City advisory committee urges at least 4% salary budget increase, flags several job classes as lagging

Brandon Du, chair of the Citizens' Compensation Advisory Committee, told Salt Lake City Council members during the council's March 25 work session that the committee recommends an overall salary budget increase of no less than 4% and a raise to the city’s salary range structures of no less than 2.5%.

The committee’s report summarized market factors the group considered — including a strong labor market, low unemployment, pay-transparency rules and changes in remote and hybrid work — and cited private-sector survey results showing average total salary increases of about 3.9% in 2024 and a projected 3.8% in 2025. “Because of these factors, the CCAC is recommending an overall salary budget increase of no less than 4%,” Du said.

The CCAC said it benchmarked 89 job groups covering 1,068 employees — roughly 43.5% of the city’s regular full-time workforce — and categorized each benchmark against market pay as significantly lagging (<=90%), slightly lagging (90.1–98%), competitive (98.1–109.9%) or significantly leading (>=110%). Du told council members the non‑represented group included five classifications the committee judged significantly lagging: golf professional 2, licensed architect, purchasing agent 2, cybersecurity engineer 2 and principal planner. Ten other non‑represented classifications were labeled slightly lagging, among them system engineer 2, paralegal and forensic scientist 2.

For AFSCME‑represented employees the committee reported no classifications in the significantly lagging category this year, an improvement from prior years, though maintenance electrician 4 and water meter technician 2 remained slightly lagging. The public‑safety benchmark set grew from five to nine benchmark jobs and covered 879 employees; Du said entry‑level firefighter/engineer and police‑officer/fighter paramedic entry rates were slightly lagging.

The committee recommended that the mayor and council appropriate the resources necessary to make market salary adjustments for positions identified as lagging. Du closed the presentation by thanking city staff and offering to answer council questions.

Council members asked clarifying questions about the committee’s benchmark methodology and vacancy reporting. Council member Dugan asked whether the CCAC was recommending moving jobs to market (to 100% of market) or staying within a competitive band; Du said the committee’s working guidance was to reach at least a competitive range (about 98%) and to aim for full market alignment where feasible. Council member Petro asked whether the city conducts operational efficiency audits to pair with compensation decisions; staff and Du said such staffing‑level and service‑efficiency audits are typically part of broader management audits or external audits rather than CCAC’s role.

Du also explained how the committee reports “0” incumbents for some benchmark levels: it indicates the benchmark level exists for market comparison but no current city employee occupies that specific level, not that the job classification is not funded.

The council did not take a formal vote on the CCAC recommendations during the work session; the committee’s report and recommendations were presented for council consideration ahead of budget deliberations.

The CCAC report, including the complete list of benchmarked jobs and appendices, was included with the council packet.