House Strategies Group built this portal from the District's public record: the three FY 2026/27 salary schedules and the FY 2027 position list attached to the RFP, plus the published pay plans of nearby public agencies. It previews the analysis the study produces, using only information that is already public.
What we noticed reading the record
Each one comes from Attachments A and B of the RFP. None needs non-public data, and each points at a question the study answers with the District's records.
The Employees Association, Teamsters (Management & Confidential) and Unrepresented Management schedules each step 2.5% between ranges and 5% between steps. Placed on a common scale, a Teamsters range sits about four ranges above the Employees Association range with the same number (T23 starts where an Employees Association range 27 would). The study can compare every class on one index without converting anything.
Moving from System Operator II to Lead Operator adds three ranges (7.7%). Moving from Lead Customer Service/Billing Technician to Customer Service Administrator adds about sixteen (49.2%). Wide steps can be right where a level is missing, and the RFP lists a Customer Supervisor that has no row on the published schedules. Section 3.5(6) asks for relationship guidelines; this is where they start.
When the gap between two levels is smaller than the range spread, a subordinate at step 6 earns more than a newly promoted supervisor at step 1. Lead Operator at step 6 ($133,128) sits 6.9% above O&M Supervisor at step 1 ($123,991). Overlap is normal in step systems. The study tests where employees actually sit, which only the District's payroll data can show.
Attachment A names Customer Supervisor and the General Manager, which have no rows in the schedules. The schedules carry Laboratory Supervisor, Project Manager I and II, Associate Engineer, Water Resources Technician II, Lead Operator, Deputy GM/DE and District Legal Counsel, which are not on Attachment A. Confirming the class list at kickoff sets the survey and the internal-equity analysis on the right base.
How the study runs
Questionnaires, interviews with incumbents and supervisors, and job audits where a question stays open. Every allocation is decided by a Certified Job Evaluator on the duties performed, never on the title. Ten updated job descriptions in the District's Word format.
Comparators the District approves before any data is collected, benchmarks matched on duties and qualifications, and every datapoint stored with its agency, document and effective date. The dataset is delivered in Excel with the calculations visible.
Supervisor differentials, series relationships, overlap between rank and file, middle and senior management, compaction and inversion, with options and fiscal impacts for each recommendation.
HSG runs its studies in Plumbline, its own classification and compensation platform: questionnaires with completion tracking, market data with provenance on every figure, structure and compaction analysis, cost scenarios, and exports to Word and Excel. A fully populated demonstration town is live at riverbend.plumbline-hr.com (fictional data); HSG walks the District through it on request. No District workspace exists before award, and no District information is placed in it until the NDA is signed. See Data & AI Safeguards.
Nothing here uses non-public District data. Pay figures come from the salary schedules attached to the RFP and from comparator agencies' own published pay plans, each cited with its date. Comparators shown are a starting point for discussion; under RFP 3.4 the District approves the final list before the survey begins. No market finding on this site is a study result.