPENSATION
COMPENSATION
STRATEGIES AND
STRATEGIES AND
MAINTENANCE
POLICIES
POLICIES

DISCUSS AND
DETERMINE
DETERMINE AN
BENCHMARK
ORGANIZATIONAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
COMPENSATION
FOR SURVEY
PHILOSOPHY

COMPONENTS
SURVEY AND
ANALYZE SIMILAR
OF THE IDEAL SURVEY AND
ANALYZE MARKET
PUBLIC AGENCY
SALARY SCHEDULE
PPS DATA FOR SALARY
SCHEDULE
STRUCTURES COMPENSATION PLACEMENT

PLAN
 SALARY SCHEDULE PROPOSAL

1. Define the as-is:

The District Non-Represented Employee group classification and compensation program operates under a structure known as a
“Broadbanding” method.
 
Broadbanding is defined as the grouping of jobs with similar duties, responsibilities and levels of accountability. Broadband
classifications are broad in scope and describe the general body of work, not the specific duties that belong to specific jobs included
within a particular classification or job family series.
In a broadband compensation system, all jobs within the organization fit within a broadly defined structure for each pay grade,
allowing for compensation advancement within grade instead of through a more traditional approach of career ladder promotions.
This compensation method creates fewer pay ranges and they vary, with most literature identifying each range as typically 100
percent difference from minimum to maximum.  

2015 - 2016 NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE 260 DAY SALARY SCHEDULE

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 STEP 9 STEP 10
PAY GRADE
F $82,586 $85,726 $88,983 $92,364 $95,874 $99,518 $103,301 $107,224 $111,298 $113,858
EIT $75,344 $78,170 $81,101 $84,142 $87,297 $90,570 $93,968 $95,847 $97,764 $100,012
E $71,867 $74,598 $77,433 $80,376 $83,430 $86,600 $89,890 $93,307 $95,173 $97,363
D $61,590 $64,176 $66,871 $69,876 $72,607 $75,657 $78,834 $82,145 $83,788 $85,716
C $52,378 $54,972 $57,089 $59,600 $62,223 $64,960 $67,818 $70,802 $72,218 $73,879
B $42,478 $44,517 $46,889 $48,893 $51,239 $53,807 $56,277 $58,978 $60,157 $61,541
A $35,020 $36,840 $38,756 $40,945 $42,941 $45,319 $47,467 $49,936 $50,935 $52,106
 PPS Broadband Salary Schedule – Definitions of Bands

PAY GRADE &  

ASSOCIATED TITLE(s) DEFINITION
   
F Reports to a chief or director. Responsible for direction and management of a group of staff and/or program area. Holds decision making authority and
Assistant Director; accountability for effective operations of an operational area or program. Responsible for the design and implementation of new initiatives, programs and
Program Director business processes under the guidance of a chief or director. Select budget authority in some cases. Requires significant cross-functional leadership and
process management skills. Requires deep technical know-how in an operational or academic area or areas.
   
EIT No description.
Peoplesoft

   
E Generally reports to assistant director or director. Responsible for management of a group of staff and/or program area. Makes strategic and operational
Senior Manager; recommendations regarding new initiatives, programs and business processes. Responsible for the design implementation of new programs and initiatives to
Senior Program support continuous improvement and accountable for effective operation of programs and business processes. May hold budget authority. Has independent
Manager operational decision making authority within a defined range, under the guidance of a director and/or chief. Requires significant cross-functional collaboration
and project management. Requires deep technical expertise, management and experience in an operational or program area or areas.

   
D Reports to a senior manager or assistant director/director. Responsible for the management of a group of staff or for the administration of a program area or is
Manager; the technical lead for a specific functional area. Accountable for the smooth operation of processes, design and implementation of new initiatives, programs and
Program Manager; business processes under the guidance of a director or senior manager. Requires cross-functional collaboration and project management. Requires deep
Functional Lead; technical expertise in an operational or program area, project management skills and experience managing people. May require specific accreditation or
Senior Analyst credentials.

   
C Generally reports to a manager, senior manager or administrator. Provides analytical support to a key operational area and/or oversees and coordinates the
Analyst; activities of a program or other staff. Generally responsible for reporting and responding to requests for information with respect to program or area. May provide
Coordinator training to other staff. Generally supports the smooth operation of business processes, coordinates the implementation of new initiatives, programs and
processes under the direction and guidance of a functional lead, manager or administrator. Requires strong technical expertise/experience in an operational or
program area. May require specific accreditation or credentials. May have limited supervisory responsibility.
   
B Reports to a manager or administrator. Provides process support in an operational area, responsible for completing transactions, responding to inquiries, and
Sr. Specialist providing high level of customer service, under the direction and guidance of direct supervisor. Required to understand and follow standard operating procedures
and demonstrate technical skills in program or operational area. May be responsible for interpreting policy and making decisions within a defined set of
guidelines. May lead special projects or be responsible for overseeing a defined program and/or the design and implementation of new initiatives. Requires
specific expertise/experience in an operational or program area. Generally has no supervisory responsibility.
   
A Generally reports to a manager or administrator. Provides process and transactional support in an operational or program area, responsible for accurate
Specialist completion of transactions, responding to inquiries, and providing high level of customer service, under the direction and guidance of direct supervisor. Required
to understand and follow standard operating procedures and demonstrate technical skills in program or operational area. May participate in various projects or
the development of new initiatives, or generate reports. May require some specific experience in an operational or program area. Generally does not involve
supervisory responsibility.
Challenges with the Current Classification
Structure

 There are no historical District records or memories indicating that there has
been a comprehensive classification study using a job analysis methodology for
Non-Represented employee assignments. Prior to existence of the Classification
and Compensation division of Human Resources, job descriptions were typically
created only at the time of a vacancy and used as the template from which to
initiate a recruitment. Each hiring authority determined the job title and defined
the duties to align with the described “Levels of Responsibility” used in
conjunction with the A – F salary schedule pay grades. Over time, this practice
has created an inconsistent standard for defining jobs, with a proliferation of
single-incumbent positions, all carrying unique working titles and niche duties
and responsibilities that tend to align more with an individuals’ expertise than
with a defined scope of work.

 The very nature of Broadbanding is to create both broad definitions of criteria

and a wide salary range of salary steps within each band. Because of the nature
of Broadbanding, multiple, completely unrelated jobs are placed in the same pay
grade band, with little rationale to indicate how the pay grade was determined.

 The current seven-band classification system does not recognize professional

hierarchies (excluding management). This model does not recognize differences
in scope/level of work performed in each of the business professions and
eliminates professional staff career ladders and promotional opportunities.

 The current classification structure does not consider market comparisons for
salary placement.
COMPENSATION STUDY METHODOLOGIES

RECOMMEND
RECOMMEND
LONG-TERM
INITIAL
COMPENSATION
COMPENSATION
STRATEGIES AND
STRATEGIES AND
MAINTENANCE
POLICIES
POLICIES

DISCUSS AND
DETERMINE
DETERMINE AN
BENCHMARK
ORGANIZATIONAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
COMPENSATION
FOR SURVEY
PHILOSOPHY

COMPONENTS
SURVEY AND
ANALYZE SIMILAR
OF THE IDEAL SURVEY AND
ANALYZE MARKET
PUBLIC AGENCY
SALARY SCHEDULE
PPS DATA FOR SALARY
SCHEDULE
STRUCTURES COMPENSATION PLACEMENT

PLAN
COMPENSATION STUDY METHODOLOGIES

COMPONENTS
SURVEY AND
ANALYZE OF THE IDEAL
SIMILAR PUBLIC
AGENCY SALARY PPS
SCHEDULE
STRUCTURES COMPENSATION
PLAN
 SALARY SCHEDULE STRUCTURE - PPS

2015 - 2016 NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE 260 DAY SALARY SCHEDULE WITH ALL FACTORS COMBINED

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 STEP 9 STEP 10 AVERAGE TOTAL % FROM # EE'S PER BAND
% FROM MIN TO MAX (as of 2/1/16)
MIN TO MAX (Band Steps 1 -10)
PAY GRADE
F $82,586 $85,726 $88,983 $92,364 $95,874 $99,518 $103,301 $107,224 $111,298 $113,858
HOURLY RATE $39.70 $41.21 $42.78 $44.41 $46.09 $47.85 $49.66 $51.55 $53.51 $54.74
% ABOVE PREVIOUS STEPS 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 2.30% 3.63% 37.866% 31
% ABOVE GRADE EIT 9.61% 9.67% 9.72% 9.77% 9.83% 9.88% 9.93% 11.87% 13.84% 13.84%

EIT $75,344 $78,170 $81,101 $84,142 $87,297 $90,570 $93,968 $95,847 $97,764 $100,012
HOURLY RATE $36.22 $37.58 $38.99 $40.45 $41.97 $43.54 $45.18 $46.08 $47.00 $48.08
% ABOVE PREVIOUS STEPS 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 2.00% 2.00% 2.30% 3.20% 32.740% 2
% ABOVE GRADE E 4.84% 4.79% 4.74% 4.69% 4.64% 4.58% 4.54% 2.72% 2.72% 2.72%

E $71,867 $74,598 $77,433 $80,376 $83,430 $86,600 $89,890 $93,307 $95,173 $97,363
HOURLY RATE $34.55 $35.86 $37.23 $38.64 $40.11 $41.63 $43.22 $44.86 $45.76 $46.81
% ABOVE PREVIOUS STEPS 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 3.80% 2.00% 2.30% 3.43% 35.477% 37
% ABOVE GRADE D 16.69% 16.24% 15.79% 15.03% 14.91% 14.46% 14.02% 13.59% 13.59% 13.59%

D $61,590 $64,176 $66,871 $69,876 $72,607 $75,657 $78,834 $82,145 $83,788 $85,716
HOURLY RATE $29.61 $30.85 $32.15 $33.59 $34.91 $36.37 $37.90 $39.49 $40.28 $41.21
% ABOVE PREVIOUS STEPS 4.20% 4.20% 4.49% 3.91% 4.20% 4.20% 4.20% 2.00% 2.30% 3.74% 39.172% 97
% ABOVE GRADE C 17.59% 16.74% 17.13% 17.24% 16.69% 16.47% 16.24% 16.02% 16.02% 16.02%

C $52,378 $54,972 $57,089 $59,600 $62,223 $64,960 $67,818 $70,802 $72,218 $73,879
HOURLY RATE $25.18 $26.43 $27.45 $28.65 $29.91 $31.23 $32.60 $34.04 $34.72 $35.52
% ABOVE PREVIOUS STEPS 4.95% 3.85% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 4.40% 2.00% 2.30% 3.90% 41.050% 114
% ABOVE GRADE B 23.31% 23.49% 21.75% 21.90% 21.44% 20.73% 20.51% 20.05% 20.05% 20.05%

B $42,478 $44,517 $46,889 $48,893 $51,239 $53,807 $56,277 $58,978 $60,157 $61,541
HOURLY RATE $20.42 $21.40 $22.54 $23.51 $24.63 $25.87 $27.06 $28.35 $28.92 $29.59
% ABOVE PREVIOUS STEPS 4.80% 5.33% 4.27% 4.80% 5.01% 4.59% 4.80% 2.00% 2.30% 4.21% 44.877% 47
% ABOVE GRADE A 21.30% 20.84% 20.99% 19.41% 19.32% 18.73% 18.56% 18.11% 18.11% 18.11%

A $35,020 $36,840 $38,756 $40,945 $42,941 $45,319 $47,467 $49,936 $50,935 $52,106
HOURLY RATE $16.84 $17.71 $18.63 $19.69 $20.64 $21.79 $22.82 $24.01 $24.49 $25.05
% ABOVE PREVIOUS STEPS 5.20% 5.20% 5.65% 4.87% 5.54% 4.74% 5.20% 2.00% 2.30% 4.52% 48.789% 24

n= 352
 SURVEY AND
ANALYZE SIMILAR
PUBLIC AGENCY

SALARY SCHEDULE
SALARY SCHEDULE
STRUCTURES

STRUCTURE - SURVEY
FINDINGS
NUMBER OF SALARY SCHEDULE STEPS
# OF STEPS # SCHEDULES
21 1
20 1 FIXED % BETWEEN GRADES
18 1
15 2
13 3 % # SCHEDULES
11 2 9 1
10 1 PPS=10 7.5 1 Survey trends indicate that
Of the 48 salary schedules half of the reviewed schedules
reviewed, 71% are Step- 9 4 5 11 maintained a fixed percentage
based, 25% are Minimum- 8 2 4 1 between grades, with 2.5%
to-Maximum spread based and 5.0% tending to be the
7 7 2.5 10
and the remaining 4% are typical spreads.
single-position (position- 6 3 ** rounded to nearest 0.5%
specific). 5 5 # FIXED GRADE % 24
4 1 VARIABLE BY GRADE 19 PPS
3 1
POSITION SPECIFIC 5
MIN/MAX (NO STEPS) 12
FLAT RATE (NO STEPS) 1
% SCHEDULES WITH FIXED GRADES 50%
POSITION SPECIFIC 1
n=48
% WITH STEPS 71%
# WITH STEPS 34
n=48
 SURVEY AND

SALARY SCHEDULE
ANALYZE SIMILAR
PUBLIC AGENCY
SALARY SCHEDULE
STRUCTURES

STRUCTURE - SURVEY
FINDINGS

SURVEY - FIXED AVERAGE % BETWEEN STEPS**

% # OF SCHEDULES
5.0 8
4.0 2
3.0 7
2.5 5
2.0 1
1.5 2
PPS falls within
**rounded to the nearest 0.5%
Survey trends identify the “Variable”
range, with each # FIXED STEP % 25
the typical fixed
minimum-to- grade holding a VARIABLE BY GRADE 9 PPS
maximum range to fall different
POSITION SPECIFIC 2
somewhere between minimum-to-
maximum MIN - MAX ONLY; NO STEPS 12
20% - 40%, with the
heaviest concentration progression % FIXED STEPS (excludes min/max, no step schedules) 71%
between 25% - 35% percentage.
n=48
from min-to-max Survey analysis indicated that 71% of the
range. schedules reviewed identified consistent
step-to -step, percentage progression, with
typical spreads of 2.5%, 3.0% and 5.0% as
the most frequently identified adjustments.
 OREGON/WASHINGTON COMPARABLE "A-F" POSITIONS
SURVEY AND
MAXIMUM SALARIES IDENTIFIED ON SALARY SCHEDULES
LOCAL ANALYZE SIMILAR
PUBLIC AGENCY
AGENCY ANNUAL SALARY** SURVEY AND
AGENCY
ANALYZE SIMILAR
SALARY SCHEDULE
STRUCTURES
SALARY $159,260
PUBLIC AGENCY
Portland MetroSALARY SCHEDULE
SCHEDULE $153,660 State of Oregon STRUCTURES
$151,149 Portland Community College
SURVEY OF $142,397 City of Portland
MAXIMUM $139,502 Oregon State University
$137,568 Oregon City
RATES $135,595 Seattle Public Schools
FOR $132,636 City of Vancouver
COMPARABLE $130,509 Multnomah County
$129,313 City of Lake Oswego
LEVELS TO PPS $128,736 Clark County
(PAY GRADE “F”)   $128,294 Marion County
$128,244 Washington County
$128,046 Clackamas County
$126,276 City of Tigard
$124,164 City of Gresham
$123,996 City of Beaverton
$123,812 Gresham - Barlow School District
$122,471 Eugene School District
$122,447 Mt. Hood Community College
$121,375 City of Hillsboro
$116,807 David Douglas School District
$115,299 Hillsboro School District PPS
$113,314 Canby School District $113,838
$108,553 Parkrose Schools
$105,581 City of Milwaukie

n= 26; 22 not in area or unable to identify comparablity

** rates do not include PERS Pick-up
COMPENSATION STUDY METHODOLOGIES

DISCUSS AND
DETERMINE AN
ORGANIZATIONAL
COMPENSATION
PHILOSOPHY

COMPONENTS
SURVEY AND
ANALYZE SIMILAR
OF THE IDEAL
PUBLIC AGENCY
SALARY SCHEDULE
PPS
STRUCTURES
COMPENSATION
PLAN
 Defining a Compensation Philosophy:

A thoughtfully executed compensation philosophy should be one which:

 
• Attracts high-quality and diverse candidates for employment;
• Rewards and retains qualified employees;
• Provides a fair and consistent framework for assigning pay grades to jobs;
• Maintains the salary structure at market competitiveness;
• Ensures fair and consistent pay practices;
• Complies with applicable laws and regulations;
• Operates within the constraints of fiscal resources;
• Inspires employee excellence.

While the District has not adopted a formal compensation philosophy, it has clearly
identified and adopted a number of values and expectations surrounding its employees
and stakeholders:
 
Board Policy 0.10.010-P Strategic Plan : Core Values
Board Policy 5.10.025-P – Affirmative Action
Board Policy 5.20.010-P District Employment Practices
 Defining a Market Position
 
The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) provides an excellent discussion on different market position strategies and asks
thought-provoking questions to help guide decision-makers in setting a compensation philosophy:
 
Compensation’s Role in Human Resource Strategy
Where does the organization want to be in terms of market competitiveness?
 
Does the compensation system match the organization’s overall objectives? In other words, how does the compensation strategy
complement other HR initiatives? For example, if quality, experience and a sophisticated skill set are an organization’s strategic
advantages, then it will not be successful hiring employees significantly below the market rate for that position. In this competitive job
market, it is important to be aware of the organization’s competing firms. An organization can lead, meet or lag the market.
 
 “Lag” the Market
An organization may choose to offer a compensation package that is valued less than packages offered for a similar job in the labor
market. An employer with a “lag the market” philosophy is likely to be at the back of the line when it comes to hiring and retaining
employees, especially those with special skills.
 
“Meet” the Market
This is the most common compensation strategy. This level of competitiveness occurs when an organization’s compensation strategy is
equal to the labor market for the same position.
 
 
“Lead” the Market
The “lead the market” pay strategy can be defined as a total compensation package that is above the labor market for a similar position.
This strategy may occur because an organization believes that by paying more, it will receive more experienced employees for the same
position.

Overall Policy Consideration

 
A consideration when developing the District’s compensation philosophy - economic conditions can change rapidly, particularly when it
comes to public agency funding. We suggest that any statement include language such as, “whenever possible”, “our aspirations are” or
similar language which acknowledges financial pressures in downward economies.
COMPENSATION STUDY METHODOLOGIES

RECOMMEND
INITIAL
COMPENSATION
STRATEGIES AND
POLICIES

DISCUSS AND
DETERMINE AN
ORGANIZATIONAL
COMPENSATION
PHILOSOPHY

COMPONENTS
SURVEY AND
ANALYZE SIMILAR
OF THE IDEAL
PUBLIC AGENCY
SALARY SCHEDULE
PPS
STRUCTURES
COMPENSATION
PLAN
 ANNUAL RATES
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7
Grade
46 $106,834 $110,039 $113,340 $116,740 $120,243 $123,850 $127,565
45 $104,228 $107,355 $110,576 $113,893 $117,310 $120,829 $124,454
44 $101,686 $104,737 $107,879 $111,115 $114,449 $117,882 $121,419
43 $99,206 $102,182 $105,248 $108,405 $111,657 $115,007 $118,457
42 $96,786 $99,679 $102,670 $105,750 $108,922 $112,190 $115,556
41 $94,426 $97,258 $100,176 $103,181 $106,277 $109,465 $112,749
40 $92,123 $94,886 $97,733 $100,665 $103,685 $106,795 $109,999
39 $89,876 $92,572 $95,349 $98,210 $101,156 $104,191 $107,316
38 $87,684 $90,314 $93,024 $95,814 $98,689 $101,649 $104,699

PROPOSED 2016 - 2017

37 $85,545 $88,111 $90,755 $93,477 $96,282 $99,170 $102,145
36 $83,459 $85,962 $88,541 $91,197 $93,933 $96,751 $99,654
35 $81,423 $83,866 $86,382 $88,973 $91,642 $94,392 $97,223

NON-REPRESENTED
34 $79,437 $81,820 $84,275 $86,803 $89,407 $92,089 $94,852
33 $77,500 $79,825 $82,219 $84,686 $87,226 $89,843 $92,538
32 $75,609 $77,878 $80,214 $82,620 $85,099 $87,652 $90,281

MANAGEMENT AND
31 $73,765 $75,978 $78,257 $80,605 $83,023 $85,514 $88,079
30 $71,966 $74,125 $76,349 $78,639 $80,998 $83,428 $85,931
29 $70,211 $72,317 $74,487 $76,721 $79,023 $81,393 $83,835

PROFESSIONAL
28 $68,498 $70,553 $72,670 $74,850 $77,095 $79,408 $81,791
27 $66,828 $68,832 $70,897 $73,024 $75,215 $77,472 $79,796
26 $65,198 $67,154 $69,168 $71,243 $73,381 $75,582 $77,849

EMPLOYEES SALARY
25 $63,607 $65,516 $67,481 $69,506 $71,591 $73,738 $75,951
24 $62,056 $63,918 $65,835 $67,810 $69,845 $71,940 $74,098
23 $60,543 $62,359 $64,230 $66,156 $68,141 $70,185 $72,291

SCHEDULE
22 $59,066 $60,838 $62,663 $64,543 $66,479 $68,474 $70,528
21 $57,625 $59,354 $61,135 $62,969 $64,858 $66,803 $68,808
20 $56,220 $57,906 $59,644 $61,433 $63,276 $65,174 $67,129
19 $54,849 $56,494 $58,189 $59,934 $61,732 $63,584 $65,492
18 $53,511 $55,116 $56,770 $58,473 $60,227 $62,034 $63,895
17 $52,206 $53,772 $55,385 $57,046 $58,758 $60,521 $62,336

( 46 Pay Grades; 7 steps; 2.5% between grades; 16

15
$50,932
$49,690
$52,460
$51,181
$54,034
$52,716
$55,655
$54,298
$57,325
$55,927
$59,045
$57,604
$60,816
$59,333
3% between steps; 19.40% spread from range 14 $48,478 $49,932 $51,430 $52,973 $54,563 $56,199 $57,885

min/max ) 13
12
$47,296
$46,142
$48,715
$47,526
$50,176
$48,952
$51,681
$50,421
$53,232
$51,933
$54,829
$53,491
$56,474
$55,096
Ranges are mapped around current 2016-2017 11 $45,017 $46,367 $47,758 $49,191 $50,667 $52,187 $53,752

Non-Rep Employee Salary Schedule maximum "F 10

9
$43,919
$42,848
$45,236
$44,133
$46,593
$45,457
$47,991
$46,821
$49,431
$48,225
$50,914
$49,672
$52,441
$51,162
10" rate of $115,566 8 $41,803 $43,057 $44,348 $45,679 $47,049 $48,461 $49,914
7 $40,783 $42,006 $43,267 $44,565 $45,902 $47,279 $48,697
6 $39,788 $40,982 $42,211 $43,478 $44,782 $46,125 $47,509
5 $38,818 $39,982 $41,182 $42,417 $43,690 $45,000 $46,350
4 $37,871 $39,007 $40,177 $41,383 $42,624 $43,903 $45,220
3 $36,947 $38,056 $39,197 $40,373 $41,585 $42,832 $44,117
2 $36,046 $37,128 $38,241 $39,389 $40,570 $41,787 $43,041
1 $35,167 $36,222 $37,309 $38,428 $39,581 $40,768 $41,991
Grade STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7

(3% BETWEEN STEPS; 2.5% BETWEEN GRADES; 19.40 % RANGE FROM MINIMUM TO MAXIMUM)
COMPENSATION STUDY METHODOLOGIES

RECOMMEND
RECOMMEND LONG-TERM
INITIAL
COMPENSATION
COMPENSATION
STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIES AND
POLICIES
MAINTENANCE
POLICIES

DISCUSS AND
DETERMINE AN
ORGANIZATIONAL
COMPENSATION
PHILOSOPHY

COMPONENTS
SURVEY AND OF THE IDEAL
PPS
ANALYZE SIMILAR
PUBLIC AGENCY
SALARY SCHEDULE

COMPENSATION
STRUCTURES

PLAN
 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Consideration of Financial Impacts:
The most obvious issue that should be addressed is the financial impact of implementation costs. In order to determine the cost of
implementing any adjustments, staff will need indication of which pay philosophy would be supported by the District. We will,
however, outline the process we are recommending for implementation, which we support at any salary schedule and pay philosophy.

Implementation Proposal:
 Phase I: 2016 - 2017
 
• We recommend initial placement in the appropriate pay grade on the new salary schedule at the
step closest to, but not less than, 3% above the 2015-2016 salary schedule.

• We recommend that all green-circled positions should be brought to at least the minimum of the
appropriate pay grade.

• We recommend that all red-circled positions should be “frozen” at the employee’s current rate of
pay until such time as the salary schedule and/or market position adjustments bring their
classification within the pay grade range.

• We recommend that any adjustments resulting from the job family salary survey made after July 1,
2016 should be retroactive to this date.
 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 Phase II: 2017 – 2018

During the economic downturn, for the fiscal years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Non-
Represented employees did not see any step advancements. A 2% COLA was approved in 2011-12, but was
mitigated in 2012-13 with 6 – 12 mandatory unpaid furlough days. In addition to losing market competitiveness
through the current salary schedule’s limitations, long term employees have further slipped in market position by
not seeing salary increases for 3 years. Over the last two years, in order to be marginally competitive in the labor
market, the District has had to hire new employees at rates closer to market than those long term employees who
have not moved across steps over time.
NON-REPRESENTED 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Other Directors No COLA No COLA 2% COLA No COLA No COLA No COLA No COLA 1.5% COLA 1.5% COLA
Non-Licensed No Step Step Increase Step Increase Step Increase No Step
Administrators
No Step No Step No Step No Step Class/Comp study
6-10 Furlough adjustments tbd
Days
Other Non- 2.5% COLA No COLA 2% COLA No COLA No COLA No COLA No COLA 1.5% COLA 1.5% COLA
Represented Step Increase Step Increase Step Increase No Step
Specialists,
No Step No Step No Step No Step No Step Class/Comp study
Analysts, Managers 6-10 Furlough adjustments tbd
Days

• With Board adoption of the proposed compensation plan, prior to July 1, 2017, staff will have completed a
personnel file review for all non-represented employees to ascertain job-related work history, education, training
and experience.

• Based on existing standards for salary step placement we would then determine the appropriate step placement
within the classification grade. We suggest for those employees under-step that we initiate an annual accelerated
step advancement adjustment. We suggest that, in years where one step advancement is approved, those
identified for acceleration advance 2 steps; where a COLA is approved, we suggest one step advancement along with
the COLA. This should continue until the employee is at the appropriate step in their pay grade.
 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase III – Long Term Compensation Plan Maintenance

 We suggest developing defined, detailed standards and criteria for identifying critical needs, hard to fill
classifications and allowing departments to petition to designate certain classifications as such. Once
approved, long-term “recruit and retain” incentives can be implemented, such as:

 Employees in these classifications are flat-rated at the top step of their paygrade, allowing for maximum and
immediate leverage in salary placement.

 Employees in these classifications are flat-rated at the top step of their paygrade and receive an annual off-
the-salary-schedule stipend as long as the classification holds the critical needs, hard-to-fill designation.

 To maintain market competitiveness across all non-represented employee job families, we suggest a policy
which builds in annual compensation adjustments. Rather than freeze wages for multiple years and find the
District significantly under market, we suggest a conservative plan which automatically alternates step
advancements and COLA’s each year.

 As the State of Oregon adopts a 2 – year budget cycle, a conservative approach to maintaining the integrity of
the salary schedule is to adjust for COLA in the first year of the biennium when new funding is secured, and
adjusting for years of service step advancement in the second year, where the step increments are universally
prescribed at a 3% advancement. By institutionalizing such a plan the District can more efficiently and
accurately forecast and prepare its annual budgets.

 Adjustments across non-represented employee salary schedules (Sr. Leadership, Licensed Administrators,
Business Professional and Management schedules) should establish and maintain consistent hierarchical
compensation relationships to alleviate Compression issues.
COMPRESSION CONTINUES TO BE PROBLEMATIC

CURRENT SENIOR LEADERSHIP SALARY SCHEDULE - RELATIONSHIP WITH DISTRICT NON-REP MAXIMUM

SL200 = ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, CHIEF, GENERAL COUNSEL (Min/Max)

SL100 = SENIOR DIRECTOR, DEPUTY CHIEF, SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL (Min/Max)

CURRENT CURRENT
SL200 $118,500 $154,050 15% higher than SL100
SL100 $103,000 5% HIGHER THAN LA $133,900 15.87% higher than NR
Current Non-Rep maximum $115,556
Current Licensed Admin maximum $127,737

MAINTAINING HIERARCHICAL RELATIONSHIPS TO AVOID COMPRESSION MAXIMUM

ADJUSTED SENIOR LEADERSHIP SALARY SCHEDULE - RELATIONSHIP WITH DISTRICT NON-REP MAXIMUM

SL200 = ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, CHIEF, GENERAL COUNSEL (Min/Max)

SL100 = SENIOR DIRECTOR, DEPUTY CHIEF, SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL (Min/Max)

PROPOSED PROPOSED
SL200 $129,775 $168,700 15% higher than SL100
SL100 $112,850 14.9% HIGHER THAN LA $146,700 15% higher than NR
Proposed Non-Rep maximum $127,565
Current Licensed Admin maximum $127,737

*NOTE: ALL CURRENT SL 100 & 200 EMPLOYEE SALARIES CURRENTLY FALL WITHIN THE PROPOSED ADJUSTED SCHEDULE
Next Steps:

 Business and Operations committee discusses Preliminary findings

and recommendations and suggests preliminary report and
recommendations move from Committee to Board

 Governing Board adopts the Preliminary Report, including the

proposed salary schedules

 Governing Board approves a formal compensation philosophy

 Staff moves forward with recommended implementation programs

 Staff moves forward to update the District’s Classification and

Compensation Policies and Practices Manual for Non-Represented
Employees based on Board approved actions

 Staff reports back to the Board to update on implementation activities