Scope items F and I · internal equity, compression, placement

Where the ladders overlap, and what a new range costs

The first chart uses only the City's published schedule. The simulator below it shows our implementation method on made-up employees. The real analysis runs on Atwater's incumbent file after award.

Career ladders on Salary Schedule A-27

Each bar is one class's range, step 1 to step 6, monthly. When the bottom of a higher class starts below the top of the class beneath it, the two ranges overlap. Some overlap is normal in a step plan. A senior employee who earns more than a new supervisor is the case the study looks for. Source: A-27, effective June 18, 2026.
Step upTop step gapOverlap of the two ranges

Implementation simulator: below, inside or above a proposed range

Illustrative data. Sixty made-up employees in one class whose current range matches Police Officer on A-27. Move the sliders to set a proposed new range. Scope I.2 asks the study to say what happens to each group, and this is the arithmetic behind that answer.

How we treat each group

  • Below the new minimum. Brought to the minimum, usually on adoption. The cost is exact once the incumbent file is in hand.
  • Inside the new range. Placed on the step nearest their current pay without a decrease. If the City prefers placement by years in class, we cost that option too.
  • Above the new maximum. Pay held (often called a red circle) until the range catches up. Our recommendations do not reduce anyone's pay.

What we measure on the real file

  • Supervisors paid within 5% of, or below, someone they supervise.
  • Newer employees placed at or above longer-serving employees in the same class.
  • Share of each class at step 6 with no further movement, read against longevity pay in the MOUs.
  • Each finding with the employee count and annual cost, so Council sees what fixing it means.