Agenda packet — Beaumont City Council, March 1, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

California Register of Historic Resources
A cultural resource is considered “historically significant” under CEQA if the resource meets one or more of the criteria for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR was designed to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify existing cultural resources within the state and to indicate which of those resources should be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The following criteria have been established for the CRHR. A resource is considered significant if it:

1. is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be able to convey the reasons for their significance. Such integrity is evaluated in regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Under CEQA, if an archeological site is not a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archeological resource” as defined in PRC § 21083.2, then it should be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. A unique archaeological resource is defined as follows:
• An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
o Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information
o Has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type
356
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
4 o Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person Resources that neither meet any of these criteria for listing in the CRHR nor qualify as a “unique archaeological resource” under CEQA PRC § 21083.2 are viewed as not significant. Under CEQA, “A non-unique archaeological resource need be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the lead agency if it so elects” (PRC § 21083.2[h]).

Impacts that adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment. Impacts to historical resources from a proposed project are thus considered significant if the project:
(1) physically destroys or damages all or part of a resource; (2) changes the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the setting of the resource, which contributes to its significance; or
(3) introduces visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of significant features of the resource.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was enacted in 2015 and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category: tribal cultural resources. AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. AB 52 requires that lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency. It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and meets either of the following criteria:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)
• A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 (in applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe)
Local
In addition to State regulations, projects built in the City of Beaumont are also subject to the following goals and policies outlined in the City of Beaumont General Plan, Chapter 8: Conservation + Open Space. Specifically, Chapter 8 of the General Plan outlines several policies relating to archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources driven by Goal

8.11 Goal 8.11: A City where archaeological, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and historical places are identified, recognized, and preserved.

Policies:

8.11.1 Avoid or when avoidance is not feasible, minimize impacts to sites with significant archaeological, paleontological, cultural and tribal cultural resources, to the extent feasible 357
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
5 8.11.2 Comply with notification of California Native American tribes and organizations of proposed projects that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources, per the requirements of AB52 and SB18.

8.11.3 Encourage the preservation of historic (i.e., non-archaeological) resources, when practical.

When it is not practical to preserve a historic resource in its entirety, require the architectural details and design elements of historic structures to be preserved during renovations and remodels as much as feasible.

8.11.4 Require that any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the City be treated with respect and dignity and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, California Public Resources Code Amended Statutes 1982 Chapter 1492, California Public Resources Code Statutes 2006, Chapter 863, Section 1, CA Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 , Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, Public Resources Code Section 5097.94, SB 447 (Chapter 404, Statutes of 1987) and other appropriate laws.

8.11.6 Consider the establishment of an arts and culture district that encourages venues for the arts and entertainment, protects historical buildings and cultural resources, and enhances the City image.

Open Space and Conservation Implementation Programs
C20: Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map. Develop a Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map based upon field and literature surveys identifying the locations of known cultural resources and areas of archaeological sensitivity within the City and its Sphere of Influence.

Environmental Setting
The proposed project is within the City of Beaumont, south of Interstate 10, north of Hwy 60, and east of Potrero Blvd.

This general area is associated with the San Gorgonio Pass, a relatively narrow valley located between the San Bernardino Mountains (north) and the San Jacinto Mountains (south). As a portion of the southern extent of the Mojave Desert and western extent of the Colorado Desert, this area is characterized by the presence of decomposing granite derived from the nearby hillsides and windborne or water-borne alluvial deposits. Native vegetation in the area is generally limited to desert sage scrub, but riparian zones can be found along washes and intermittent streams.

The general area of the San Gorgonio Pass is characterized as having exposures of some Mesozoic age granitic and metasedimentary rocks and Quaternary Alluvium (middle and late Pleistocene) that are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers. However, based on the review of the USGS geologic and geophysical maps of the El Casco 7.5’ Quadrangle, and accompanying geologic-map database information, the Project site is situated atop sedimentary units that represent “old” and “very old” alluvial fan deposits, from middle Pleistocene (USGS 2015).

Upon review of the associated geotechnical study for the current Project, the stratigraphic descriptions of the soils observed during geotechnical testing match the physical descriptions of these older deposits as sandy, gravelly and locally including muddy sediments (USGS 2015; Soils Southwest, Inc 2020).

In Southern California, the middle Pleistocene is generally associated with a pre-human presence, although recent research suggests early human exploration of North America earlier in the Late Pleistocene than previously documented. Fossil specimens are also associated with the Pleistocene, particularly in area where deposits are referred to as “older Alluvium” (USGS 2015; Lowe and Walker 1997). The Holocene is considered to be the most recent geologic period and one that is directly associated with human activity. The Holocene is also generally associated with “younger Alluvium” and not fossil bearing, except in instances where fossils have been redeposited.

358
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
6 Cultural Setting
Prehistoric Overview
During the twentieth century, many archaeologists developed chronological sequences to explain prehistoric cultural changes within all or portions of Southern California (Moratto 1984; Jones and Klar 2007). A prehistoric chronology was devised for the Southern California coastal region based on early studies and focused on data synthesis that included four horizons: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric (Wallace 1955, 1978). Though initially lacking the chronological precision of absolute dates (Moratto 1984:159), Wallace’s 1955 synthesis has been modified and improved using thousands of radiocarbon dates obtained by Southern California researchers over recent decades (Byrd and Raab 2007:217; Koerper and Drover 1983; Koerper et al. 2003). The prehistoric chronological sequence for Southern California presented below is a composite based on Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968) as well as later studies, including Koerper and Drover (1983).

Ethnographic Overview
Various regional syntheses have been utilized in the archaeological literature for southern California. The following framework derives information from local studies to provide a useful overview for the Project site. The project area is geographically associated with both the Serrano and Cahuilla of Southern California (Kroeber 1925:615 -619 and 692- 708). Though near the territorial boundary separating these two populations, the area is more generally considered part of the “Pass Cahuilla” territory, a reference to the San Gorgonio Pass (Strong 1929:88- 143). Cahuilla culture has been described by several scholars, but most thoroughly by Bean (1972 and 1978). The “Pass Cahuilla” are one of the three main Cahuilla populations associated with western Riverside County as well as Desert Cahuilla and Mountain Cahuilla.

Cahuilla
The Cahuilla were hunter-gatherers of Shoshonean heritage who lived in small villages of 100 to 200 persons and who were organized into clans and lineages owning village areas and associate gathering tracts (James 1969; Kroeber 1976; Bean 1978; and Emanuels 1991). The Cahuilla produced skillfully manufactured pottery (believed to have been introduced by Colorado River tribes) and basketry. They constructed brush dwellings and ritual structu res; conducted trade between the eastern desert and coastal populations, enjoyed games, music, and a rich ceremonial life. The Cahuilla had relatively extensive exchanges and interactions with neighboring populations and maintained a wide range of cultural traditions represented in the material remains recovered in archaeological sites throughout the area.

Population estimates for the pre-contact Cahuilla range from 2600 to 10,000 individuals. These individuals maintained extensive networks for trade, including contacts along the Colorado River and the Pacific Coast. Trails, small camp sites, and other limited use areas have been recorded throughout the area and attest to the wide-spread use of the Valley and Pass. Additional evidence of long-term occupation has been identified along the various shorelines of prehistoric Lake Cahuilla. Trade routes (e.g. the Coco-Maricopa Trail) and encampments between known freshwater sites have been identified through archaeological evidence and some have been recorded in historic records or on historic period maps.

Wilke (1986:9) also emphasized that the Cahuilla did not rely heavily on stone tools but manufactured numerous tools and utility items of wood (even projectile points, at times) and ceramic goods. Nets and traps were also used in hunting and fishing. Ceramics, mainly Tizon Brown and Salton Buff wares, have been found throughout the area, represented by a wide variety of vessel types. Basketry was used, but few examples have survived. Likewise, few examples of wooden implements have survived. Recent archaeological investigations have suggested some Cahuilla practiced limited agriculture (Wilke 1986:9).

The Cahuilla are also associated with a relatively complex social organization based on lineages and clans. Indiv idual clans occupied village sites and exploited specific clan-related territories. Interactions between clans provided exchange in the form of trade, marriages, and ceremonial contacts (e.g., funerary practices). The Cahuilla practiced cremation and often burned the residences of the deceased. Extensive grave goods have also been identified and associated with the cremation practices. New residences were built some distance from the burned residence and the families 359
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
7 reestablished themselves at the new locale. Analysis of ethnographic and archaeological data has resulted in the development of various chronologies for the Cahuilla (Wallace 1962; Warren and Ore 1978; Weide et al. 1976; Hall and Barker 1976; and Gallegos et al. 1979). Jertberg (1982:5-7) synthesized this data and proposed the following chronology for comparative purposes:
• 10,000 - 6,000 B.C.: The Lake Mojave/San Dieguito Complex and/or Western Lithic Co-Tradition). Generally characterized by the presence of projectile points, large knives, scrapers, chopping tools, and scraper planes (Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Campbell and Campbell 1937; Rogers 1939; Davis et al. 1969). Items associated with vegetal food processing and hunting.
• 6,000 B.C. - A.D. 500: Archaic or Pinto Armagosa periods (Wallace 1962: Bettinger and Taylor 1974; Weide et al. 1976). This period is characterized by diagnostic projectile points, leaf shaped blades, choppers, and scraper planes. Some sites exhibit a small assemblage of milling stones. A shift in climate and vegetation leads to a shift in exploitation with an emphasis on vegetal resources.
• A.D. 500 to Contact: (unnamed). Characterized by the presence of the bow and arrow projectile points (as opposed to dart points), ceramics, and cremations. Milling tools increase, including mortars and pestles. There is evidence of limited agriculture and the appearance of Shoshonean-speakers displacing local Hokan-speaking populations (Wallace 1962:176). Sites are associated with the presence of Lake Cahuilla and the exploitation of resources directly associated with fresh water sources. This unnamed period is more directly associated with the presence of Native Americans in the Indio/La Quinta area and surrounding Cahuilla territories.

Initial contact with the Cahuilla occurred in the early 1800s (ca. 1823) with the Jose Romero Expedition through the Colorado Desert (Bean and Mason 1962). This expedition noted some agricultural activities conducted by the Cahuilla and including corn, beans, and squash. Wilke and Lawton (1975) suggest the presence of agriculture was a trait derived from contact with populations in Mexico (or the Greater Southwest).

Historic Overview
Post-European contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the American Period (1848– present). Briefly, and in very general terms, the Spanish Period encompassed the earliest historic-period explorations of the West, bringing colonization, missionization and proselytization across the western frontier, established few major centers such as Los Angeles and Monterey and a line of missions and presidios with attendant satellite communities, along with minor prospecting, and a foundational economic structure based on the rancho system. The Mexican Period initiated with a continuation of the same structures; however, commensurate with the political changes that led to the establishment of the Mexican state the missions and presidios were secularized, the lands parceled, and Indian laborers released. Increased global trade introduced both foreign and American actors into the Mexican economic and political sphere, both coincidentally, and purposefully, smoothing the transition to the American Period. The American Period was ushered in with a momentous influx of people seeking fortune in the Sierra foothills where gold was “discovered” in 1848. By the early 1850s people from all over the globe had made their way to California. Expansive industries were required to supply the early mining operations, such as forestry products, food networks to supply grains, poultry, cattle, and water systems, which intensified the early Mexican Period structures of ranches and supply chains, as well as the development and expansion of port cities to supply hard goods and clothes, animals, and people that moved across vastly improved trail and road networks. California cycled through boom and bust for several decade until World War I when the Department of the Navy began porting war ships along the west coast. Subsequently, California has grown, and contracted, predominantly around military policy along the west coast, and the Pacific Ocean. Following the industrial expansion related to World War II and the Cold War, technology and systems associated have come to fore as economic drivers.
360
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
8 City of Beaumont
The origin of the City of Beaumont has been reported by Gunther (1984), who describes that it began modestly in 1866 as a mail stop called “Summit Station”, the highest point on the passenger stage route through San Gorgonio Pass. The Summit Station mail stop became a railroad telegraph office for the Southern Pacific Company in 1876. The telegraph office name was changed to “San Gorgonio” in 1884 to coincide with the newly named town site that was established by George C. Egan in 1884. The Southern California Investment Company purchased Egan’s town site in 1886 and, headed by H.C. Sigler from Beaumont, Texas, renamed the station “Beaumont” (beautiful mountain” in French). The Beaumont town site was officially surveyed in 1886 by John Goldworthy and filed in San Bernardino County on March 15, 1887. When the county of Riverside was established in 1893, Beaumont was included within the Riverside County boundaries and, therefore, records prior to 1893 would be in the San Bernardino County Archives and records following 1893 would be in the Riverside County Archives. The City of Beaumont was later incorporated on November 18, 1912.

Methods of Review
Chambers Group requested a records search from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Eastern Information Center (EIC) at California State University, Riverside on October 13, 2021. At this time no records search results have been provided by the EIC. A one-half mile study area was requested to provide additional context to the Project site and surrounding area and more information on which to base this review. Resources consulted during the records search conducted by the SCCIC included the NRHP, California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), Caltrans Historic Highway Bridge Inventory, the California State Historic Resources Inventory, local registries of historic properties, and a review of available Sanborn Fire Insurance maps as well as historic photographs, maps, and aerial imagery. The task also included a search for potential prehistoric and/or historic burials (human remains) evident in previous site records and/or historical maps. In addition, Chambers Group submitted a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a review of the Sacred Land Files (SLF) for the Project site and surrounding vicinity. When received the results of the records search and additional research will be detailed below and included in Attachment B.

Project Personnel
Chambers Group Cultural Resources Department Lead Lucas Tutschulte managed the Project and co-authored the report. Chambers Group archaeologists and cross-trained paleontologists Eduvijes Davis-Mullens, and Kellie Kandybowicz conducted the background research and supported with preparation of the report. Additionally, Eduvijes Davis-Mullens completed the pedestrian survey. Niranjala Kottachchi, MA, served as the Principal Investigator for paleontological resources and provided oversight and concurrence with the paleontological review. Richard Shultz, MA, RPA, served as Principal Investigator for cultural resources, and performed quality control for the report.

Cultural Resources Reports within the Study Area
Due to unforeseen issues with the CHRIS and EIC no records search results have been provided at this time. Upon receipt of the records search results Chambers Group will update the report to include the results and incorporate them into the background research and pedestrian survey results.

Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Study Area Due to unforeseen issues with the CHRIS and EIC no records search results have been provided at this time. Upon receipt of the records search results Chambers Group will update the report to include the results and incorporate them into the background research and pedestrian survey results.

Background Research Results
In addition to the pending records search review and the completed pedestrian survey, Chambers Group archaeologists completed extensive background research to determine if any additional historic properties, landmarks, bridges, or other potentially significant or listed properties are located within the Project footprint or one-half-mile study area.

This background research included, but was not limited to, the NRHP, California State Historic Property Data Files, 361
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
9 California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, historic aerial imagery accessed via NETR Online, Historic U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State and Local Bridge Surveys. Additionally, Chambers Group archaeologists reviewed the Riverside County Historical Landmarks inventory, as well as the Riverside Historical Society and local historical newspaper clippings via Newspapers.com, ProQuest Historical Newspapers.com, and the California Digital Newspaper Collection As a result of the archival research, no previously recorded resources or any other listed or potentially significant properties are located within the Project site. It must be noted that the archival research doesn’t include the records search results from EIC at this time.

Additionally, based on the review of available historic photographs and aerial imagery, Chambers Group archaeologists observed that the Project site has been open space with no built environment features visible from 1966 to 2012.

Historic topographic maps show the area as open space from 1954 through 2015. The historic aerial imagery and topographic maps indicate that the current alignment of Potrero Blvd was constructed as a paved roadway between 2010 and 2012 (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); NETRonline 2021).

Field Survey Methods
Chambers Group archaeologist and cross trained paleontologist Eduvijes Davis-Mullens conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project footprint on October 29, 2021. The intensive -level survey consisted of systematic surface inspection of all areas with transects walked at 15-m intervals or less to ensure that any evidence of surface-exposed cultural materials and/or evidence of paleontological resources could be identified. Chambers Group examined the ground surface for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools), historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), sediment discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, roads and trails, and depressions and other features that might indicate the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations). The Project development area was photographed using a digital camera and data was recorded using a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit with sub-meter accuracy. All field notes, photographs, and records related to the current study are on file at the Chambers Group San Diego office.

Field Survey Results
No evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were identified within the Project site. During the field survey, ground visibility within the Project site ranged from poor to fair, approximately 0-20 percent visibility throughout the area, and up to 75-90 percent visibility within highly disturbed areas such as the dirt two tracks that dissect the area and established access roads.

Paleontological Resources
The paleontological overview for this undertaking identified the project area as consisting entirely of “old and very old” Alluvium, derived as alluvial fan deposits from the San Jacinto Mountains (USGS 2015). Shallow deposits (Holocene) are not considered sensitive for paleontological specimens, but deeper deposits of older Quaternary Alluvium (Late and Middle Pleistocene) may yield paleontological specimens. Based on the geologic-map database for the El Casco 7.5’ Quadrangle map prepared by USGS database, shallow excavations are not likely to impact fossil bearing deposits, but deeper excavation may and, therefore, should be subjected to paleontological monitoring – specifically in areas of undisturbed substrate. Considering that the proposed depth of grading and associated over excavation reaching up to 19 feet, a monitoring program consistent with the policies and guidelines of the County Geologist should be considered, should project-related grading and site preparation impact the older Quaternary deposits.

Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search On October 13, 2021, Chambers Group requested that the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conduct a search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) to determine if Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) important to Native Americans have been recorded in the Project footprint and buffer area. Additional consultation with the tribes indicated in the NAHC 362
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
10 SLF letter (Attachment A) would be required to determine the nature of any existing resources located during ground- disturbing activities. PRC Section 21074 defines a resource as a TCR if it meets either of the following criteria:

1. sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the national or state register of historical resources, or listed in a local register of historic resources; or

2. a resource that the lead agency determines, in its discretion, is a tribal cultural resource On November 17, 2021, Chambers Group received a response from the NAHC stating that the search of its Sacred Lands File was negative for the presence of Native American cultural resources within Project site and the record search study area.

The NAHC provided a list of 24 Native American tribal contacts that may have knowledge of cultural resources near the Project area (Attachment A). A letter describing the Project and asking these individuals and organizations for their input was sent via U.S. mail and electronic mail on November 19, 2021. A copy of the letters sent, the list of contacts, and responses received are included in Attachment A.

As of the date of this report, four responses have been received from NAHC listed tribal groups in response the NAHC scoping letters. The Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation responded via email on November 22, 2021; and indicated that they have no concerns and that they defer to more local tribal groups. Additionally, the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians responded via email on November 22, 2021. They noted that they are not aware of any tribal cultural resources in the Project vicinity but requested to be notified if resources are encountered on-site. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded via email on December 15, 2021. They indicated that they have no known resource concerns in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Finally, the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians responded via email on December 21, 2021; requesting to be provided with the grading plans, geotechnical report, and this cultural resource letter report for the Project.

AB 52 Consultation
The City of Beaumont completed the initial AB 52 outreach for the Project. As of the date of this report, one tribe has responded to the AB 52 consultation request. The Tribal Historic Preservation Division of the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI), responded via email on August 27, 2020, requesting to be included in further consultation and to be provided with the grading plans, geotechnical report, and this cultural resource letter report for the Project.

Discussion
Chambers Group conducted a cultural resources records search, literature review, and pedestrian survey within the West Side Fire Station Project site and surrounding study area in October 2021.

While a records request was made of the CHRIS database, at this time no results have been provided from the EIC to confirm the presence or absence of previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site or surrounding half- mile study area. Chambers Group also submitted a search request of the NAHC SLF to determine the presence or absence of data regarding any known tribal cultural resources previously reported within the Project area or surrounding vicinity. The NAHC SLF search resulted in negative findings.

The Project area was surveyed on October 29, 2021, by Chamber Group archaeologist Eduvijes Davis-Mullens. No cultural resources were identified during the field survey.

In summary, Chambers Group found no physical evidence of archaeological or paleontological resources within the Project site. This finding is based primarily on the visual examination of the ground surface observable at the surface level during the pedestrian survey effort. Background research into the paleontological sensitivity of the area indicates that shallow deposits of fossil bearing deposits are likely to be impacted by the Project. Similarly, while no surficial evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were observed, the Native American community has 363
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
11 identified the area of San Gorgonio Pass as sensitive for Native American resources. Additionally, the area is associated with the early Beaumont development and as such, has the potential to yield late historic archaeological materials, likely in a shallow context. The subsurface context within the Project site is considered sensitive for buried resources, both archaeological and paleontological.

Recommendations
Based on the results of the records search review, background research, and pedestrian survey Chambers Group archaeologists observed that the Proposed Project site is previously disturbed and is currently a vacant parcel of land.

However, background research revealed a relative level of sensitivity for buried resources. Although the NAHC SLF search results were negative, further consultation with the tribes listed in Attachment A is recommended.

Chambers Group recommends the following mitigation measures to be incorporated into a Cultural Resource Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the associated Project construction activity. Moreover, because the records search results have not been received and reviewed Chambers Group recommends that those results be adequately reviewed and incorporated into this report upon receipt. If any cultural resources are identified, they would need to be evaluated for eligibility for the CRHR. Evaluation for archaeological sites consists of an archaeological testing program. For historical buildings or structures, evaluation by an architectural historian may be necessary. Similarly, evaluation for paleontological resources will require evaluation by a qualified paleontologist. If determined eligible by the CEQA lead agency or the State Historic Preservation Office, mitigation, consisting of data recovery for archaeological sites, paleontological resources and documentation for historical structures, would be required if avoidance is not feasible.

MM CUL-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, City of Beaumont shall retain a Qualified Professional Archaeologist to develop and implement a Cultural Resource Mitigation Monitoring Program (CRMP).

The CRMP shall address the details of all activities, provide procedures that must be followed in order to reduce the impacts to cultural and historic resources to a level that is less than significant, and address potential impacts to undiscovered buried archaeological resources associated with the Proposed Project. The CRMP shall be provided to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of the grading permit. The CRMP shall contain at a minimum the following:
a. Qualified Archaeological Monitor – An adequate number of Qualified Archaeological Monitors shall be on site to ensure all earth-moving activities are observed for areas being monitored.

This includes all grubbing, grading, and trenching on site. Inspections shall vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features. The frequency and location of inspections shall be determined and directed by the Registered Professional Archaeologist. The Registered Professional Archaeologist may submit a detailed letter to the City during grading requesting a modification to the monitoring program if circumstances are encountered that reduce the need for monitoring. b. Cultural Sensitivity Training – The Registered Professional Archaeologist, and a representative of the consulting tribe(s), shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. Training shall include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project site and the surrounding area; the areas to be avoided during grading activities; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This shall be a mandatory training, and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the Project site. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Cultural Resources Monitoring Report.
364
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
12 MM PAL-1 Due to the Project design’s proposed depth of grading and over excavation up to 19 feet, if older Pleistocene Alluvial deposits are encountered during site ground disturbing activities, a qualified paleontologist shall oversee the excavations to ensure any paleontological specimens are identified, recovered, analyzed, reported, and curated in accordance with CEQA and the County of Riverside policies and guidelines. This program should be conducted while these older deposits are impacted and while the paleontological consultant deems the program necessary.

MM CUL-2 The Contractor shall provide the Registered Professional Archaeologist with a schedule of initial potential ground-disturbing activities. A minimum of 48 hours will be provided to the Consultant of commencement of any initial ground-disturbing activities such as vegetation grubbing or clearing, grading, trenching, or mass excavation.

As detailed in the schedule provided, an Archaeological Resources Monitor shall be present on site at the commencement of ground-disturbing activities related to the Project. The monitor shall observe initial ground-disturbing activities. All monitors will have stop-work authority to allow for recordation and evaluation of finds during construction. The monitor will maintain a daily record of observations to serve as an ongoing reference resource and to provide a resource for final reporting upon completion of the Project.

The Archaeological Monitor and the Lead Contractor and subcontractors shall maintain a line of communication regarding schedule and activity such that the monitor is aware of all ground-disturbing activities in advance in order to provide appropriate oversight.

MM-CUL-3 If archaeological resources are discovered, construction shall be halted within 50 feet of the find and shall not resume until a Qualified Archaeologist can determine the significance of the find and whether the find has been fully investigated, documented, and cleared. If the Qualified Archaeologist determines that the discovery constitutes a significant resource under CEQA and it cannot be avoided, the City shall implement an archaeological data recovery program.

MM-CUL-4 At the completion of all ground-disturbing activities, the Consultant shall prepare an Archaeological Resources Monitoring Report summarizing all monitoring efforts and observations, as performed, and any and all prehistoric or historic archaeological finds as well as providing follow-up reports of any finds to the Eastern Information Center (EIC), as required.

MM-CUL-5 Unanticipated discovery of Human Remains: In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, then the Proposed Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

If human remains are found during ground-disturbing activities, State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Ventura County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the County Coroner shall notify the NAHC, which shall notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

Chambers Group is available to assist with any further support or document preparation related to Cultural Resources, including tribal consultation. Please contact Corinne Lytle-Bonine, Senior Project Manager, at (858) 528-2800 extension 7100, or myself at the contact information below if you have any questions or comments regarding this report.

365
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
13 Sincerely,
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.

Richard Shultz MA, RPA
Cultural Resources Principal Investigator
858.541.2800 Ext 7114
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92123

Lucas Tutschulte
Cultural Department Lead
858.541.2800 Ext 7140
9620 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92123

Attachments
Attachment A: NAHC SLF Records Search Results Letter
Attachment B (Confidential): Record Search Results

366
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
14 References
Bean, Lowell, J.
1972 Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Berkeley, California.
1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, Lowell, J., and William M. Mason
1962 The Romero Expeditions 1823-1826. Palm Springs Desert Museum, Palm Springs, California.

Bettinger, Robert L., and Royal Ervin Taylor
1974 Suggested Revisions in Archaeological Sequences of the Great Basin in Interior Southern California.

Nevada Archaeological Survey Research Paper 5:1-26. Reno.

Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab
2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215-228. Altamira Press, New York.

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
1995 Historic Properties Directory. State of California: Sacramento Davis, Emma Lou, Clark W. Brott, and David L. Weide
1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum of Man Papers 6:1-97. San Diego.

Emanuels, George
1991 California Indians: An Illustrated Guide. Diablo Books, Walnut Creek, California.

Gallegos, Dennis, John Cash, Emma Lou. Davis, Gary Lowe, Frank Norris, and Jay Thesken 1979 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Central Mojave and Colorado Desert Regions, California. WESTEC Services, Inc., San Diego.

Gunther, Jane Davies
1984 Riverside County, California Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Company.

Riverside, California.

Hall, Matthew C., and James B. Barker
1975 Background to the Prehistory of the El Paso/Red Mountain Desert Regions. Archaeological Research Unit. University of California, Riverside.

James, Harry C.
1960 The Cahuilla Indians. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California.

Jertberg, Patricia R.
1982 Archaeological Salvage Investigation of CA-RIV-1180, Locus II on Dune La Quinta Parcel. On file, University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, California 367
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
15 Jones, Terry L., and Kathryn A. Klar
2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. AltaMira Press, Berkeley, California.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1976 Report on the Aboriginal Territory and Occupancy of the Mohave Tribe. In American Indian Ethnohistory: Indians of the Southwest. Garland, New York Koerper Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover
1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34.

Koerper Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson
2003 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity:

Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 63–

81. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6, Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Rogers, Malcolm J.
1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers No. 3.

Soils Southwest, Inc
2020 Feasibility Study Reports of Geotechnical Investigations & Soil Infiltration Testing for WQMP-BMP Stormwater Disposal Design Proposed Beaumont Fire Station Potrero Boulevard @ Olivewood Way, Beaumont, California

Strong, William Duncan
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology 26:1-358.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2021 Aerial Images: 1947, 1969, 1978, 1980, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018.

Accessed at http://www.historicaerials.com/ .

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
2015 Geologic and Geophysical Maps of the El Casco 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California, with Accompanying Geologic-map Database. Accessed at USGS Open-File Report 2010–1274, sheet 1.

Wallace, William J.
1955 Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230.
1962 Prehistoric Cultural Development in the Southern California Deserts. American Antiquity 28(2):172-180.
368
Item 8.

CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY RESULTS LETTER

REPORT FOR THE WEST SIDE FIRE STATION PROJECT
City of Beaumont
16 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-14. Portales.

Warren, Claude N., and H .Thomas Ore
1978 Approach and Process for Dating Lake Mojave Artifacts. Journal of California Anthropology 512:179- 187.

Weide, David L, James P. Barker, Harry W. Lawton, and Margaret L. Weide 1976 Background to Prehistory of the Yuha Desert Region. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No 5.

Ballena Press, Ramona.

Wilke, Philip J., and Harry W. Lawton
1975 Early Observations on the Cultural Geography of Coachella Valley. In The Cahuilla Indians of the Colorado Desert: Ethnohistory and Prehistory, pp. 9-43. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.

369
Item 8.

ATTACHMENT A – NAHC SLF RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS LETTER 370 Item 8.

Attachment A: NAHC SLF Records Search Results Letter

371
Item 8.

372
Item 8.

373
Item 8.

374
Item 8.

375
Item 8.

376
Item 8.

377
Item 8.

378
Item 8.

CONFIDENTIAL. This document is confidential under California Government Code 6254.10 and the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 304, and other applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations prohibiting public and unauthorized disclosure of records related to cultural resources. Recipients of this document acknowledge they are authorized to receive these materials and are responsible for maintaining the confidential nature of the contents related to cultural resources identified in this document and will not disclose confidential information to the public and/or unauthorized persons.

ATTACHMENT B (CONFIDENTIAL) – RECORD SEARCH RESULTS 379 Item 8.

Attachment B (Confidential): Record Search Results

380
Item 8.

APPENDIX E – ENERGY CALCULATIONS 381
Item 8.

Appendix E - Energy Calculations
Construction-Related Petroleum Fuels
The off-road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off-road equipment assumptions utilized in the CalEEMod model run provided in Appendix A and the fuel usage calculations provided in the 2017 Off-road Diesel Emission Factors spreadsheet, prepared by CARB ( https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/ordiesel.htm) . The Spreadsheet provides the following formula to calculate fuel usage from off-road equipment:

Fuel Used = Load Factor x Horsepower x Total Operational Hours x BSFC / Unit Conversion Where:

Load Factor - Obtained from CalEEMod default values
Horsepower – Obtained from CalEEMod default values
Total Operational Hours – Calculated by multiplying CalEEMod default daily hours by the estimated number of working days for each phase of construction BSFC – Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (pounds per horsepower-hour) – If less than 100 Horsepower = 0.408, if greater than 100 Horsepower = 0.367 Unit Conversion – Converts pounds to gallons = 7.109
The Following Table shows the off-road construction equipment fuel calculations based on the above formula, which shows that the off-road equipment utilized during construction of the proposed project would consume 27,904 gallons of fuel.

Off-Road Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Fuel Used Equipment Type Equipment
Quantity
Horse-
Power Load
Factor
Operating
Hours Per
Day
Total
Operational
Hours1
Fuel
Used
(gallons)
Site Preparation
Grader 1 187 0.41 8 24 95
Scraper 1 367 0.48 8 24 218
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 97 0.37 7 21 43
Grading
Grader 1 187 0.41 8 160 633
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 247 0.40 8 160 816
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 97 0.37 7 280 577
Building Construction
Crane 1 231 0.29 8 1,760 6,087
Forklifts 2 89 0.2 7 3,080 3,146
Generator Set 1 84 0.74 8 1,760 6,279
382
Item 8.

Equipment Type Equipment
Quantity
Horse-
Power Load
Factor
Operating
Hours Per
Day
Total
Operational
Hours1
Fuel
Used
(gallons)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 97 0.37 6 1,320 2,719
Welders 3 46 0.45 8 5,280 6,273
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 9 0.56 8 80 23
Paver 1 130 0.42 8 80 225
Paving Equipment 1 132 0.36 8 80 196
Rollers 2 80 0.38 8 160 279
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 97 0.37 8 80 165
Architectural Coatings
Air Compressor 1 78 0.48 6 60 129
Total Off-Road Equipment Fuel used during Construction of the Proposed Project (gallons) 27,904 Notes:
1 Based on 3 days for Site Preparation, 20 days for Grading , 220 days for Building Construction, 10 days for Paving, and 10 days for Architectural Coatings.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, CARB, 2018.

The on-road construction-related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the default construction vehicle trip assumptions from the CalEEMod model run. The calculated total construction miles were then divided by the fleet average for the South Coast Air Basin miles per gallon rates for the year 2022 that were calculated through use of the EMFAC2017 model ( https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/) and the EMFAC2017 model printouts are attached. The following Table shows the on-road construction vehicle trips modeled in CalEEMod and the fuel usage calculations, which shows that the on-road construction-related vehicle trips would consume 18,788 gallons of fuel for the proposed Project.

On-Road Construction Vehicle Trips Modeled in CalEEMod and Fuel Used Vehicle Trip Types Daily
Trips
Trip
Length
(miles)
Total per
Day
(miles)
Total per
Phase
(miles)
Fleet Average
Miles per
Gallon
Fuel
Used
(gallons)
Site Preparation
Worker Trips 8 14.7 118 353 26.0 14
Vendor Trips 6 6.9 41 124 8.2 15
Grading
Worker Trips 10 14.7 147 2,940 26.0 113
Vendor Trips 6 6.9 41 828 8.2 101
Haul Trips 250.3 20 5,005 100,100 8.2 12,170
Building Construction
Worker Trips 31 14.7 456 100,254 26.0 3,858
Vendor Trips 13 6.9 90 19,734 8.2 2,399
Paving
383
Item 8.

Vehicle Trip Types Daily
Trips
Trip
Length
(miles)
Total per
Day
(miles)
Total per
Phase
(miles)
Fleet Average
Miles per
Gallon
Fuel
Used
(gallons)
Worker Trips 15 14.7 221 2,205 26.0 85
Architectural Coatings
Worker Trips 6 14.7 88 882 26.0 34
Total On-Road Vehicle Fuel used during Construction of the Proposed Project (gallons) 18,788 Notes:
1 Based on 3 days for Site Preparation, 20 days for Grading , 220 days for Building Construction, 10 days for Paving, and 10 days for Architectural Coatings.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, CARB, 2018.

Operations-Related Petroleum Fuels
The on-road operations-related vehicle trips fuel usage was calculated through use of the total annual vehicle miles traveled assumptions from the CalEEMod model run provided in Appendix A, which found that operation of the proposed project would generate 413,086 vehicle miles traveled per year. The calculated total operational miles were then divided by the South Coast Air Basin fleet average rate of

26.0 miles per gallon, which was calculated through use of the EMFAC2017 model for year 2022. The EMFAC2017 model printouts are attached to this Appendix. Based on the above calculation methodology, the operation of the proposed Project would consume 15,895 gallons of petroleum fuels per year.

384
Item 8.

APPENDIX F – PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 385
Item 8.

386
Item 8.

387
Item 8.

388
Item 8.

389
Item 8.

390
Item 8.

391
Item 8.

392
Item 8.

393
Item 8.

394
Item 8.

395
Item 8.

396
Item 8.

397
Item 8.

398
Item 8.

399
Item 8.

400
Item 8.

401
Item 8.

402
Item 8.

403
Item 8.

404
Item 8.

405
Item 8.

406
Item 8.

407
Item 8.

408
Item 8.

409
Item 8.

410
Item 8.

411
Item 8.

412
Item 8.

413
Item 8.

414
Item 8.

415
Item 8.

416
Item 8.

417
Item 8.

418
Item 8.

419
Item 8.

420
Item 8.

421
Item 8.

422
Item 8.

423
Item 8.

424
Item 8.

425
Item 8.

426
Item 8.

427
Item 8.

428
Item 8.

429
Item 8.

430
Item 8.

431
Item 8.

432
Item 8.

433
Item 8.

434
Item 8.

435
Item 8.

436
Item 8.

437
Item 8.

438
Item 8.

APPENDIX G – CALEEMOD GHG PRINTOUT 439
Item 8.

West Side Fire Station
Riverside-South Coast County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Project Site = 1.59 acre + 1.0 acre of offsite Road Improvements = 2.59 acres disturbed Construction Phase - Grading Phase extended to 20 working days to account for export of dirt Grading - 40,041 cubic yards exported
Trips and VMT - 6 vendor trucks per day added to Site Preparation and Grading Phases to account for water truck emissions Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Water Exposed Area 2x per day selected to account for SCAQMD Rule 403 minimum requirements Water Mitigation - Install low flow fixtures and use water-efficient Irrigation systems selected to account for Title 24 part 11 requirements Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - 50 kW (86 HP0 Diesel Generator 0.5 hr/day & 26 hr/year

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Government Office Building 10.76 1000sqft 0.89 10,760.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.57 1000sqft 0.20 570.00 0 Parking Lot 16.00 Space 0.50 21,569.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 1.00 Acre 1.00 43,560.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.4 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 1 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 440Item 8.

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/10/2023 3/2/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/13/2023 2/2/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/11/2022 3/31/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/27/2023 2/16/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/28/2023 2/17/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/12/2022 4/1/2022
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/14/2023 2/3/2023
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 40,041.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 6,400.00 21,569.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.25 0.89
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.01 0.20
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.14 0.50
tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF CH4_EF 0.07 0.07
tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF ROG_EF 2.2480e-003 2.2477e-003 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 86.00 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerDay 0.00 0.50
tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 26.00 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 6.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 2 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 441Item 8.

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.2202 2.0297 1.7132 4.6800e-
003

0.1620 0.0818 0.2439 0.0584 0.0781 0.1365 0.0000 415.0464 415.0464 0.0490 0.0262 424.0765 2023 0.0912 0.2196 0.2552 4.8000e-
004

6.2300e-
003

9.9600e-
003

0.0162 1.6800e-
003

9.4800e-
003

0.0112 0.0000 40.6190 40.6190 7.3700e-
003

4.9000e-
004

40.9505
Maximum 0.2202 2.0297 1.7132 4.6800e-
003

0.1620 0.0818 0.2439 0.0584 0.0781 0.1365 0.0000 415.0464 415.0464 0.0490 0.0262 424.0765 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.2202 2.0297 1.7132 4.6800e-
003

0.1204 0.0818 0.2022 0.0392 0.0781 0.1173 0.0000 415.0461 415.0461 0.0490 0.0262 424.0762 2023 0.0912 0.2196 0.2552 4.8000e-
004

6.2300e-
003

9.9600e-
003

0.0162 1.6800e-
003

9.4800e-
003

0.0112 0.0000 40.6189 40.6189 7.3700e-
003

4.9000e-
004

40.9505
Maximum 0.2202 2.0297 1.7132 4.6800e-
003

0.1204 0.0818 0.2022 0.0392 0.0781 0.1173 0.0000 415.0461 415.0461 0.0490 0.0262 424.0762 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 3 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 442Item 8.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.76 0.00 16.02 31.95 0.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 2-1-2022 4-30-2022 0.7365 0.7365
2 5-1-2022 7-31-2022 0.5662 0.5662
3 8-1-2022 10-31-2022 0.5664 0.5664
4 11-1-2022 1-31-2023 0.5528 0.5528
5 2-1-2023 4-30-2023 0.1305 0.1305
Highest 0.7365 0.7365
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 4 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 443Item 8.

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0513 0.0000 3.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 7.5000e-
004
Energy 2.1000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 21.1407 21.1407 1.6500e-
003

2.3000e-
004

21.2513
Mobile 0.0762 0.1106 0.6976 1.5300e-
003

0.1563 1.2700e-
003

0.1575 0.0417 1.1900e-
003

0.0429 0.0000 143.2681 143.2681 8.4200e-
003

7.6200e-
003
145.7494
Stationary 1.8300e-
003

5.9800e-
003

6.6600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.8515 0.8515 1.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.8545
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1416 0.0000 2.1416 0.1266 0.0000 5.3056 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7200 7.8219 8.5419 0.0746 1.8300e- 003

10.9512
Total 0.1296 0.1185 0.7062 1.5500e-
003

0.1563 1.6800e-
003

0.1579 0.0417 1.6000e-
003

0.0434 2.8615 173.0828 175.9444 0.2114 9.6800e-
003
184.1128
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 5 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 444Item 8.

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 7.5000e-
004
Energy 2.1000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 21.1407 21.1407 1.6500e-
003

2.3000e-
004

21.2513
Mobile 0.0762 0.1106 0.6976 1.5300e-
003

0.1563 1.2700e-
003

0.1575 0.0417 1.1900e-
003

0.0429 0.0000 143.2681 143.2681 8.4200e-
003

7.6200e-
003
145.7494
Stationary 1.8300e-
003

5.9800e-
003

6.6600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.8515 0.8515 1.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.8545
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1416 0.0000 2.1416 0.1266 0.0000 5.3056 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5760 6.6163 7.1923 0.0597 1.4600e- 003

9.1216
Total 0.1296 0.1185 0.7062 1.5500e-
003

0.1563 1.6800e-
003

0.1579 0.0417 1.6000e-
003

0.0434 2.7175 171.8773 174.5948 0.1965 9.3100e-
003
182.2832
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/1/2022 3/3/2022 5 3 2 Grading Grading 3/4/2022 3/31/2022 5 20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.03 0.70 0.77 7.04 3.82 0.99 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 6 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 445Item 8.

3 Building Construction Building Construction 4/1/2022 2/2/2023 5 220 4 Paving Paving 2/3/2023 2/16/2023 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/17/2023 3/2/2023 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 16,995; Non-Residential Outdoor: 5,665; Striped Parking Area: 3,908 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 20
Acres of Paving: 1.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 7 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 446Item 8.

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Total 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

8.9000e-
004

3.2800e-
003

2.6000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

1.0800e-
003

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 6.00 5,005.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 31.00 13.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 6.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 8 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 447Item 8.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1576 0.1576 0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.1646
Worker 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1043 0.1043 0.0000 0.0000 0.1052
Total 5.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

1.9000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2619 0.2619 0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.2698
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.0700e-
003

0.0000 1.0700e-
003

1.2000e-
004

0.0000 1.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Total 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

8.9000e-
004

1.9600e-
003

1.2000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

9.4000e-
004

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 9 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 448Item 8.

4.0000e-
004

1.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1576 0.1576 0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.1646
Worker 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

4.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1043 0.1043 0.0000 0.0000 0.1052
Total 5.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

1.9000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2619 0.2619 0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.2698
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0734 0.0000 0.0734 0.0346 0.0000 0.0346 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004

7.4200e-
003

6.8300e-
003

0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003

0.0000 18.2491
Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004

0.0734 7.4200e-
003

0.0808 0.0346 6.8300e-
003

0.0415 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003

0.0000 18.2491
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 10 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 449Item 8.

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 7.7600e-
003

0.3370 0.0719 1.4400e-
003

0.0432 3.7200e-
003

0.0469 0.0119 3.5600e-
003

0.0154 0.0000 139.2896 139.2896 1.8800e-
003

0.0219 145.8753
Vendor 1.0000e-
004

2.6600e-
003

9.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.0507 1.0507 1.0000e-
005

1.6000e-
004

1.0974
Worker 3.5000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

2.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.8691 0.8691 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.8769
Total 8.2100e-
003

0.3399 0.0762 1.4600e-
003

0.0447 3.7700e-
003

0.0484 0.0123 3.6100e-
003

0.0159 0.0000 141.2095 141.2095 1.9100e-
003

0.0221 147.8496
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0330 0.0000 0.0330 0.0156 0.0000 0.0156 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004

7.4200e-
003

6.8300e-
003

0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003

0.0000 18.2491
Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004

0.0330 7.4200e-
003

0.0404 0.0156 6.8300e-
003

0.0224 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003

0.0000 18.2491
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 11 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 450Item 8.

3.3 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 7.7600e-
003

0.3370 0.0719 1.4400e-
003

0.0432 3.7200e-
003

0.0469 0.0119 3.5600e-
003

0.0154 0.0000 139.2896 139.2896 1.8800e-
003

0.0219 145.8753
Vendor 1.0000e-
004

2.6600e-
003

9.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.0507 1.0507 1.0000e-
005

1.6000e-
004

1.0974
Worker 3.5000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.4100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

2.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.8691 0.8691 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.8769
Total 8.2100e-
003

0.3399 0.0762 1.4600e-
003

0.0447 3.7700e-
003

0.0484 0.0123 3.6100e-
003

0.0159 0.0000 141.2095 141.2095 1.9100e-
003

0.0221 147.8496
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1818 1.4312 1.4066 2.4500e-
003

0.0688 0.0688 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 203.5265 203.5265 0.0393 0.0000 204.5082 Total 0.1818 1.4312 1.4066 2.4500e-
003

0.0688 0.0688 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 203.5265 203.5265 0.0393 0.0000 204.5082 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 12 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 451Item 8.

0.0566 0.0191 2.3000e-
004

8.0500e-
003

7.8000e-
004

8.8300e-
003

2.3200e-
003

7.4000e-
004

3.0700e-
003

0.0000 22.3100 22.3100 2.3000e-
004

3.3100e-
003

23.3024
Worker 0.0106 8.2700e-
003

0.1035 2.9000e-
004

0.0334 1.7000e-
004

0.0336 8.8700e-
003

1.6000e-
004

9.0200e-
003

0.0000 26.4038 26.4038 7.0000e-
004

7.3000e-
004

26.6392
Total 0.0126 0.0648 0.1225 5.2000e-
004

0.0414 9.5000e-
004

0.0424 0.0112 9.0000e-
004

0.0121 0.0000 48.7138 48.7138 9.3000e-
004

4.0400e-
003

49.9416
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1818 1.4312 1.4066 2.4500e-
003

0.0688 0.0688 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 203.5263 203.5263 0.0393 0.0000 204.5079 Total 0.1818 1.4312 1.4066 2.4500e-
003

0.0688 0.0688 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 203.5263 203.5263 0.0393 0.0000 204.5079 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 13 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 452Item 8.

0.0566 0.0191 2.3000e-
004

8.0500e-
003

7.8000e-
004

8.8300e-
003

2.3200e-
003

7.4000e-
004

3.0700e-
003

0.0000 22.3100 22.3100 2.3000e-
004

3.3100e-
003

23.3024
Worker 0.0106 8.2700e-
003

0.1035 2.9000e-
004

0.0334 1.7000e-
004

0.0336 8.8700e-
003

1.6000e-
004

9.0200e-
003

0.0000 26.4038 26.4038 7.0000e-
004

7.3000e-
004

26.6392
Total 0.0126 0.0648 0.1225 5.2000e-
004

0.0414 9.5000e-
004

0.0424 0.0112 9.0000e-
004

0.0121 0.0000 48.7138 48.7138 9.3000e-
004

4.0400e-
003

49.9416
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0206 0.1635 0.1706 3.0000e-
004

7.3600e-
003

7.0600e-
003

0.0000 24.9243 24.9243 4.7100e-
003

0.0000 25.0421
Total 0.0206 0.1635 0.1706 3.0000e-
004

7.3600e-
003

7.0600e-
003

0.0000 24.9243 24.9243 4.7100e-
003

0.0000 25.0421
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 14 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 453Item 8.

5.3500e-
003

2.1300e-
003

3.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

1.0300e-
003

2.8000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

0.0000 2.6247 2.6247 3.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

2.7410
Worker 1.2100e-
003

8.9000e-
004

0.0117 3.0000e-
005

4.0900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

4.1100e-
003

1.0900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

0.0000 3.1484 3.1484 8.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
005

3.1749
Total 1.3800e-
003

6.2400e-
003

0.0138 6.0000e-
005

5.0800e-
003

6.0000e-
005

5.1400e-
003

1.3700e-
003

6.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

0.0000 5.7731 5.7731 1.1000e-
004

4.7000e-
004

5.9159
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0206 0.1635 0.1706 3.0000e-
004

7.3600e-
003

7.0600e-
003

0.0000 24.9242 24.9242 4.7100e-
003

0.0000 25.0421
Total 0.0206 0.1635 0.1706 3.0000e-
004

7.3600e-
003

7.0600e-
003

0.0000 24.9242 24.9242 4.7100e-
003

0.0000 25.0421
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 15 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 454Item 8.

5.3500e-
003

2.1300e-
003

3.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

1.0300e-
003

2.8000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

0.0000 2.6247 2.6247 3.0000e-
005

3.9000e-
004

2.7410
Worker 1.2100e-
003

8.9000e-
004

0.0117 3.0000e-
005

4.0900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

4.1100e-
003

1.0900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

0.0000 3.1484 3.1484 8.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
005

3.1749
Total 1.3800e-
003

6.2400e-
003

0.0138 6.0000e-
005

5.0800e-
003

6.0000e-
005

5.1400e-
003

1.3700e-
003

6.0000e-
005

1.4300e-
003

0.0000 5.7731 5.7731 1.1000e-
004

4.7000e-
004

5.9159
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8179
Paving 1.9700e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.3700e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8179
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 16 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 455Item 8.

3.5 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.4000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

2.3500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 8.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.6348 0.6348 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.6401
Total 2.4000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

2.3500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 8.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.6348 0.6348 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.6401
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8178
Paving 1.9700e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.3700e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8178
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 17 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 456Item 8.

1.8000e-
004

2.3500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 8.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.6348 0.6348 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.6401
Total 2.4000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

2.3500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 8.3000e-
004

2.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.6348 0.6348 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.6401
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Total 0.0625 6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 18 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 457Item 8.

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

9.4000e-
004

0.0000 3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2539 0.2539 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.2560
Total 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

9.4000e-
004

0.0000 3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2539 0.2539 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.2560
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0616 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.6000e-
004

6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Total 0.0625 6.5100e-
003

9.0600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2785
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 19 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 458Item 8.

7.0000e-
005

9.4000e-
004

0.0000 3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2539 0.2539 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.2560
Total 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

9.4000e-
004

0.0000 3.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2539 0.2539 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.2560
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 20 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 459Item 8.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0762 0.1106 0.6976 1.5300e-
003

0.1563 1.2700e-
003

0.1575 0.0417 1.1900e-
003

0.0429 0.0000 143.2681 143.2681 8.4200e-
003

7.6200e-
003
145.7494
Unmitigated 0.0762 0.1106 0.6976 1.5300e-
003

0.1563 1.2700e-
003

0.1575 0.0417 1.1900e-
003

0.0429 0.0000 143.2681 143.2681 8.4200e-
003

7.6200e-
003
145.7494

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Government Office Building 243.07 0.00 0.00 408,835 408,835 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.99 0.99 0.99 4,251 4,251 Total 244.06 0.99 0.99 413,086 413,086
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Government Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 62.00 5.00 50 34 16 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

16.60 8.40 6.90 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 21 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 460Item 8.

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Government Office Building 0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468 Parking Lot 0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.534849 0.056022 0.172639 0.141007 0.026597 0.007310 0.011327 0.018693 0.000616 0.000315 0.024057 0.001100 0.005468

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 19.1100 19.1100 1.6100e- 003

2.0000e-
004

19.2086
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 19.1100 19.1100 1.6100e- 003

2.0000e-
004

19.2086
NaturalGas
Mitigated

2.1000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.0306 2.0306 4.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

2.0427
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

2.1000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.0306 2.0306 4.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

2.0427

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 22 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 461Item 8.

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Government
Office Building
36906.8 2.0000e-
004

1.8100e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.9695 1.9695 4.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

1.9812
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
1145.7 1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0611 0.0611 0.0000 0.0000 0.0615 Total 2.1000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.0306 2.0306 4.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

2.0427
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 23 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 462Item 8.

1.8100e-
003

1.5200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.9695 1.9695 4.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0611 0.0611 0.0000 0.0000 0.0615 Total 2.1000e-
004

1.8700e-
003

1.5700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.0306 2.0306 4.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

2.0427
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 24 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 463Item 8.

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Government
Office Building
98884.4 17.5367 1.4800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

17.6272
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 7549.15 1.3388 1.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

1.3457
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
1322.4 0.2345 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2357
Total 19.1100 1.6100e-
003

1.9000e-
004

19.2086
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 25 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 464Item 8.

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Government
Office Building
98884.4 17.5367 1.4800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

17.6272
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 7549.15 1.3388 1.1000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

1.3457
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
1322.4 0.2345 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2357
Total 19.1100 1.6100e-
003

1.9000e-
004

19.2086
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 26 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 465Item 8.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0513 0.0000 3.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 7.5000e-
004
Unmitigated 0.0513 0.0000 3.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 7.5000e-
004

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

6.1600e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0452 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 7.5000e-
004
Total 0.0513 0.0000 3.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 7.5000e-
004
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 27 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 466Item 8.

Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.1600e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0452 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 7.5000e-
004
Total 0.0513 0.0000 3.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 7.5000e-
004
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 28 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 467Item 8.

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 7.1923 0.0597 1.4600e-
003

9.1216
Unmitigated 8.5419 0.0746 1.8300e-
003

10.9512

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Government
Office Building

2.13758 /

1.31013

8.1956 0.0703 1.7200e-
003

10.4659
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.131813 /
0 0.3462 4.3200e-
003

1.0000e-
004

0.4854
Total 8.5418 0.0746 1.8200e-
003

10.9512
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 29 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 468Item 8.

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Government
Office Building

1.71006 /

1.23021

6.9153 0.0563 1.3800e-
003

8.7334
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.10545 /
0 0.2770 3.4600e-
003

8.0000e-
005

0.3883
Total 7.1923 0.0597 1.4600e-
003

9.1217
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 30 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 469Item 8.

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 2.1416 0.1266 0.0000 5.3056
Unmitigated 2.1416 0.1266 0.0000 5.3056
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Government
Office Building

10.01 2.0319 0.1201 0.0000 5.0340
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.54 0.1096 6.4800e-
003

0.0000 0.2716
Total 2.1416 0.1266 0.0000 5.3056
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 31 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 470Item 8.

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Government
Office Building

10.01 2.0319 0.1201 0.0000 5.0340
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.54 0.1096 6.4800e-
003

0.0000 0.2716
Total 2.1416 0.1266 0.0000 5.3056
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Emergency Generator 1 0.5 26 86 0.73 Diesel
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 32 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 471Item 8.

11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

10.1 Stationary Sources
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Equipment Type tons/yr MT/yr
Emergency
Generator -
Diesel (75 - 100
HP)

1.8300e-
003

5.9800e-
003

6.6600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.8515 0.8515 1.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.8545
Total 1.8300e-
003

5.9800e-
003

6.6600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.8515 0.8515 1.2000e-
004

0.0000 0.8545
Unmitigated/Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 12/6/2021 2:15 PMPage 33 of 33 West Side Fire Station - Riverside-South Coast County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 472Item 8.

APPENDIX H – NOISE CALCULATIONS 473
Item 8.

Date Time=10/28/21 5:17:00 PM Date Time=10/28/21 5:27:00 PM Sampling Time=3 Weighting=A Sampling Time=3 Freq Weighting=A Record Num= 28600 Weighting=Slow CNEL(24hr)=64.0 Record Num= 28600 Weighting=Slow CNEL(24hr)=59.2 Leq 59.8 SEL Value=108.9 Ldn(24hr)= 63.8 Leq 53.3 SEL Value=102.7 Ldn(24hr)= 58.8 MAX 93.9 Min Leq1hr = 51.5 12:23 AM MAX 82.5 Min Leq1hr = 49.0 3:48 AM MIN 37.4 Max Leq1hr = 66.1 3:15 PM MIN 42 Max Leq1hr = 56.6 6:08 PM SPL Time Leq (1 hour Avg.) Ldn CNEL SPL Time Leq (1 hour Avg.) Ldn CNEL

59.5 17:17:00 59.5 59.5 58 17:27:00 58 58

60.5 17:17:03 60.5 60.5 57 17:27:03 57 57

68.5 17:17:06 68.5 68.5 55.1 17:27:06 55.1 55.1

60.5 17:17:09 60.5 60.5 58.7 17:27:09 58.7 58.7

61.4 17:17:12 61.4 61.4 55.6 17:27:12 55.6 55.6

57.9 17:17:15 57.9 57.9 55.1 17:27:15 55.1 55.1

63.2 17:17:18 63.2 63.2 55.3 17:27:18 55.3 55.3

57.4 17:17:21 57.4 57.4 52.2 17:27:21 52.2 52.2

61.5 17:17:24 61.5 61.5 54.4 17:27:24 54.4 54.4

61.6 17:17:27 61.6 61.6 58.6 17:27:27 58.6 58.6

66.8 17:17:30 66.8 66.8 60.2 17:27:30 60.2 60.2

69.4 17:17:33 69.4 69.4 57.1 17:27:33 57.1 57.1

65.3 17:17:36 65.3 65.3 57.3 17:27:36 57.3 57.3

61.4 17:17:39 61.4 61.4 57.7 17:27:39 57.7 57.7

54.2 17:17:42 54.2 54.2 56.5 17:27:42 56.5 56.5

55.8 17:17:45 55.8 55.8 52.7 17:27:45 52.7 52.7

64.7 17:17:48 64.7 64.7 54.7 17:27:48 54.7 54.7

62.8 17:17:51 62.8 62.8 57 17:27:51 57 57

61.4 17:17:54 61.4 61.4 57.2 17:27:54 57.2 57.2

56.6 17:17:57 56.6 56.6 54.1 17:27:57 54.1 54.1

68.3 17:18:00 68.3 68.3 59.1 17:28:00 59.1 59.1

59.3 17:18:03 59.3 59.3 55.5 17:28:03 55.5 55.5

50.8 17:18:06 50.8 50.8 59.8 17:28:06 59.8 59.8

55.7 17:18:09 55.7 55.7 59 17:28:09 59 59

57.4 17:18:12 57.4 57.4 55.6 17:28:12 55.6 55.6

50.9 17:18:15 50.9 50.9 54.1 17:28:15 54.1 54.1

49.9 17:18:18 49.9 49.9 55.6 17:28:18 55.6 55.6

48.9 17:18:21 48.9 48.9 60.6 17:28:21 60.6 60.6

48.3 17:18:24 48.3 48.3 55.6 17:28:24 55.6 55.6

47.5 17:18:27 47.5 47.5 51.4 17:28:27 51.4 51.4

47.3 17:18:30 47.3 47.3 55.1 17:28:30 55.1 55.1

50.1 17:18:33 50.1 50.1 58.7 17:28:33 58.7 58.7
55 17:18:36 55 55.0 54.3 17:28:36 54.3 54.3

53.5 17:18:39 53.5 53.5 54.6 17:28:39 54.6 54.6

52.2 17:18:42 52.2 52.2 55.9 17:28:42 55.9 55.9

55.9 17:18:45 55.9 55.9 55.5 17:28:45 55.5 55.5

56.5 17:18:48 56.5 56.5 57.1 17:28:48 57.1 57.1
60 17:18:51 60 60.0 55.6 17:28:51 55.6 55.6

61.9 17:18:54 61.9 61.9 55.4 17:28:54 55.4 55.4

60.4 17:18:57 60.4 60.4 57 17:28:57 57 57

60.4 17:19:00 60.4 60.4 57.7 17:29:00 57.7 57.7

55.4 17:19:03 55.4 55.4 58.6 17:29:03 58.6 58.6

54.6 17:19:06 54.6 54.6 55.7 17:29:06 55.7 55.7

52.2 17:19:09 52.2 52.2 56.3 17:29:09 56.3 56.3

49.3 17:19:12 49.3 49.3 56.8 17:29:12 56.8 56.8

48.6 17:19:15 48.6 48.6 58 17:29:15 58 58

47.9 17:19:18 47.9 47.9 56.4 17:29:18 56.4 56.4

48.5 17:19:21 48.5 48.5 57 17:29:21 57 57

48.9 17:19:24 48.9 48.9 58 17:29:24 58 58

49.8 17:19:27 49.8 49.8 55.7 17:29:27 55.7 55.7

47.6 17:19:30 47.6 47.6 55.2 17:29:30 55.2 55.2

48.5 17:19:33 48.5 48.5 52.3 17:29:33 52.3 52.3
52 17:19:36 52 52.0 54.1 17:29:36 54.1 54.1

58.8 17:19:39 58.8 58.8 57 17:29:39 57 57

60.1 17:19:42 60.1 60.1 54.7 17:29:42 54.7 54.7

53.6 17:19:45 53.6 53.6 57.6 17:29:45 57.6 57.6

55.3 17:19:48 55.3 55.3 54.6 17:29:48 54.6 54.6

54.6 17:19:51 54.6 54.6 53.3 17:29:51 53.3 53.3

55.7 17:19:54 55.7 55.7 53.7 17:29:54 53.7 53.7

52.1 17:19:57 52.1 52.1 54.3 17:29:57 54.3 54.3

50.7 17:20:00 50.7 50.7 55.8 17:30:00 55.8 55.8

56.4 17:20:03 56.4 56.4 60.9 17:30:03 60.9 60.9

60.1 17:20:06 60.1 60.1 58 17:30:06 58 58

60.2 17:20:09 60.2 60.2 56.5 17:30:09 56.5 56.5

54.8 17:20:12 54.8 54.8 60.7 17:30:12 60.7 60.7

52.6 17:20:15 52.6 52.6 57.1 17:30:15 57.1 57.1

51.8 17:20:18 51.8 51.8 56.1 17:30:18 56.1 56.1

54.4 17:20:21 54.4 54.4 56.8 17:30:21 56.8 56.8

57.3 17:20:24 57.3 57.3 57 17:30:24 57 57

64.5 17:20:27 64.5 64.5 55.8 17:30:27 55.8 55.8

66.9 17:20:30 66.9 66.9 59.4 17:30:30 59.4 59.4

63.5 17:20:33 63.5 63.5 56.6 17:30:33 56.6 56.6

56.9 17:20:36 56.9 56.9 58 17:30:36 58 58

53.7 17:20:39 53.7 53.7 57.6 17:30:39 57.6 57.6

55.3 17:20:42 55.3 55.3 57.3 17:30:42 57.3 57.3

55.1 17:20:45 55.1 55.1 57.1 17:30:45 57.1 57.1

53.6 17:20:48 53.6 53.6 60.9 17:30:48 60.9 60.9
Site A - On Power Pole on Project Site
Site A - On Power Pole on Project Site
Site B - West of Project Site
Site B - West of Project Site
474
Item 8.

47.048.049.050.051.052.053.054.055.056.057.058.059.060.061.062.063.064.065.066.067.05:57 PM 6:29 PM
7:02 PM
7:35 PM
8:08 PM
8:40 PM
9:13 PM
9:46 PM
10:19 PM
10:51 PM
11:24 PM
11:57 PM
12:30 AM
1:02 AM
1:35 AM
2:08 AM
2:41 AM
3:13 AM
3:46 AM
4:19 AM
4:52 AM
5:24 AM
5:57 AM
6:30 AM
7:03 AM
7:35 AM
8:08 AM
8:41 AM
9:14 AM
9:46 AM
10:19 AM
10:52 AM
11:25 AM
11:57 AM
12:30 PM
1:03 PM
1:36 PM
2:08 PM
2:41 PM
3:14 PM
3:47 PM
4:19 PM
Noise Level (dBA) Leq Averaged over 1 hour Intervals TimeSite ASite B475 Item 8.

Noise Measurement Site A ‐ looking north Noise Measurement Site A ‐ looking northeast Noise Measurement Site A ‐ looking east Noise Measurement Site A ‐ looking southeast Noise Measurement Site A ‐ looking south Noise Measurement Site A ‐ looking southwest Noise Measurement Site A ‐ looking west Noise Measurement Site A ‐ looking northwest 476 Item 8.

Noise Measurement Site B ‐ looking north Noise Measurement Site B ‐ looking northeast Noise Measurement Site B ‐ looking east Noise Measurement Site B ‐ looking southeast Noise Measurement Site B ‐ looking south Noise Measurement Site B ‐ looking southwest Noise Measurement Site B ‐ looking west Noise Measurement Site B ‐ looking northwest 477 Item 8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 12/9/2021
Case Description: West Side Fire Station - Site Preparation ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest Occupied Home to SW Residential 53.3 53.3 53.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 800 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 800 0
Tractor No 40 84 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Grader 60.9 56.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Scraper 60 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 61 61 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Interior 41
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
478
Item 8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 12/9/2021
Case Description: West Side Fire Station - Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest Occupied Home to SW Residential 53.3 53.3 53.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 800 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 800 0
Tractor No 40 84 800 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Grader 60.9 56.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dozer 57.6 53.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 55.0 51.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 61 61 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Interior 41
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
479
Item 8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 12/9/2021
Case Description: West Side Fire Station - Building Construction ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest Occupied Home to SW Residential 53.3 53.3 53.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 800 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 800 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 800 0
Generator No 50 80.6 800 0
Tractor No 40 84 800 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 800 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 800 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Crane 56.5 48.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 59.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gradall 59.3 55.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Generator 56.5 53.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 49.9 45.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 49.9 45.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Welder / Torch 49.9 45.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 60 62 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Interior 42
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
480
Item 8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 12/9/2021
Case Description: West Side Fire Station - Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest Occupied Home to SW Residential 53.3 53.3 53.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 800 0
Paver No 50 77.2 800 0
Paver No 50 77.2 800 0
Roller No 20 80 800 0
Roller No 20 80 800 0
Tractor No 40 84 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Concrete Mixer Truck 54.7 50.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Paver 53.1 50.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 55.9 48.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Roller 55.9 48.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Tractor 59.9 55.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 60 59 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Interior 39
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
481
Item 8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 12/9/2021
Case Description: West Side Fire Station - Painting
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Nearest Occupied Home to SW Residential 53.3 53.3 53.3
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 800 0
Results
Calculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening
Equipment *Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 53.6 49.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 54 50 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Interior 30
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
482
Item 8.

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name 831_Data.001 Computer's File Name SLM_0002509_831_Data_001.05.ldbin Meter 831
Firmware 2.314
User GT Location
Description Orange Fire Station No. 1 & Headquarters
Note Located on pole next to west property line of existing Fire Station at 176 S Grand St Start Time 2020-04-29 11:59:20 Duration 24:00:00.0
End Time 2020-04-30 11:59:20 Run Time 24:00:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 55.7 dB
LAE 105.1 dB SEA --- dB
EA 3.6 mPa²h
LZpeak 110.9 dB 2020-04-29 11:59:24
LASmax 86.8 dB 2020-04-29 16:31:32
LASmin 35.7 dB 2020-04-30 06:27:41
LAeq 55.7 dB
LCeq 63.2 dB LCeq - LA eq 7.5 dB
LAI eq 58.6 dB LAI eq - LA eq 2.9 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 65.0 dB 108 0:23:49.7
LAS > 85.0 dB 1 0:00:12.6
LZpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight

58.1 dB 57.4 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight

58.5 dB 58.0 dB 53.3 dB 49.1 dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 55.7 dB 63.2 dB 70.4 dB
Ls(max)86.8 dB 2020-04-29 16:31:32 91.1 dB 2020-04-29 16:31:29 98.2 dB 2020-04-29 15:37:05 LF(max)89.0 dB 2020-04-29 11:59:24 92.5 dB 2020-04-29 16:31:29 104.3 dB 2020-04-29 15:37:05 LI(max)93.4 dB 2020-04-29 11:59:24 95.5 dB 2020-04-29 11:59:24 106.9 dB 2020-04-29 15:37:05 LS(min)35.7 dB 2020-04-30 06:27:41 50.2 dB 2020-04-30 04:02:40 54.2 dB 2020-04-30 04:15:23 LF(min)35.1 dB 2020-04-30 06:28:01 48.0 dB 2020-04-30 04:02:39 51.0 dB 2020-04-30 04:16:25 LI(min)35.7 dB 2020-04-30 06:28:01 50.7 dB 2020-04-30 04:04:33 55.5 dB 2020-04-30 04:14:25 LPeak(max)107.7 dB 2020-04-29 11:59:24 108.8 dB 2020-04-29 11:59:24 110.9 dB 2020-04-29 11:59:24 Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 1 0:00:02.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 57.9 dB
LAS 10.0 53.4 dB
LAS 33.3 49.6 dB
LAS 50.0 47.9 dB
LAS 66.6 46.1 dB
LAS 90.0 41.7 dB
483
Item 8.

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name 831_Data.004 Computer's File Name SLM_0002509_831_Data_004.02.ldbin Meter 831
Firmware 2.314
User GT Location
Description Riverside - The Motorcycle Company - Phase 3 Note On Roof - Approx 6 feet from HVAC Unit
Start Time 2020-05-09 13:23:15 Duration 0:10:00.2
End Time 2020-05-09 13:33:15 Run Time 0:10:00.2 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 65.1 dB
LAE 92.9 dB SEA --- dB
EA 214.7 µPa²h
LZpeak 106.4 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:40
LASmax 80.1 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:19
LASmin 55.1 dB 2020-05-09 13:30:14
LAeq 65.1 dB
LCeq 78.1 dB LCeq - LA eq 13.0 dB
LAI eq 68.9 dB LAI eq - LA eq 3.8 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 65.0 dB 16 0:02:46.5
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LZpeak > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight

65.1 dB 65.1 dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight

65.1 dB 65.1 dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
Leq 65.1 dB 78.1 dB 80.9 dB
Ls(max)80.1 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:19 91.6 dB 2020-05-09 13:26:05 97.4 dB 2020-05-09 13:23:15 LF(max)84.7 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:18 95.4 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:40 97.5 dB 2020-05-09 13:23:15 LI(max)86.7 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:18 97.5 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:40 99.6 dB 2020-05-09 13:23:15 LS(min)55.1 dB 2020-05-09 13:30:14 64.7 dB 2020-05-09 13:30:02 67.4 dB 2020-05-09 13:28:06 LF(min)54.3 dB 2020-05-09 13:30:13 63.0 dB 2020-05-09 13:30:12 65.8 dB 2020-05-09 13:27:31 LI(min)54.6 dB 2020-05-09 13:30:13 65.0 dB 2020-05-09 13:30:02 68.0 dB 2020-05-09 13:27:59 LPeak(max)98.9 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:18 105.7 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:40 106.4 dB 2020-05-09 13:25:40 Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 5.0 71.5 dB
LAS 10.0 69.4 dB
LAS 33.3 62.7 dB
LAS 50.0 59.5 dB
LAS 66.6 58.1 dB
LAS 90.0 56.5 dB
484
Item 8.

485
Item 8.

YOUR WORLD. UNINTERRUPTED.

GENERATORS
Sometimes the best response to a temporary challenge is to rent. Kohler Rental has seen every power, temperature control and hospitality challenge in virtually every environment and has provided the right, cost-effective real-world solution for each one. When you call Kohler, you’re talking to more than a rental company – you’re talking to a solutions provider.

With over 85 years of experience in the generator business, Kohler offers a full variety of generators, state-of-the-art air conditioning units and chillers, and true luxury restrooms featuring THE BOLD LOOK OF KOHLER® plumbing products. All from one company.

Product Features
• Fluid containment: Up to 115 percent of
generator volume.
• Sound levels: KOHLER® generators are
rated as low as 64 dBA at 7 meters (23
feet); Movie Quiet units are rated at 50
dBA at 15 meters (49 feet).
• Color-coded camlocks: Featured on
generators 200 kW and smaller.
• Voltage selector switch: Available on all
units 200 kW and smaller. Limited feature
on generators up to 1000 kW.

Reliability and Performance
• Heavy-duty air cleaners: Flexible for
different environmental conditions.
• Dual fuel/water separators: When fuel
quality is unpredictable, dual fuel filters
ensure delivery of clean and water-free
fuel to the engine.
• GPS: For remote monitoring of
operational functions. Issues alerts for
low oil pressure, low fuel level, common
faults, unauthorized movement of
equipment, service intervals and tracks
low-battery conditions.

Power Accessories
Automatic transfer switches, cable and
cable ramps, disconnects, distribution
boxes, I-line panels, light towers,
switchgear and transformers.

Capabilities
Solution Engineering including
specification, sizing, and job-site design.

Turnkey execution including transportation,
fueling, labor, equipment maintenance
and monitoring.

Technical Services and Design Team
At Kohler Rental, equipment is only part of
the solution. In addition to state-of-the-art
equipment, our technical services and
design team provides a complete solution
for your event, emergency planning or
industrial needs. Truly turnkey, our team of
experts takes the burden out of planning,
saving you time and money.

CORPORATE OFFICE:

KOHLER, WISCONSIN
888-769-3794
KohlerRental.com
[fax] 920-459-1846
More than 80 sales and service locations nationwide.

Emergency Preparedness Plan
Limit the risks and financial impact of
lost goods, productivity and customers with
the KOHLER Emergency Preparedness
Program before prolonged power outages
hit. With KOHLER, be assured of backup
power during high- demand periods. Kohler
Co. simplifies the delivery logistics, helps
minimize the transportation fees and offers
a flat rate for typical run-times.
486
Item 8.

Products
YOUR WORLD. UNINTERRUPTED.

GENERATORS
© 2010 by Kohler Co.

Kohler Co., Kohler, Wisconsin 53044
1-888-769-3794
Printed in U.S.A.

G12-316; 5/10
Output Ratings–Prime Output Ratings–Standby Diesel Fuel Dimensions
(L x W x H)
Weight
(lb)Sound Level (dBA @ 21 ft)Generator
Type
Model No.KVA kW
Amps
KVA kW
Amps
240
Volt,
1 Phase
208
Volt,
3 Phase
480
Volt,
3 Phase
240
Volt,
1 Phase
208
Volt,
3 Phase
480
Volt,
3 Phase Capacity (gal)Consumption(gph)*Run-time*Standard Generators
20 25 20 83 70 30 27 22 91 76 34 25 1.3 19.2 12' x 6' x 6'8" 2320 58 50 62.5 50 188 174 75 69 55 204 191 83 110 3.2 34.3 15'5" x 7'9" x 8'3"6180 72 60 70 56 221 194 84 78 62 242 215 93 200 3.6 55.5 14'4" x 6'2" x 7'11"4700 64 100 110 88 296 305 135 125 100 333 347 150 200 5.7 35.1 184' x 74' x 100'7460 72 180 206 165 497 573 248 225 180 542 625 271 139 9.5 14.6 14'4" x 6'2" x 7'11"9600 72 200 225 180 646 625 271 250 200 708 694 301 200 10.0 20.0 18'2" x 6'8" x 9'6"8494 68 300 350 280 937 406 375 300 1041 451 560 14.9 37.6 28' x 8' x 13'3"20,000 72 400T 450 360 1197 542 500 400 1285 602 500 19.9 25.1 24'9" x 8'6" x 11'10" 27,600 68 400C 469 375 1318 571 513 410 1423 616 650 19.9 32.7 28' x 8' x 13'3"20,000 72 500 569 455 1543 684 631 505 1649 759 855 23.7 36.1 20' x 8' x 13'3"28,300 71 600 681 545 819 750 600 902 650 29.3 22.0 28' x 8' x 13'3"22,000 72 750 850 680 1022 938 750 1128 1000 37.9 26.4 40’ x 8’ x 13’3”41,500 71 800 919 735 1105 1000 800 1218 1000 38.7 25.8 40' x 8' x 13'3"37,000 78 1000 1138 910 1368 1250 1000 1504 1000 50.0 20.0 40' x 8' x 13'3"37,000 78 1500 1700 1360 2045 1875 1500 2255 1000 68.3 14.6 40' x 8' x 13'3"57,000 80 2000 2275 1700 2736 2500 2000 3007 1000 90.8 11.0 40' x 8' x 13'3"61,000 82 Dual Pack 180 206 165 573 238 190 625 550 28' x 8.5' x 13'28,580 62 300 350 280 937 375 300 1041 750 40' x 8' x 13'40,820 66 Movie Quiet 60 75 60 400 500 160 3.2 50.0 8' x 4' x 3'10"3500 50** 100 125 100 600 825 160 6.1 26.2 8' x 4' x 7'3"5500 50** KOHLER
Power Modules
1500 1875 1500 2045 1875 1500 2255 1000 69.5 14.4 40' x 8' x 13'3"57,480 80 2000 2500 2000 2736 2500 2000 3007 1000 91.7 10.9 40' x 8' x 13'3"60,200 82 *At 75 percent prime-rated load **At 50 feet
From 20 to 2000 kW, Kohler Rental keeps a current power arsenal ready for power on demand.

Ready to serve in a variety of applications for backup or prime power.

Dual Pack™ Redundant Power
Two 180 or 300 kW KOHLER® generators in a container
with KOHLER switchgear provide built-in backup power
for redundancy.

Movie Quiet
Available in 60 and 100 kW generator
packages designed with superior
sound attenuation.

KOHLER Power Modules
A 1500 or 2000 kW KOHLER generator integrated with
KOHLER switchgear in a single container. The flexible package can be used as a single, auto start/
emergency backup generator or can
be paralleled with multiple power
modules and/or the utility.

Specs and features vary by product model and year manufactured. Consult your Kohler Rental sales representative for assistance with selecting the appropriate equipment for the application and load profile.

Standard Generators
20 to 2000 kW rental packages
engineered by Kohler Power
Systems for event use, and
in industrial and
commercial markets.
487
Item 8.

488Item 8.

CLAIBORNE WEST AVEI
1 0

WINDBOUND AVE

DISTRIBUTION WAYI
1 0
HWY 60 CARDIFF WAYGAINSBOROUGH CTHIGHLAND CTCO
R
D
O
B
A

T
R
L

SEVILLA W
A
Y
HWY

6 0

FRONTAGE RD CATALONIA CTVINCENZO DRSEVILLA WAYCAVALLANO CTBONAVENTO LNBOSANA LNCASTE L
L
O
L
N

BUCCELLA LNHERA PLLIGURIA LNLECCINO WAYCASETTA DRCASCI
N
A L
N
OLIV
E
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y

CASCINA LN
HWY 60DANDOLO LNAMOROSA CTHERA PLAREZZO CT

PROSPERITY WAY

WESTERN KNOLLS A
V

EPOTRERO BLVDTUSCANY PLVERSIMO LNCORDOBA TRL

LOGISTICS WAYCASTELLO LN

SAN TIMOTEO CA
N
Y
O
N

R
D

STABLEFORD CT
CL
A
S
S
I
C

A
V
E
OAK V
A
L
L
E
Y
P
K
W

YGOLF CLUB DRI
1 0
AL
D
E
R

S
T

OAK VALLEY PKWYMASTERS AVEASPEN GLEN LN
I
10 GO
L
F

C
L
U
B

D
R
AUGU
S
T
A
S
T

BRUTUS WAY AMATUER WAYGATEWAY DRBAY HILL

D
R

ALBATROSS ST

POTRERO BLVDBOWKER PLAY CTSTRAIGH
T
A
W
A
Y

D
R

BLADE STKELLY STAMATEUR WAY
B
A
L
A
T
A

S
T

SAN TIMOTEO CANYON RD

HIGH RIDGE DR

MULLIGA
N

D
R

DESERT LAWN DRGALL
E
R
Y
L
N

GALLERY LN
I 1
0 NILSEN CTCLEAT ST DESERT LAWN DRBIRDIE DRPARKWAY DR
AMATEU
R
W
A
Y
West Side Fire Station General Plan Land Use Designation Map San Bernardino County, Maxar
General Plan
Open Space
Industrial
Single Family Residential
Rural Residential 1
Urban Village
General Commercial
City Boundary
Street Labels
1/26/2022, 4:06:40 PM 0 0.25 0.50.13 mi
0 0.4 0.80.2 km
1:18,056
City of Beaumont
San Bernardino County, Maxar | RCIT GIS, LAFCO | RCIT | Riverside County Assessor / RCIT | 489
Item 8.

CLAIBORNE WEST AVEI
1 0

WINDBOUND AVE

DISTRIBUTION WAYI
1 0
HWY 60 CARDIFF WAYGAINSBOROUGH CTNICHOLAS RDHIGHLAND CTCO R
D
O
B
A

T
R
L

SEVILLA W
A
Y
HWY

6 0

FRONTAGE RD CATALONIA CTVINCENZO DRSEVILLA WAYCAVALLANO CTBONAVENTO LNBOSANA LNCASTE L
L
O
L
N

BUCCELLA LNHERA PLLIGURIA LNLECCINO WAYCASETTA DRCASCI
N
A L
N
OLIV
E
W
O
O
D
W
A
Y

CASCINA LN
HWY 60DANDOLO LNAMOROSA CTHERA PLAREZZO CT

PROSPERITY WAY

WESTERN KNOLLS AVEPOTRERO BLVDTUSCANY PLVERSIMO LNCORDOBA TRL

LOGISTICS WAYCASTELLO LN

SAN TIMOTEO CA
N
Y
O
N

D APRON LNOAK V
A
L
L
E
Y
P
K
W
Y
I
1 0
AL
D
E
R

S
T

OAK VALLEY PKWY

ASPEN GLEN LN
I
10 GO
L
F

C
L
U
B

D
R
AUGU
S
T
A
S
T

STABLEFORD CT

BRUTUS WAY AMATUER WAYGATEWAY DRALBATROSS ST

POTRERO BLVDBOWKER PLAY CTSTRAIGH
T
A
W
A
Y

D
R

BLADE STKELLY STAMATEUR WAY
B
A
L
A
T
A

S
T

SAN TIMOTEO CANYON RD

HIGH RIDGE DR

DESERT LAWN DRGALL
E
R
Y
L
N

GALLERY LN
I
1 0
NILSEN CTCLEAT ST I 10DESERT LAWN DRPARKWAY DR
AMATEU
R
W
A
Y
West Side Fire Station Zoning Map
San Bernardino County, Maxar
Zoning
Union Pacific Rail Roadway
Specific Plan
Residential Single Family
Community Commercial
Recreation/Conservation
Manufacturing
Urban Village

City Boundary
Street Labels
1/26/2022, 4:05:37 PM 0 0.25 0.50.13 mi
0 0.4 0.80.2 km
1:18,056
City of Beaumont
San Bernardino County, Maxar | RCIT GIS, LAFCO | RCIT | Riverside County Assessor / RCIT | 490
Item 8.

*IMPORTANT* Maps and data are to be used for reference purposes only. Map features are approximate, and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. The County of Riverside makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content (the source is often third party), accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Any use of this product with respect to accuracy and precision shall be the sole responsibility of the user. © Riverside County GIS
Legend
West Side Fire Station Aerial Photograph
Notes
REPORT PRINTED ON...1/26/2022 4:06:54 PM
0 1,539770 Feet
County Centerline Names
County Centerlines
Blueline Streams
City Areas
World Street Map
491
Item 8.

492
Item 8.

1825 Chicago Ave, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92507
951-684-1200
951-368-9018 FAX

BEAUMONT, CITY OF / LEGAL
550 E SIXTH ST
BEAUMONT, CA 92223
01/21/2022
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am an authorized representative of THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE, a newspaper in general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under date of April 25, 1952, Case Number 54446, under date of March 29, 1957, Case Number 65673, under date of August 25, 1995, Case Number 267864, and under date of September 16, 2013, Case Number RIC 1309013; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said newspaper in accordance with the instructions of the person(s) requesting publication, and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:

PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
Ad Desc.: /
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: January 21, 2022
At: Riverside, California
Ad Number: 0011513051-01
P.O. Number:

Publication(s): The Press-Enterprise
Ad Copy:

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010, 2015.5 C.C.P)
Legal Advertising Representative, The Press-Enterprise
#BM_Tag::2||5210293||-||1||0;0;0#
493
Item 8.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Approval of Compensation Plan and Salary Table

Background and Analysis:

This item was tabled by City Council on February 15, 2022, until such time that City staff could provide additional information. The City compensation plan and salary table were adjusted to account for all 2022 minimum wage requirements, negotiated salary increases between bargaining units, individuals and the City of Beaumont. Those bargaining units and individuals included the Police Officers Association approved January 4, 2022, Managers Professional Technical Unit approved January 18, 2022, and the Police Managers approved February 15, 2022. Positions added to the compensation plan and salary table include the Assistant Director of Finance and the General Manager of Utilities added in the FY 2022 budget process. The Environmental Compliance Manager and the Wastewater Collections Supervisor positions were added as part of the mid-year FY 2021 Wastewater Fund budget adjustment.

On March 2, 2021, City staff presented a five-year compensation concept to City Council for labor relations and negotiations, see attachment D. That concept outlined a five-year plan beginning with a compensation study and engaging represented labor groups to assist in identifying the benchmark cities. The proposal was to adjust salary schedules to midpoint based on the study, adjust merit steps to 2.5%, include periodic cost of living adjustments based on the prior 24-month consumer price index along with a follow up compensation study at the end of the term and other assumptions outlined in the attachment.

In addition to the negotiated labor agreement increases, City staff also proposes adjustments for the Administrative Services Director, Chief of Police, Community Development Director, Community Services Director and the Finance Director. These proposed changes are predicated on the median base concept outlined in the five-year plan that was utilized in negotiations with the City’s bargaining units.

The proposed Compensation Plan and Salary table also include increases for the Assistant City Manager, Assistant Director of Community Services, Assistant Director of 494
Item 9.

Finance, Police Cadet, Principal Engineer, and Police Trainee. These amendment s are proposed in order to ensure internal equity in the organization on contemplation of the organizational structure and primary duties and responsibilities specified for each position.

Fiscal Impact:

Thus far increases have been negotiated for the Police Officer Association (POA), the Managers Professional Technical, and the Police Managers bargaining units. The fiscal impact of these negotiated agreements for FY2022 are as follows:

POA (65 positions/65 adjustments) $144,628,
Managers Professional Technical (24 positions/14 adjustments) $153,818, and Police Managers (4 positions/3 adjustments) $37,973.

The fiscal impact for FY2022 of the proposed but not yet implemented adjustments is $65,384. (9 positions/9adjustments)

Combined, the adjustments have an impact of $401,803 . This impact is approximately $340,000 below funds allocated in the FY2022 budget.

City staff estimates the cost to prepare this staff report to be $680.

Recommended Action:

Approval of the Compensation Plan and Salary Table.

Attachments:

A. Compensation Plan
B. Salary Table
C. Ralph Andersen and Associates Labor Market Survey
D. Compensation Concept
495
Item 9.

Dated: February 15, 2022 Uniform Compensation Plan Page 1 of 2

- COMPENSATION PLAN -

Adopted by City Council February 15, 2022

Position MOU Assigned To Salary Range
First Step Top Step
Account Technician SEIU 44 54
Administrative Services Director Employment Contract 92 102 Administrative Services Manager Professional/Technical/Manager 74 84 Animal Control Officer I SEIU 44 54
Animal Control Officer II SEIU 48 58
Assistant City Manager Employment Contract 99 109
Assistant Director of Community Services Professional/Technical/Manager 75 85 Assistant Director of Finance Professional/Technical/Manager 84 94 Assistant Director of Public Works/
Assistant City Engineer
Professional/Technical/Manager
78 88
Budget Specialist Professional/Technical/Manager 60 70 Building/Grounds/Maintenance Supervisor Professional/Technical/Manager 57 67 Building/Grounds/Maintenance Worker SEIU 38 48
Building Inspector SEIU 52 62
Building Permit Technician I SEIU 40 50
Building Permit Technician II SEIU 46 56
Building Plans Examiner SEIU 54 64
Bus Driver – Lead SEIU 38 48
Bus Driver I SEIU 32 42
Bus Driver II SEIU 38 48
Chief Building Official Professional/Technical/Manager 82 92 Chief of Police Employment Contract 98 108
Chief Plant Operator – Wastewater Professional/Technical/Manager 77 87 City Engineer / Public Works Director Employment Contract 92 102 City Manager Employment Contract 102 112
Community Enhancement Officer I SEIU 46 56
Community Enhancement Officer II SEIU 50 60
Community Development Director Employment Contract 88 98 Community Services Director Employment Contract 83 93
Community Services Manager Professional/Technical/Manager 66 76 Customer Service Coordinator I SEIU 32 42
Customer Service Coordinator II SEIU 38 48
Deputy Chief of Police Police Management 92 102
Deputy City Clerk Professional/Technical/Manager 64 74
Economic Development Manager Professional/Technical/Manager 72 82 Engineering Development Technician I SEIU 40 50
Engineering Development Technician II SEIU 46 56
Environmental Compliance Manager Professional/Technical/Manager 60 70 Executive Assistant Professional/Technical/Manager 49 59 Finance Director Employment Contract 92 102
General Manager of Utilities Employment Contract 92 102 496
Item 9.

Dated: February 15, 2022 Uniform Compensation Plan Page 2 of 2 Position MOU Assigned To Salary Range
First Step Top Step
Information Technology Manager Professional/Technical/Manager 81 91 HR/Payroll Technician SEIU 42 52
IT Analyst I SEIU 45 55
IT Analyst II SEIU 53 63
Lead Building/Grounds Maintenance Worker SEIU 44 54
Lead Dispatcher POA 47 57
Mechanic SEIU 44 54
Management Analyst SEIU 58 68
Planning Manager Professional/Technical/Manager 78 88
Police Cadet 29 29
Police Corporal Police Officers Association 68 78
Police Lieutenant Police Management 85 95
Police Officer Police Officers Association 62 72
Police Sergeant Police Officers Association 74 84
Principal Engineer Professional/Technical/Manager 72 82 Public Safety Dispatcher I Police Officers Association 37 47 Public Safety Dispatcher II Police Officers Association 43 53 Police Trainee 47 47
Public Works Inspector SEIU 57 67
Recreation Specialist SEIU 24 34
Senior Accountant Professional/Technical/Manager 68 78
Solid Waste Recycling Manager Professional/Technical/Manager 60 70 Special Projects/Press Information Officer Professional/Technical/Manager 69 79 Street Maintenance Supervisor Professional/Technical/Manager 56 66 Street Maintenance Worker SEIU 44 54
Support Services Specialist I Police Officers Association 31 41 Support Services Specialist II Police Officers Association 37 47 Support Services Supervisor Police Officers Association 57 67 Transit Manager Professional/Technical/Manager 72 82
Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor Professional/Technical/Manager 63 73 Wastewater Collections Supervisor Professional/Technical/Manager 56 66 Wastewater Collection System Worker I SEIU 44 54
Wastewater Collection System Worker II SEIU 48 58
Wastewater Plant Operator I SEIU 45 55
Wastewater Plant Operator II SEIU 51 61
Wastewater Plant Operator III SEIU 55 65
Wastewater Plant Operator IV SEIU 59 69
Wastewater Plant Operator V SEIU 63 73
Wastewater Plant Supervisor Professional/Technical/Manager 65 75

497
Item 9.

Step Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly Step Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly 0 17,638.44$ 1,469.87$ 678.40$ 8.48$ 57 72,072.00$ 6,006.00$ 2,772.00$ 34.65$ 1 18,075.24$ 1,506.27$ 695.20$ 8.69$ 58 73,860.84$ 6,155.07$ 2,840.80$ 35.51$ 2 18,532.80$ 1,544.40$ 712.80$ 8.91$ 59 75,711.96$ 6,309.33$ 2,912.00$ 36.40$ 3 18,990.36$ 1,582.53$ 730.40$ 9.13$ 60 77,604.84$ 6,467.07$ 2,984.80$ 37.31$ 4 19,468.80$ 1,622.40$ 748.80$ 9.36$ 61 79,539.24$ 6,628.27$ 3,059.20$ 38.24$ 5 19,947.24$ 1,662.27$ 767.20$ 9.59$ 62 81,536.04$ 6,794.67$ 3,136.00$ 39.20$ 6 20,446.44$ 1,703.87$ 786.40$ 9.83$ 63 83,574.36$ 6,964.53$ 3,214.40$ 40.18$ 7 20,966.40$ 1,747.20$ 806.40$ 10.08$ 64 85,654.44$ 7,137.87$ 3,294.40$ 41.18$ 8 21,486.36$ 1,790.53$ 826.40$ 10.33$ 65 87,796.80$ 7,316.40$ 3,376.80$ 42.21$ 9 22,027.20$ 1,835.60$ 847.20$ 10.59$ 66 90,001.56$ 7,500.13$ 3,461.60$ 43.27$ 10 22,588.80$ 1,882.40$ 868.80$ 10.86$ 67 92,247.96$ 7,687.33$ 3,548.00$ 44.35$ 11 23,150.40$ 1,929.20$ 890.40$ 11.13$ 68 94,556.76$ 7,879.73$ 3,636.80$ 45.46$ 12 23,712.00$ 1,976.00$ 912.00$ 11.40$ 69 96,927.96$ 8,077.33$ 3,728.00$ 46.60$ 13 24,315.24$ 2,026.27$ 935.20$ 11.69$ 70 99,361.56$ 8,280.13$ 3,821.60$ 47.77$ 14 24,918.36$ 2,076.53$ 958.40$ 11.98$ 71 101,816.04$ 8,484.67$ 3,916.00$ 48.95$ 15 25,542.36$ 2,128.53$ 982.40$ 12.28$ 72 104,374.44$ 8,697.87$ 4,014.40$ 50.18$ 16 26,187.24$ 2,182.27$ 1,007.20$ 12.59$ 73 106,974.36$ 8,914.53$ 4,114.40$ 51.43$ 17 26,832.00$ 2,236.00$ 1,032.00$ 12.90$ 74 109,657.56$ 9,138.13$ 4,217.60$ 52.72$ 18 27,518.40$ 2,293.20$ 1,058.40$ 13.23$ 75 112,403.16$ 9,366.93$ 4,323.20$ 54.04$ 19 28,204.80$ 2,350.40$ 1,084.80$ 13.56$ 76 115,211.16$ 9,600.93$ 4,431.20$ 55.39$ 20 28,911.96$ 2,409.33$ 1,112.00$ 13.90$ 77 118,081.56$ 9,840.13$ 4,541.60$ 56.77$ 21 29,619.24$ 2,468.27$ 1,139.20$ 14.24$ 78 121,035.24$ 10,086.27$ 4,655.20$ 58.19$ 22 30,368.04$ 2,530.67$ 1,168.00$ 14.60$ 79 124,071.96$ 10,339.33$ 4,772.00$ 59.65$ 23 31,116.84$ 2,593.07$ 1,196.80$ 14.96$ 80 127,171.20$ 10,597.60$ 4,891.20$ 61.14$ 24 31,907.16$ 2,658.93$ 1,227.20$ 15.34$ 81 130,353.60$ 10,862.80$ 5,013.60$ 62.67$ 25 32,697.60$ 2,724.80$ 1,257.60$ 15.72$ 82 133,598.40$ 11,133.20$ 5,138.40$ 64.23$ 26 33,508.80$ 2,792.40$ 1,288.80$ 16.11$ 83 136,947.24$ 11,412.27$ 5,267.20$ 65.84$ 27 34,361.64$ 2,863.47$ 1,321.60$ 16.52$ 84 140,358.36$ 11,696.53$ 5,398.40$ 67.48$ 28 35,214.36$ 2,934.53$ 1,354.40$ 16.93$ 85 143,873.64$ 11,989.47$ 5,533.60$ 69.17$ 29 36,087.96$ 3,007.33$ 1,388.00$ 17.35$ 86 147,471.96$ 12,289.33$ 5,672.00$ 70.90$ 30 37,003.20$ 3,083.60$ 1,423.20$ 17.79$ 87 151,153.56$ 12,596.13$ 5,813.60$ 72.67$ 31 37,918.44$ 3,159.87$ 1,458.40$ 18.23$ 88 154,939.20$ 12,911.60$ 5,959.20$ 74.49$ 32 38,875.20$ 3,239.60$ 1,495.20$ 18.69$ 89 158,808.00$ 13,234.00$ 6,108.00$ 76.35$ 33 39,852.84$ 3,321.07$ 1,532.80$ 19.16$ 90 162,780.84$ 13,565.07$ 6,260.80$ 78.26$ 34 40,830.36$ 3,402.53$ 1,570.40$ 19.63$ 91 166,857.60$ 13,904.80$ 6,417.60$ 80.22$ 35 41,849.64$ 3,487.47$ 1,609.60$ 20.12$ 92 171,017.64$ 14,251.47$ 6,577.60$ 82.22$ 36 42,910.44$ 3,575.87$ 1,650.40$ 20.63$ 93 175,302.36$ 14,608.53$ 6,742.40$ 84.28$ 37 43,971.24$ 3,664.27$ 1,691.20$ 21.14$ 94 179,691.24$ 14,974.27$ 6,911.20$ 86.39$ 38 45,073.56$ 3,756.13$ 1,733.60$ 21.67$ 95 184,163.16$ 15,346.93$ 7,083.20$ 88.54$ 39 46,196.76$ 3,849.73$ 1,776.80$ 22.21$ 96 188,780.76$ 15,731.73$ 7,260.80$ 90.76$ 40 47,361.60$ 3,946.80$ 1,821.60$ 22.77$ 97 193,502.40$ 16,125.20$ 7,442.40$ 93.03$ 41 48,547.20$ 4,045.60$ 1,867.20$ 23.34$ 98 198,327.96$ 16,527.33$ 7,628.00$ 95.35$ 42 49,753.56$ 4,146.13$ 1,913.60$ 23.92$ 99 203,299.20$ 16,941.60$ 7,819.20$ 97.74$ 43 51,001.56$ 4,250.13$ 1,961.60$ 24.52$ 100 208,374.36$ 17,364.53$ 8,014.40$ 100.18$ 44 52,270.44$ 4,355.87$ 2,010.40$ 25.13$ 101 213,574.44$ 17,797.87$ 8,214.40$ 102.68$ 45 53,580.84$ 4,465.07$ 2,060.80$ 25.76$ 102 218,919.96$ 18,243.33$ 8,420.00$ 105.25$ 46 54,932.76$ 4,577.73$ 2,112.80$ 26.41$ 103 224,390.40$ 18,699.20$ 8,630.40$ 107.88$ 47 56,305.56$ 4,692.13$ 2,165.60$ 27.07$ 104 230,006.40$ 19,167.20$ 8,846.40$ 110.58$ 48 57,699.24$ 4,808.27$ 2,219.20$ 27.74$ 105 235,747.20$ 19,645.60$ 9,067.20$ 113.34$ 49 59,155.20$ 4,929.60$ 2,275.20$ 28.44$ 106 241,633.56$ 20,136.13$ 9,293.60$ 116.17$ 50 60,632.04$ 5,052.67$ 2,332.00$ 29.15$ 107 247,665.60$ 20,638.80$ 9,525.60$ 119.07$ 51 62,150.40$ 5,179.20$ 2,390.40$ 29.88$ 108 253,863.96$ 21,155.33$ 9,764.00$ 122.05$ 52 63,689.64$ 5,307.47$ 2,449.60$ 30.62$ 109 260,208.00$ 21,684.00$ 10,008.00$ 125.10$ 53 65,291.16$ 5,440.93$ 2,511.20$ 31.39$ 110 266,718.36$ 22,226.53$ 10,258.40$ 128.23$ 54 66,913.56$ 5,576.13$ 2,573.60$ 32.17$ 111 273,395.16$ 22,782.93$ 10,515.20$ 131.44$ 55 68,598.36$ 5,716.53$ 2,638.40$ 32.98$ 112 280,238.40$ 23,353.20$ 10,778.40$ 134.73$ 56 70,304.04$ 5,858.67$ 2,704.00$ 33.80$ 113 287,247.96$ 23,937.33$ 11,048.00$ 138.10$ City of Beaumont
Salary Range Table
Effective 1/4/2022
498
Item 9.

Step Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly Step Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly 0 16,640.04$ 1,386.67$ 640.00$ 8.00$ 53 63,689.64$ 5,307.47$ 2,449.60$ 30.62$ 1 17,638.44$ 1,469.87$ 678.40$ 8.48$ 54 65,291.16$ 5,440.93$ 2,511.20$ 31.39$ 2 18,075.24$ 1,506.27$ 695.20$ 8.69$ 55 66,913.56$ 5,576.13$ 2,573.60$ 32.17$ 3 18,532.80$ 1,544.40$ 712.80$ 8.91$ 56 68,598.36$ 5,716.53$ 2,638.40$ 32.98$ 4 18,990.36$ 1,582.53$ 730.40$ 9.13$ 57 70,304.04$ 5,858.67$ 2,704.00$ 33.80$ 5 19,468.80$ 1,622.40$ 748.80$ 9.36$ 58 72,072.00$ 6,006.00$ 2,772.00$ 34.65$ 6 19,947.24$ 1,662.27$ 767.20$ 9.59$ 59 73,860.84$ 6,155.07$ 2,840.80$ 35.51$ 7 20,446.44$ 1,703.87$ 786.40$ 9.83$ 60 75,711.96$ 6,309.33$ 2,912.00$ 36.40$ 8 20,966.40$ 1,747.20$ 806.40$ 10.08$ 61 77,604.84$ 6,467.07$ 2,984.80$ 37.31$ 9 21,486.36$ 1,790.53$ 826.40$ 10.33$ 62 79,539.24$ 6,628.27$ 3,059.20$ 38.24$ 10 22,027.20$ 1,835.60$ 847.20$ 10.59$ 63 81,536.04$ 6,794.67$ 3,136.00$ 39.20$ 11 22,588.80$ 1,882.40$ 868.80$ 10.86$ 64 83,574.36$ 6,964.53$ 3,214.40$ 40.18$ 12 23,150.40$ 1,929.20$ 890.40$ 11.13$ 65 85,654.44$ 7,137.87$ 3,294.40$ 41.18$ 13 23,712.00$ 1,976.00$ 912.00$ 11.40$ 66 87,796.80$ 7,316.40$ 3,376.80$ 42.21$ 14 24,315.24$ 2,026.27$ 935.20$ 11.69$ 67 90,001.56$ 7,500.13$ 3,461.60$ 43.27$ 15 24,918.36$ 2,076.53$ 958.40$ 11.98$ 68 92,247.96$ 7,687.33$ 3,548.00$ 44.35$ 16 25,542.36$ 2,128.53$ 982.40$ 12.28$ 69 94,556.76$ 7,879.73$ 3,636.80$ 45.46$ 17 26,187.24$ 2,182.27$ 1,007.20$ 12.59$ 70 96,927.96$ 8,077.33$ 3,728.00$ 46.60$ 18 26,832.00$ 2,236.00$ 1,032.00$ 12.90$ 71 99,361.56$ 8,280.13$ 3,821.60$ 47.77$ 19 27,518.40$ 2,293.20$ 1,058.40$ 13.23$ 72 101,816.04$ 8,484.67$ 3,916.00$ 48.95$ 20 28,204.80$ 2,350.40$ 1,084.80$ 13.56$ 73 104,374.44$ 8,697.87$ 4,014.40$ 50.18$ 21 28,911.96$ 2,409.33$ 1,112.00$ 13.90$ 74 106,974.36$ 8,914.53$ 4,114.40$ 51.43$ 22 29,619.24$ 2,468.27$ 1,139.20$ 14.24$ 75 109,657.56$ 9,138.13$ 4,217.60$ 52.72$ 23 30,368.04$ 2,530.67$ 1,168.00$ 14.60$ 76 112,403.16$ 9,366.93$ 4,323.20$ 54.04$ 24 31,116.84$ 2,593.07$ 1,196.80$ 14.96$ 77 115,211.16$ 9,600.93$ 4,431.20$ 55.39$ 25 31,907.16$ 2,658.93$ 1,227.20$ 15.34$ 78 118,081.56$ 9,840.13$ 4,541.60$ 56.77$ 26 32,697.60$ 2,724.80$ 1,257.60$ 15.72$ 79 121,035.24$ 10,086.27$ 4,655.20$ 58.19$ 27 33,508.80$ 2,792.40$ 1,288.80$ 16.11$ 80 124,071.96$ 10,339.33$ 4,772.00$ 59.65$ 28 34,361.64$ 2,863.47$ 1,321.60$ 16.52$ 81 127,171.20$ 10,597.60$ 4,891.20$ 61.14$ 29 35,214.36$ 2,934.53$ 1,354.40$ 16.93$ 82 130,353.60$ 10,862.80$ 5,013.60$ 62.67$ 30 36,087.96$ 3,007.33$ 1,388.00$ 17.35$ 83 133,598.40$ 11,133.20$ 5,138.40$ 64.23$ 31 37,003.20$ 3,083.60$ 1,423.20$ 17.79$ 84 136,947.24$ 11,412.27$ 5,267.20$ 65.84$ 32 37,918.44$ 3,159.87$ 1,458.40$ 18.23$ 85 140,358.36$ 11,696.53$ 5,398.40$ 67.48$ 33 38,875.20$ 3,239.60$ 1,495.20$ 18.69$ 86 143,873.64$ 11,989.47$ 5,533.60$ 69.17$ 34 39,852.84$ 3,321.07$ 1,532.80$ 19.16$ 87 147,471.96$ 12,289.33$ 5,672.00$ 70.90$ 35 40,830.36$ 3,402.53$ 1,570.40$ 19.63$ 88 151,153.56$ 12,596.13$ 5,813.60$ 72.67$ 36 41,849.64$ 3,487.47$ 1,609.60$ 20.12$ 89 154,939.20$ 12,911.60$ 5,959.20$ 74.49$ 37 42,910.44$ 3,575.87$ 1,650.40$ 20.63$ 90 158,808.00$ 13,234.00$ 6,108.00$ 76.35$ 38 43,971.24$ 3,664.27$ 1,691.20$ 21.14$ 91 162,780.84$ 13,565.07$ 6,260.80$ 78.26$ 39 45,073.56$ 3,756.13$ 1,733.60$ 21.67$ 92 166,857.60$ 13,904.80$ 6,417.60$ 80.22$ 40 46,196.76$ 3,849.73$ 1,776.80$ 22.21$ 93 171,017.64$ 14,251.47$ 6,577.60$ 82.22$ 41 47,361.60$ 3,946.80$ 1,821.60$ 22.77$ 94 175,302.36$ 14,608.53$ 6,742.40$ 84.28$ 42 48,547.20$ 4,045.60$ 1,867.20$ 23.34$ 95 179,691.24$ 14,974.27$ 6,911.20$ 86.39$ 43 49,753.56$ 4,146.13$ 1,913.60$ 23.92$ 96 184,163.16$ 15,346.93$ 7,083.20$ 88.54$ 44 51,001.56$ 4,250.13$ 1,961.60$ 24.52$ 97 188,780.76$ 15,731.73$ 7,260.80$ 90.76$ 45 52,270.44$ 4,355.87$ 2,010.40$ 25.13$ 98 193,502.40$ 16,125.20$ 7,442.40$ 93.03$ 46 53,580.84$ 4,465.07$ 2,060.80$ 25.76$ 99 198,327.96$ 16,527.33$ 7,628.00$ 95.35$ 47 54,932.76$ 4,577.73$ 2,112.80$ 26.41$ 100 203,299.20$ 16,941.60$ 7,819.20$ 97.74$ 48 56,305.56$ 4,692.13$ 2,165.60$ 27.07$ 101 208,374.36$ 17,364.53$ 8,014.40$ 100.18$ 49 57,699.24$ 4,808.27$ 2,219.20$ 27.74$ 102 213,574.44$ 17,797.87$ 8,214.40$ 102.68$ 50 59,155.20$ 4,929.60$ 2,275.20$ 28.44$ 103 218,919.96$ 18,243.33$ 8,420.00$ 105.25$ 51 60,632.04$ 5,052.67$ 2,332.00$ 29.15$ 104 224,390.40$ 18,699.20$ 8,630.40$ 107.88$ 52 62,150.40$ 5,179.20$ 2,390.40$ 29.88$ 105 230,006.40$ 19,167.20$ 8,846.40$ 110.58$ City of Beaumont
Salary Range Table
Effective January 1, 2014
499
Item 9.

Salary Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Salary Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Salary Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Range Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly Range Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly Range Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly 0 16,640.04 1,386.67 640.00 8.00 35 40,830.36 3,402.53 1,570.40 19.63 70 96,927.96 8,077.33 3,728.00 46.60 1 17,638.44 1,469.87 678.40 8.48 36 41,849.64 3,487.47 1,609.60 20.12 71 99,361.56 8,280.13 3,821.60 47.77 2 18,075.24 1,506.27 695.20 8.69 37 42,910.44 3,575.87 1,650.40 20.63 72 101,816.04 8,484.67 3,916.00 48.95 3 18,532.80 1,544.40 712.80 8.91 38 43,971.24 3,664.27 1,691.20 21.14 73 104,374.44 8,697.87 4,014.40 50.18 4 18,990.36 1,582.53 730.40 9.13 39 45,073.56 3,756.13 1,733.60 21.67 74 106,974.36 8,914.53 4,114.40 51.43 5 19,468.80 1,622.40 748.80 9.36 40 46,196.76 3,849.73 1,776.80 22.21 75 109,657.56 9,138.13 4,217.60 52.72 6 19,947.24 1,662.27 767.20 9.59 41 47,361.60 3,946.80 1,821.60 22.77 76 112,403.16 9,366.93 4,323.20 54.04 7 20,446.44 1,703.87 786.40 9.83 42 48,547.20 4,045.60 1,867.20 23.34 77 115,211.16 9,600.93 4,431.20 55.39 8 20,966.40 1,747.20 806.40 10.08 43 49,753.56 4,146.13 1,913.60 23.92 78 118,081.56 9,840.13 4,541.60 56.77 9 21,486.36 1,790.53 826.40 10.33 44 51,001.56 4,250.13 1,961.60 24.52 79 121,035.24 10,086.27 4,655.20 58.19 10 22,027.20 1,835.60 847.20 10.59 45 52,270.44 4,355.87 2,010.40 25.13 80 124,071.96 10,339.33 4,772.00 59.65 11 22,588.80 1,882.40 868.80 10.86 46 53,580.84 4,465.07 2,060.80 25.76 81 127,171.20 10,597.60 4,891.20 61.14 12 23,150.40 1,929.20 890.40 11.13 47 54,932.76 4,577.73 2,112.80 26.41 82 130,353.60 10,862.80 5,013.60 62.67 13 23,712.00 1,976.00 912.00 11.40 48 56,305.56 4,692.13 2,165.60 27.07 83 133,598.40 11,133.20 5,138.40 64.23 14 24,315.24 2,026.27 935.20 11.69 49 57,699.24 4,808.27 2,219.20 27.74 84 136,947.24 11,412.27 5,267.20 65.84 15 24,918.36 2,076.53 958.40 11.98 50 59,155.20 4,929.60 2,275.20 28.44 85 140,358.36 11,696.53 5,398.40 67.48 16 25,542.36 2,128.53 982.40 12.28 51 60,632.04 5,052.67 2,332.00 29.15 86 143,873.64 11,989.47 5,533.60 69.17 17 26,187.24 2,182.27 1,007.20 12.59 52 62,150.40 5,179.20 2,390.40 29.88 87 147,471.96 12,289.33 5,672.00 70.90 18 26,832.00 2,236.00 1,032.00 12.90 53 63,689.64 5,307.47 2,449.60 30.62 88 151,153.56 12,596.13 5,813.60 72.67 19 27,518.40 2,293.20 1,058.40 13.23 54 65,291.16 5,440.93 2,511.20 31.39 89 154,939.20 12,911.60 5,959.20 74.49 20 28,204.80 2,350.40 1,084.80 13.56 55 66,913.56 5,576.13 2,573.60 32.17 90 158,808.00 13,234.00 6,108.00 76.35 21 28,911.96 2,409.33 1,112.00 13.90 56 68,598.36 5,716.53 2,638.40 32.98 91 162,780.84 13,565.07 6,260.80 78.26 22 29,619.24 2,468.27 1,139.20 14.24 57 70,304.04 5,858.67 2,704.00 33.80 92 166,857.60 13,904.80 6,417.60 80.22 23 30,368.04 2,530.67 1,168.00 14.60 58 72,072.00 6,006.00 2,772.00 34.65 93 171,017.64 14,251.47 6,577.60 82.22 24 31,116.84 2,593.07 1,196.80 14.96 59 73,860.84 6,155.07 2,840.80 35.51 94 175,302.36 14,608.53 6,742.40 84.28 25 31,907.16 2,658.93 1,227.20 15.34 60 75,711.96 6,309.33 2,912.00 36.40 95 179,691.24 14,974.27 6,911.20 86.39 26 32,697.60 2,724.80 1,257.60 15.72 61 77,604.84 6,467.07 2,984.80 37.31 96 184,163.16 15,346.93 7,083.20 88.54 27 33,508.80 2,792.40 1,288.80 16.11 62 79,539.24 6,628.27 3,059.20 38.24 97 188,780.76 15,731.73 7,260.80 90.76 28 34,361.64 2,863.47 1,321.60 16.52 63 81,536.04 6,794.67 3,136.00 39.20 98 193,502.40 16,125.20 7,442.40 93.03 29 35,214.36 2,934.53 1,354.40 16.93 64 83,574.36 6,964.53 3,214.40 40.18 99 198,327.96 16,527.33 7,628.00 95.35 30 36,087.96 3,007.33 1,388.00 17.35 65 85,654.44 7,137.87 3,294.40 41.18 100 203,299.20 16,941.60 7,819.20 97.74 31 37,003.20 3,083.60 1,423.20 17.79 66 87,796.80 7,316.40 3,376.80 42.21 101 208,374.36 17,364.53 8,014.40 100.18 32 37,918.44 3,159.87 1,458.40 18.23 67 90,001.56 7,500.13 3,461.60 43.27 102 213,574.44 17,797.87 8,214.40 102.68 33 38,875.20 3,239.60 1,495.20 18.69 68 92,247.96 7,687.33 3,548.00 44.35 103 218,919.96 18,243.33 8,420.00 105.25 34 39,852.84 3,321.07 1,532.80 19.16 69 94,556.76 7,879.73 3,636.80 45.46 104 224,390.40 18,699.20 8,630.40 107.88 City of Beaumont
Salary Range Table
Effective January 8, 2010
500
Item 9.

Step Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly Step Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly Step Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly 0 16,640.04$ 1,386.67$ 640.00$ 8.00$ 38 43,971.24$ 3,664.27$ 1,691.20$ 21.14$ 76 112,403.16$ 9,366.93$ 4,323.20$ 54.04$ 1 17,638.44$ 1,469.87$ 678.40$ 8.48$ 39 45,073.56$ 3,756.13$ 1,733.60$ 21.67$ 77 115,211.16$ 9,600.93$ 4,431.20$ 55.39$ 2 18,075.24$ 1,506.27$ 695.20$ 8.69$ 40 46,196.76$ 3,849.73$ 1,776.80$ 22.21$ 78 118,081.56$ 9,840.13$ 4,541.60$ 56.77$ 3 18,532.80$ 1,544.40$ 712.80$ 8.91$ 41 47,361.60$ 3,946.80$ 1,821.60$ 22.77$ 79 121,035.24$ 10,086.27$ 4,655.20$ 58.19$ 4 18,990.36$ 1,582.53$ 730.40$ 9.13$ 42 48,547.20$ 4,045.60$ 1,867.20$ 23.34$ 80 124,071.96$ 10,339.33$ 4,772.00$ 59.65$ 5 19,468.80$ 1,622.40$ 748.80$ 9.36$ 43 49,753.56$ 4,146.13$ 1,913.60$ 23.92$ 81 127,171.20$ 10,597.60$ 4,891.20$ 61.14$ 6 19,947.24$ 1,662.27$ 767.20$ 9.59$ 44 51,001.56$ 4,250.13$ 1,961.60$ 24.52$ 82 130,353.60$ 10,862.80$ 5,013.60$ 62.67$ 7 20,446.44$ 1,703.87$ 786.40$ 9.83$ 45 52,270.44$ 4,355.87$ 2,010.40$ 25.13$ 83 133,598.40$ 11,133.20$ 5,138.40$ 64.23$ 8 20,966.40$ 1,747.20$ 806.40$ 10.08$ 46 53,580.84$ 4,465.07$ 2,060.80$ 25.76$ 84 136,947.24$ 11,412.27$ 5,267.20$ 65.84$ 9 21,486.36$ 1,790.53$ 826.40$ 10.33$ 47 54,932.76$ 4,577.73$ 2,112.80$ 26.41$ 85 140,358.36$ 11,696.53$ 5,398.40$ 67.48$ 10 22,027.20$ 1,835.60$ 847.20$ 10.59$ 48 56,305.56$ 4,692.13$ 2,165.60$ 27.07$ 86 143,873.64$ 11,989.47$ 5,533.60$ 69.17$ 11 22,588.80$ 1,882.40$ 868.80$ 10.86$ 49 57,699.24$ 4,808.27$ 2,219.20$ 27.74$ 87 147,471.96$ 12,289.33$ 5,672.00$ 70.90$ 12 23,150.40$ 1,929.20$ 890.40$ 11.13$ 50 59,155.20$ 4,929.60$ 2,275.20$ 28.44$ 88 151,153.56$ 12,596.13$ 5,813.60$ 72.67$ 13 23,712.00$ 1,976.00$ 912.00$ 11.40$ 51 60,632.04$ 5,052.67$ 2,332.00$ 29.15$ 89 154,939.20$ 12,911.60$ 5,959.20$ 74.49$ 14 24,315.24$ 2,026.27$ 935.20$ 11.69$ 52 62,150.40$ 5,179.20$ 2,390.40$ 29.88$ 90 158,808.00$ 13,234.00$ 6,108.00$ 76.35$ 15 24,918.36$ 2,076.53$ 958.40$ 11.98$ 53 63,689.64$ 5,307.47$ 2,449.60$ 30.62$ 91 162,780.84$ 13,565.07$ 6,260.80$ 78.26$ 16 25,542.36$ 2,128.53$ 982.40$ 12.28$ 54 65,291.16$ 5,440.93$ 2,511.20$ 31.39$ 92 166,857.60$ 13,904.80$ 6,417.60$ 80.22$ 17 26,187.24$ 2,182.27$ 1,007.20$ 12.59$ 55 66,913.56$ 5,576.13$ 2,573.60$ 32.17$ 93 171,017.64$ 14,251.47$ 6,577.60$ 82.22$ 18 26,832.00$ 2,236.00$ 1,032.00$ 12.90$ 56 68,598.36$ 5,716.53$ 2,638.40$ 32.98$ 94 175,302.36$ 14,608.53$ 6,742.40$ 84.28$ 19 27,518.40$ 2,293.20$ 1,058.40$ 13.23$ 57 70,304.04$ 5,858.67$ 2,704.00$ 33.80$ 95 179,691.24$ 14,974.27$ 6,911.20$ 86.39$ 20 28,204.80$ 2,350.40$ 1,084.80$ 13.56$ 58 72,072.00$ 6,006.00$ 2,772.00$ 34.65$ 96 184,163.16$ 15,346.93$ 7,083.20$ 88.54$ 21 28,911.96$ 2,409.33$ 1,112.00$ 13.90$ 59 73,860.84$ 6,155.07$ 2,840.80$ 35.51$ 97 188,780.76$ 15,731.73$ 7,260.80$ 90.76$ 22 29,619.24$ 2,468.27$ 1,139.20$ 14.24$ 60 75,711.96$ 6,309.33$ 2,912.00$ 36.40$ 98 193,502.40$ 16,125.20$ 7,442.40$ 93.03$ 23 30,368.04$ 2,530.67$ 1,168.00$ 14.60$ 61 77,604.84$ 6,467.07$ 2,984.80$ 37.31$ 99 198,327.96$ 16,527.33$ 7,628.00$ 95.35$ 24 31,116.84$ 2,593.07$ 1,196.80$ 14.96$ 62 79,539.24$ 6,628.27$ 3,059.20$ 38.24$ 100 203,299.20$ 16,941.60$ 7,819.20$ 97.74$ 25 31,907.16$ 2,658.93$ 1,227.20$ 15.34$ 63 81,536.04$ 6,794.67$ 3,136.00$ 39.20$ 101 208,374.36$ 17,364.53$ 8,014.40$ 100.18$ 26 32,697.60$ 2,724.80$ 1,257.60$ 15.72$ 64 83,574.36$ 6,964.53$ 3,214.40$ 40.18$ 102 213,574.44$ 17,797.87$ 8,214.40$ 102.68$ 27 33,508.80$ 2,792.40$ 1,288.80$ 16.11$ 65 85,654.44$ 7,137.87$ 3,294.40$ 41.18$ 103 218,919.96$ 18,243.33$ 8,420.00$ 105.25$ 28 34,361.64$ 2,863.47$ 1,321.60$ 16.52$ 66 87,796.80$ 7,316.40$ 3,376.80$ 42.21$ 104 224,390.40$ 18,699.20$ 8,630.40$ 107.88$ 29 35,214.36$ 2,934.53$ 1,354.40$ 16.93$ 67 90,001.56$ 7,500.13$ 3,461.60$ 43.27$ 105 230,006.40$ 19,167.20$ 8,846.40$ 110.58$ 30 36,087.96$ 3,007.33$ 1,388.00$ 17.35$ 68 92,247.96$ 7,687.33$ 3,548.00$ 44.35$ 106 235,747.20$ 19,645.60$ 9,067.20$ 113.34$ 31 37,003.20$ 3,083.60$ 1,423.20$ 17.79$ 69 94,556.76$ 7,879.73$ 3,636.80$ 45.46$ 107 241,633.56$ 20,136.13$ 9,293.60$ 116.17$ 32 37,918.44$ 3,159.87$ 1,458.40$ 18.23$ 70 96,927.96$ 8,077.33$ 3,728.00$ 46.60$ 108 247,665.60$ 20,638.80$ 9,525.60$ 119.07$ 33 38,875.20$ 3,239.60$ 1,495.20$ 18.69$ 71 99,361.56$ 8,280.13$ 3,821.60$ 47.77$ 109 253,863.96$ 21,155.33$ 9,764.00$ 122.05$ 34 39,852.84$ 3,321.07$ 1,532.80$ 19.16$ 72 101,816.04$ 8,484.67$ 3,916.00$ 48.95$ 110 260,208.00$ 21,684.00$ 10,008.00$ 125.10$ 35 40,830.36$ 3,402.53$ 1,570.40$ 19.63$ 73 104,374.44$ 8,697.87$ 4,014.40$ 50.18$ 111 266,718.36$ 22,226.53$ 10,258.40$ 128.23$ 36 41,849.64$ 3,487.47$ 1,609.60$ 20.12$ 74 106,974.36$ 8,914.53$ 4,114.40$ 51.43$ 112 273,395.16$ 22,782.93$ 10,515.20$ 131.44$ 37 42,910.44$ 3,575.87$ 1,650.40$ 20.63$ 75 109,657.56$ 9,138.13$ 4,217.60$ 52.72$ City of Beaumont
Salary Range Table
Effective January 1, 2014
501
Item 9.

Step Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly Step Annual Monthly Bi-Weekly Hourly 0 16,640.04$ 1,386.67$ 640.00$ 8.00$ 57 70,304.04$ 5,858.67$ 2,704.00$ 33.80$ 1 17,638.44$ 1,469.87$ 678.40$ 8.48$ 58 72,072.00$ 6,006.00$ 2,772.00$ 34.65$ 2 18,075.24$ 1,506.27$ 695.20$ 8.69$ 59 73,860.84$ 6,155.07$ 2,840.80$ 35.51$ 3 18,532.80$ 1,544.40$ 712.80$ 8.91$ 60 75,711.96$ 6,309.33$ 2,912.00$ 36.40$ 4 18,990.36$ 1,582.53$ 730.40$ 9.13$ 61 77,604.84$ 6,467.07$ 2,984.80$ 37.31$ 5 19,468.80$ 1,622.40$ 748.80$ 9.36$ 62 79,539.24$ 6,628.27$ 3,059.20$ 38.24$ 6 19,947.24$ 1,662.27$ 767.20$ 9.59$ 63 81,536.04$ 6,794.67$ 3,136.00$ 39.20$ 7 20,446.44$ 1,703.87$ 786.40$ 9.83$ 64 83,574.36$ 6,964.53$ 3,214.40$ 40.18$ 8 20,966.40$ 1,747.20$ 806.40$ 10.08$ 65 85,654.44$ 7,137.87$ 3,294.40$ 41.18$ 9 21,486.36$ 1,790.53$ 826.40$ 10.33$ 66 87,796.80$ 7,316.40$ 3,376.80$ 42.21$ 10 22,027.20$ 1,835.60$ 847.20$ 10.59$ 67 90,001.56$ 7,500.13$ 3,461.60$ 43.27$ 11 22,588.80$ 1,882.40$ 868.80$ 10.86$ 68 92,247.96$ 7,687.33$ 3,548.00$ 44.35$ 12 23,150.40$ 1,929.20$ 890.40$ 11.13$ 69 94,556.76$ 7,879.73$ 3,636.80$ 45.46$ 13 23,712.00$ 1,976.00$ 912.00$ 11.40$ 70 96,927.96$ 8,077.33$ 3,728.00$ 46.60$ 14 24,315.24$ 2,026.27$ 935.20$ 11.69$ 71 99,361.56$ 8,280.13$ 3,821.60$ 47.77$ 15 24,918.36$ 2,076.53$ 958.40$ 11.98$ 72 101,816.04$ 8,484.67$ 3,916.00$ 48.95$ 16 25,542.36$ 2,128.53$ 982.40$ 12.28$ 73 104,374.44$ 8,697.87$ 4,014.40$ 50.18$ 17 26,187.24$ 2,182.27$ 1,007.20$ 12.59$ 74 106,974.36$ 8,914.53$ 4,114.40$ 51.43$ 18 26,832.00$ 2,236.00$ 1,032.00$ 12.90$ 75 109,657.56$ 9,138.13$ 4,217.60$ 52.72$ 19 27,518.40$ 2,293.20$ 1,058.40$ 13.23$ 76 112,403.16$ 9,366.93$ 4,323.20$ 54.04$ 20 28,204.80$ 2,350.40$ 1,084.80$ 13.56$ 77 115,211.16$ 9,600.93$ 4,431.20$ 55.39$ 21 28,911.96$ 2,409.33$ 1,112.00$ 13.90$ 78 118,081.56$ 9,840.13$ 4,541.60$ 56.77$ 22 29,619.24$ 2,468.27$ 1,139.20$ 14.24$ 79 121,035.24$ 10,086.27$ 4,655.20$ 58.19$ 23 30,368.04$ 2,530.67$ 1,168.00$ 14.60$ 80 124,071.96$ 10,339.33$ 4,772.00$ 59.65$ 24 31,116.84$ 2,593.07$ 1,196.80$ 14.96$ 81 127,171.20$ 10,597.60$ 4,891.20$ 61.14$ 25 31,907.16$ 2,658.93$ 1,227.20$ 15.34$ 82 130,353.60$ 10,862.80$ 5,013.60$ 62.67$ 26 32,697.60$ 2,724.80$ 1,257.60$ 15.72$ 83 133,598.40$ 11,133.20$ 5,138.40$ 64.23$ 27 33,508.80$ 2,792.40$ 1,288.80$ 16.11$ 84 136,947.24$ 11,412.27$ 5,267.20$ 65.84$ 28 34,361.64$ 2,863.47$ 1,321.60$ 16.52$ 85 140,358.36$ 11,696.53$ 5,398.40$ 67.48$ 29 35,214.36$ 2,934.53$ 1,354.40$ 16.93$ 86 143,873.64$ 11,989.47$ 5,533.60$ 69.17$ 30 36,087.96$ 3,007.33$ 1,388.00$ 17.35$ 87 147,471.96$ 12,289.33$ 5,672.00$ 70.90$ 31 37,003.20$ 3,083.60$ 1,423.20$ 17.79$ 88 151,153.56$ 12,596.13$ 5,813.60$ 72.67$ 32 37,918.44$ 3,159.87$ 1,458.40$ 18.23$ 89 154,939.20$ 12,911.60$ 5,959.20$ 74.49$ 33 38,875.20$ 3,239.60$ 1,495.20$ 18.69$ 90 158,808.00$ 13,234.00$ 6,108.00$ 76.35$ 34 39,852.84$ 3,321.07$ 1,532.80$ 19.16$ 91 162,780.84$ 13,565.07$ 6,260.80$ 78.26$ 35 40,830.36$ 3,402.53$ 1,570.40$ 19.63$ 92 166,857.60$ 13,904.80$ 6,417.60$ 80.22$ 36 41,849.64$ 3,487.47$ 1,609.60$ 20.12$ 93 171,017.64$ 14,251.47$ 6,577.60$ 82.22$ 37 42,910.44$ 3,575.87$ 1,650.40$ 20.63$ 94 175,302.36$ 14,608.53$ 6,742.40$ 84.28$ 38 43,971.24$ 3,664.27$ 1,691.20$ 21.14$ 95 179,691.24$ 14,974.27$ 6,911.20$ 86.39$ 39 45,073.56$ 3,756.13$ 1,733.60$ 21.67$ 96 184,163.16$ 15,346.93$ 7,083.20$ 88.54$ 40 46,196.76$ 3,849.73$ 1,776.80$ 22.21$ 97 188,780.76$ 15,731.73$ 7,260.80$ 90.76$ 41 47,361.60$ 3,946.80$ 1,821.60$ 22.77$ 98 193,502.40$ 16,125.20$ 7,442.40$ 93.03$ 42 48,547.20$ 4,045.60$ 1,867.20$ 23.34$ 99 198,327.96$ 16,527.33$ 7,628.00$ 95.35$ 43 49,753.56$ 4,146.13$ 1,913.60$ 23.92$ 100 203,299.20$ 16,941.60$ 7,819.20$ 97.74$ 44 51,001.56$ 4,250.13$ 1,961.60$ 24.52$ 101 208,374.36$ 17,364.53$ 8,014.40$ 100.18$ 45 52,270.44$ 4,355.87$ 2,010.40$ 25.13$ 102 213,574.44$ 17,797.87$ 8,214.40$ 102.68$ 46 53,580.84$ 4,465.07$ 2,060.80$ 25.76$ 103 218,919.96$ 18,243.33$ 8,420.00$ 105.25$ 47 54,932.76$ 4,577.73$ 2,112.80$ 26.41$ 104 224,390.40$ 18,699.20$ 8,630.40$ 107.88$ 48 56,305.56$ 4,692.13$ 2,165.60$ 27.07$ 105 230,006.40$ 19,167.20$ 8,846.40$ 110.58$ 49 57,699.24$ 4,808.27$ 2,219.20$ 27.74$ 106 235,747.20$ 19,645.60$ 9,067.20$ 113.34$ 50 59,155.20$ 4,929.60$ 2,275.20$ 28.44$ 107 241,633.56$ 20,136.13$ 9,293.60$ 116.17$ 51 60,632.04$ 5,052.67$ 2,332.00$ 29.15$ 108 247,665.60$ 20,638.80$ 9,525.60$ 119.07$ 52 62,150.40$ 5,179.20$ 2,390.40$ 29.88$ 109 253,863.96$ 21,155.33$ 9,764.00$ 122.05$ 53 63,689.64$ 5,307.47$ 2,449.60$ 30.62$ 110 260,208.00$ 21,684.00$ 10,008.00$ 125.10$ 54 65,291.16$ 5,440.93$ 2,511.20$ 31.39$ 111 266,718.36$ 22,226.53$ 10,258.40$ 128.23$ 55 66,913.56$ 5,576.13$ 2,573.60$ 32.17$ 112 273,395.16$ 22,782.93$ 10,515.20$ 131.44$ 56 68,598.36$ 5,716.53$ 2,638.40$ 32.98$
City of Beaumont
Salary Range Table
Effective January 1, 2014
502
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Labor Market Summary - Median Total Compensation
Class Title # of
Obs.Base Base +
Cash
Gain/
Loss
Base +
Cash +
Insurance
Gain/
Loss
Total Comp
(Cash + Ins.
+ Ret.)
Gain/
Loss
Total
Gain/
Loss
Account Technician 12 9.6%16.9%7.3%14.5%-2.5%11.0%-3.5%1.4% Administrative Services Director 13 -12.6%-20.8%-8.2%-19.8%1.0%-11.1%8.7%1.5% Administrative Services Manager 8 -20.8%-24.6%-3.8%-19.1%5.5%-23.6%-4.5%-2.7% Animal Control Officer II 7 27.3%32.7%5.3%27.3%-5.4%15.8%-11.4%-11.5% Assistant City Manager 9 7.6%2.3%-5.2%1.4%-0.9%-1.3%-2.7%-8.9% Assistant Director of Public Works/ Assistant City Engineer 7 -5.3%-5.3%0.0%-5.5%-0.2%-13.9%-8.3%-8.6% Associate Planner - Drift Check 13
Building Inspector 12 5.6%9.3%3.6%9.5%0.2%8.6%-0.8%3.0% Building Permit Technician II 13 12.0%11.6%-0.4%12.7%1.1%10.8%-1.9%-1.2% Building Plans Examiner 11 -1.5%4.1%5.6%9.2%5.2%5.9%-3.4%7.4% Building/Grounds/Maintenance Supervisor 12 1.5%0.5%-1.0%-0.7%-1.2%0.6%1.4%-0.8% Building/Grounds/Maintenance Worker 13 -0.3%8.7%9.0%8.5%-0.2%4.8%-3.7%5.1% Bus Driver I 5 -2.1%7.2%9.3%9.4%2.2%8.3%-1.2%10.4%
Chief Building Official 11 19.7%15.0%-4.7%12.6%-2.4%13.7%1.1%-6.0% Chief of Police 12 -2.8%-9.4%-6.6%-11.9%-2.5%-16.2%-4.3%-13.3% Chief Plant Operator – Wastewater 4 28.1%25.7%-2.4%25.1%-0.6%22.2%-2.9%-5.9% City Engineer / Public Works Director 13 8.0%5.4%-2.6%4.3%-1.1%1.2%-3.1%-6.8% City Manager 13 8.4%8.5%0.1%7.1%-1.5%-0.9%-8.0%-9.4%
Community Development Director 13 -7.2%-10.4%-3.3%-10.0%0.5%-16.1%-6.1%-8.9% Community Enhancement Officer II 13 12.6%10.0%-2.7%8.5%-1.5%8.4%0.0%-4.2% Community Services Coordinator - Drift Check 8
Community Services Director 9 -1.4%-2.6%-1.1%-6.0%-3.5%-10.9%-4.9%-9.5% Community Services Manager 11 -8.9%-19.5%-10.6%-10.8%8.6%-19.7%-8.8%-10.8% Customer Service Coordinator II 8 11.5%17.4%5.9%19.5%2.1%18.2%-1.3%6.6% Deputy City Clerk 4 30.8%29.1%-1.7%21.6%-7.4%23.6%2.0%-7.2% Economic Development Manager 12 3.1%0.2%-3.0%2.4%2.3%-3.9%-6.4%-7.1% Engineering Development Technician II 13 3.5%6.0%2.6%8.4%2.4%2.3%-6.1%-1.2% Executive Assistant 13 -4.3%-13.3%-8.9%-8.1%5.1%-13.4%-5.3%-9.0% Finance Director 13 -13.7%-21.2%-7.5%-19.8%1.3%-23.3%-3.4%-9.6% HR/Payroll Technician 13 -4.0%5.2%9.2%2.8%-2.4%6.5%3.7%10.4% Information Technology Manager 12 -13.1%-21.2%-8.2%-17.0%4.2%-24.2%-7.2%-11.2% IT Analyst II 12 -18.5%-9.8%8.7%-7.0%2.9%-12.4%-5.4%6.1% Management Analyst 12 8.8%13.4%4.5%12.6%-0.8%9.3%-3.3%0.5% Mechanic 12 8.6%12.2%3.5%14.8%2.7%14.1%-0.7%5.5%
Print Date: 1/26/2022
503
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Account Technician 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Accounting Specialist $4,909 $4,909 $1,400 inc $21 inc $6,330 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Account Technician II $4,452 $89 $223 $4,764 $1,100 inc inc $8 $20 $5,893 Corona Accounting Technician II $4,255 $83 $4,338 $1,564 inc inc $0 $29 $5,931 Menifee Accounting Technician II $5,536 $5,536 $1,800 inc inc $13 $7,348 Murrieta Accounting Specialist $4,929 $100 $5,029 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $34 $6,771 Palm Springs Account Specialist $5,394 $270 $5,664 $2,106 inc inc $11 $20 $7,801 Redlands Accounting Technician II $4,538 $227 $4,765 $900 $127 $19 $5,811 Rialto Accounting Technician $5,518 $331 $414 $600 $6,863 $1,300 inc inc $8,163 Riverside Accounting Technician $5,161 $5,161 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $6,620 San Bernardino Accounting Technician $4,607 $4,607 $880 inc inc $1 $8 $5,496 Temecula Accounting Technician II $6,127 $245 $6,372 $1,600 inc inc $7,972 Upland Accounting Technician $5,153 $232 $100 $5,485 $1,267 inc inc $6,752 Beaumont Accounting Technician $5,576 $558 $6,134 $1,675 inc inc $7 $7,816 Average $5,048 $5,291 $6,741
% +/-9.5%13.7%13.8%
Median $5,041 $5,095 $6,686
12 % +/-9.6%16.9%14.5%
75th Percenile $5,425 $5,568 $7,461
13 % +/-2.7%9.2%4.5%
Median Gain/Loss 7.3%-2.5%
3 Print Date: 1/26/2022 505
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Account Technician
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Accounting Specialist
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Account Technician II
Corona Accounting Technician II
Menifee Accounting Technician II
Murrieta Accounting Specialist
Palm Springs Account Specialist
Redlands Accounting Technician II
Rialto Accounting Technician
Riverside Accounting Technician
San Bernardino Accounting Technician
Temecula Accounting Technician II
Upland Accounting Technician
Beaumont Accounting Technician
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,512 2@60 $7,842 11 8 13 32
$1,474 2.5@55 $7,366 11 8 13 32
$2,409 2.7@55 $8,340 8 21 29
$866 2.7@55 $8,215 10 9 13 32
$499 2@60 $7,270 9 23 32
$1,894 2@60 $9,694 10 21 31
$1,183 2@55 $6,994 11 8 17 35
$2,608 2.7@55 $10,771 12 10 23 44
$1,640 2.7@55 $8,259 8 8 13 29
$1,994 ($60)2@55 $7,430 11 8 17 35
$2,110 2@60 $10,082 8 23 31
$2,378 ($72)2.5@55 $9,058 11 8 15 34
$1,439 3@60 $9,255 9 8 17 34
$8,444 33.0

8.8%2.9%
$8,237 32.1

11.0%5.6%
$9,217 33.9

0.4%0.2%
-3.5%
4 Print Date: 1/26/2022 506
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Administrative Services Director 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Administrative Services Director/Dep CM $15,183 $275 $15,458 $1,667 inc $21 $39 $17,184 Cathedral City Administrative Services Director $18,502 $2,775 $925 $100 $1,295 $23,598 $2,300 inc inc $80 $44 $26,022 Colton Human Resources Director $14,100 $14,100 $1,183 inc inc $17 $63 $15,363 Corona ACM/Administrative Services Director $18,715 $167 $18,882 $1,564 inc inc $0 $127 $20,573 Menifee Deputy City Manager $18,142 $18,142 $1,800 inc inc $17 $19,959 Murrieta Administrative Services Director $18,034 $250 $18,284 $1,563 $98 $40 $36 $123 $20,143 Palm Springs Director of Human Resources $14,408 $720 $15,128 $2,094 inc inc $11 $179 $17,412 Redlands Assistant City Manager $17,738 $355 $18,093 $2,706 $127 $19 $20,945 Rialto Director of Human Resources/Risk Mgmt $14,454 $1,084 $750 $16,288 $1,300 $137 $25 $17,750 Riverside Human Resources Director $19,339 $75 $19,414 $1,482 $45 inc $111 $21,052 San Bernardino Director of Human Resources $14,509 $14,509 $1,250 inc inc $16 $25 $15,800 Temecula Director of HR/Risk Management $14,903 $1,043 $15,946 $1,600 inc inc $17,546 Upland Asst City Manager (Administrative Services)$16,858 $421 $1,517 $18,797 $1,184 inc inc $19,981 Beaumont Administrative Services Director $14,974 $14,974 $1,675 inc inc $7 $16,656 Average $16,530 $17,434 $19,210
% +/--10.4%-16.4%-15.3%
Median $16,858 $18,093 $19,959
13 % +/--12.6%-20.8%-19.8%
75th Percenile $18,142 $18,797 $20,573
13 % +/--21.2%-25.5%-23.5%
Median Gain/Loss -8.2%1.0%
5 Print Date: 1/26/2022 507
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Administrative Services Director
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Administrative Services Director/Dep CM
Cathedral City Administrative Services Director
Colton Human Resources Director
Corona ACM/Administrative Services Director
Menifee Deputy City Manager
Murrieta Administrative Services Director
Palm Springs Director of Human Resources
Redlands Assistant City Manager
Rialto Director of Human Resources/Risk Mgmt
Riverside Human Resources Director
San Bernardino Director of Human Resources
Temecula Director of HR/Risk Management
Upland Asst City Manager (Administrative Services)
Beaumont Administrative Services Director
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$4,676 2@60 $21,861 11 8 8 13 40
$1,703 ($1,665)2@60 $26,059 12 8 18 38
$4,666 2.5@55 $20,029 12 8 7 13 40
$10,596 2.7@55 $31,168 8 9 25 42
$2,840 2.7@55 $22,799 10 9 5 13 37
$1,826 2@60 $21,968 9 10 23 42
$5,058 2@60 $22,470 10 4 21 35
$4,623 2@55 $25,568 9 33 42
$6,833 2.7@55 $24,583 10 10 12 20 52
$6,144 2.7@55 $27,196 8 8 4 17 37
$6,281 ($334)2@55 $21,747 11 8 7 17 42
$5,133 ($447)2@60 $22,232 8 7 24 39
$7,781 ($236)2.5@55 $27,526 11 8 7 15 40
$3,865 3@60 $20,521 9 8 3 17 37
$24,247 40.3
-18.2%-8.0%
$22,799 40.2
-11.1%-7.6%
$26,059 41.7
-27.0%-11.6%

8.7%
6 Print Date: 1/26/2022 508
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Administrative Services Manager 8 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Human Resources/Risk Manager $10,501 $275 $10,776 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $12,236 Cathedral City Human Resources Manager $13,807 $2,071 $690 $100 $966 $17,635 $2,300 inc inc $60 $33 $20,028 Colton No Comparable Class
Corona Human Resources Manager II $9,786 $167 $9,953 $1,564 inc inc $0 $67 $11,583 Menifee Human Resources Manager $11,581 $11,581 $1,800 inc inc $17 $13,398 Murrieta Human Resources Manager $11,967 $217 $12,184 $1,563 $98 $40 $24 $81 $13,989 Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Asst Dir, Human Resources/Risk Mgmt $14,290 $286 $14,576 $2,706 $127 $19 $17,428 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino Human Resources Manager $10,234 $10,234 $1,250 inc inc $7 $18 $11,509 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Human Resources/Risk Manager $10,037 $452 $703 $11,191 $1,184 inc inc $12,375 Beaumont Administrative Services Manager $9,138 $9,138 $1,675 inc inc $7 $10,820 Average $11,525 $12,266 $14,068
% +/--26.1%-34.2%-30.0%
Median $11,041 $11,386 $12,886
8 % +/--20.8%-24.6%-19.1%
75th Percenile $12,427 $12,782 $14,849
8 % +/--36.0%-39.9%-37.2%
Median Gain/Loss -3.8%5.5%
7 Print Date: 1/26/2022 509
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Administrative Services Manager
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Human Resources/Risk Manager
Cathedral City Human Resources Manager
Colton No Comparable Class
Corona Human Resources Manager II
Menifee Human Resources Manager
Murrieta Human Resources Manager
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Asst Dir, Human Resources/Risk Mgmt
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino Human Resources Manager
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Human Resources/Risk Manager
Beaumont Administrative Services Manager
Average
% +/-
Median
8 % +/-
75th Percenile
8 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$3,234 2@60 $15,471 10 8 13 31
$1,271 ($1,243)2@60 $20,056 12 8 18 38
$5,541 2.7@55 $17,123 8 9 25 42
$1,813 2.7@55 $15,210 10 9 5 13 37
$1,212 2@60 $15,200 9 7 23 39
$3,725 2@55 $21,153 9 33 42
$4,430 ($236)2@55 $15,703 11 8 7 17 42
$4,633 ($141)2.5@55 $16,868 11 8 4 15 38
$2,359 3@60 $13,179 9 8 17 34
$17,098 38.5
-29.7%-13.1%
$16,285 38.4
-23.6%-12.8%
$17,856 41.7
-35.5%-22.5%
-4.5%
8 Print Date: 1/26/2022 510
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Animal Control Officer II 7 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Animal Services Officer $3,996 $80 $200 $4,276 $1,100 inc inc $8 $18 $5,402 Corona Animal Control Officer II $4,472 $83 $70 $4,625 $1,564 inc inc $0 $30 $6,219 Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs Animal Control Officer $5,525 $85 $276 $5,886 $2,106 inc inc $11 $20 $8,024 Redlands Animal Control Officer $4,181 $142 $72 $4,394 $900 $127 $19 $5,440 Rialto Animal Control Officer II $4,838 $290 $133 $363 $600 $6,224 $1,300 inc inc $7,524 Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino Animal Control Officer $4,170 $4,170 $880 inc inc $1 $7 $5,058 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Animal Services Officer $4,785 $215 $25 $100 $5,125 $1,267 inc inc $6,392 Beaumont Animal Control Officer II $6,155 $100 $616 $6,871 $1,675 inc inc $7 $8,553 Average $4,567 $4,957 $6,294
% +/-25.8%27.8%26.4%
Median $4,472 $4,625 $6,219
7 % +/-27.3%32.7%27.3%
75th Percenile $4,812 $5,506 $6,958
9 % +/-21.8%19.9%18.6%
Median Gain/Loss 5.3%-5.4%
9 Print Date: 1/26/2022 511
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Animal Control Officer II
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Animal Services Officer
Corona Animal Control Officer II
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs Animal Control Officer
Redlands Animal Control Officer
Rialto Animal Control Officer II
Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino Animal Control Officer
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Animal Services Officer
Beaumont Animal Control Officer II
Average
% +/-
Median
7 % +/-
75th Percenile
9 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,322 2.5@55 $6,724 11 8 13 32
$2,532 2.7@55 $8,751 8 21 29
$1,940 2@60 $9,963 10 21 31
$1,090 2@55 $6,530 9 8 17 34
$2,287 2.7@55 $9,811 11 10 23 44
$1,805 ($54)2@55 $6,809 11 8 17 35
$2,209 ($67)2.5@55 $8,534 11 8 15 34
$1,589 3@60 $10,141 9 8 17 34
$8,161 33.9

19.5%0.2%
$8,534 33.5

15.8%1.5%
$9,281 34.4

8.5%-1.2%
-11.4%
10 Print Date: 1/26/2022 512
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Assistant City Manager 9 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Assistant City Manager $18,040 $2,706 $902 $100 $1,263 $23,011 $2,300 inc inc $78 $43 $25,432 Colton Assistant City Manager $15,846 $15,846 $1,183 inc inc $17 $71 $17,117 Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee Assistant City Manager $19,070 $19,070 $1,800 inc inc $17 $20,887 Murrieta Deputy City Manager $18,935 $250 $19,185 $1,563 $98 $40 $38 $129 $21,052 Palm Springs Assistant City Manager $19,332 $967 $20,299 $2,094 inc inc $11 $240 $22,643 Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Deputy City Manager $16,713 $1,253 $750 $18,716 $1,300 $137 $25 $20,179 Riverside Assistant City Manager $21,954 $75 $22,029 $1,482 $45 inc $126 $23,682 San Bernardino Assistant City Manager $18,159 $18,159 $1,250 inc inc $20 $32 $19,460 Temecula Assistant City Manager $18,158 $1,271 $19,429 $1,600 inc inc $21,029 Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Assistant City Manager $19,646 $19,646 $1,675 inc inc $7 $21,328 Average $18,467 $19,527 $21,276
% +/-6.0%0.6%0.2%
Median $18,159 $19,185 $21,029
9 % +/-7.6%2.3%1.4%
75th Percenile $19,070 $20,299 $22,643
10 % +/-2.9%-3.3%-6.2%
Median Gain/Loss -5.2%-0.9%
11 Print Date: 1/26/2022 513
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Assistant City Manager
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Assistant City Manager
Colton Assistant City Manager
Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee Assistant City Manager
Murrieta Deputy City Manager
Palm Springs Assistant City Manager
Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Deputy City Manager
Riverside Assistant City Manager
San Bernardino Assistant City Manager
Temecula Assistant City Manager
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Assistant City Manager
Average
% +/-
Median
9 % +/-
75th Percenile
10 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,660 ($1,624)2@60 $25,469 12 8 22 42
$5,244 2.5@55 $22,362 12 8 7 13 40
$2,985 2.7@55 $23,871 10 9 5 13 37
$1,917 2@60 $22,969 9 10 23 42
$6,787 2@60 $29,430 10 4 21 35
$7,901 2.7@55 $28,079 10 10 12 20 52
$6,975 2.7@55 $30,657 8 8 4 17 37
$7,861 ($418)2@55 $26,903 11 8 7 17 42
$6,254 ($545)2@60 $26,738 8 7 24 39
$5,071 3@60 $26,399 9 8 17 34
$26,275 40.4

0.5%-19.0%
$26,738 39.7
-1.3%-16.7%
$28,079 42.0
-6.4%-23.5%
-2.7%
12 Print Date: 1/26/2022 514
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Assistant Director of Public Works/ Assistant City Engineer 7 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Asst Public Works & Utility Srvcs Director $14,100 $14,100 $1,183 inc inc $17 $63 $15,363 Corona Assistant Public Works Director/City Eng $15,103 $167 $15,270 $1,564 inc inc $0 $103 $16,936 Menifee Assistant City Engineer $12,924 $12,924 $1,800 inc inc $17 $14,741 Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Engineering Manager $12,630 $253 $12,883 $900 $127 $19 $13,929 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer $17,079 $75 $17,154 $1,482 $45 inc $98 $18,779 San Bernardino Deputy Dir of Public Works/City Engineer $12,937 $12,937 $1,250 inc inc $7 $23 $14,216 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Engineering Manager $11,356 $511 $795 $12,662 $1,184 inc inc $13,846 Beaumont Assistant Director of Public Works/ Assistant City Engineer$12,289 $12,289 $1,675 inc inc $7 $13,971 Average $13,733 $13,990 $15,401
% +/--11.7%-13.8%-10.2%
Median $12,937 $12,937 $14,741
7 % +/--5.3%-5.3%-5.5%
75th Percenile $14,601 $14,685 $16,150
9 % +/--18.8%-19.5%-15.6%
Median Gain/Loss 0.0%-0.2%
13 Print Date: 1/26/2022 515
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Assistant Director of Public Works/ Assistant City Engineer Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Asst Public Works & Utility Srvcs Director
Corona Assistant Public Works Director/City Eng
Menifee Assistant City Engineer
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Engineering Manager
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer
San Bernardino Deputy Dir of Public Works/City Engineer Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Engineering Manager
Beaumont Assistant Director of Public Works/ Assistant City Engineer Average
% +/-
Median
7 % +/-
75th Percenile
9 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$4,666 2.5@55 $20,029 12 8 7 13 40
$8,551 2.7@55 $25,487 8 25 33
$2,023 2.7@55 $16,764 10 9 5 13 37
$3,292 2@55 $17,221 9 8 10 17 44
$5,426 2.7@55 $24,205 8 8 3 15 34
$5,601 ($298)2@55 $19,519 11 8 7 17 42
$5,242 ($159)2.5@55 $18,929 11 8 4 15 38
$3,172 3@60 $17,143 9 8 17 34
$20,308 38.0
-18.5%-11.9%
$19,519 37.7
-13.9%-10.8%
$22,117 40.8
-29.0%-19.9%
-8.3%
14 Print Date: 1/26/2022 516
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Associate Planner - Drift Check 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Associate Planner $7,251 $275 $7,526 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $8,986 Cathedral City Associate Planner $9,812 $1,472 $491 $100 $687 $12,561 $2,300 inc inc $42 $24 $14,927 Colton Associate Planner $6,556 $6,556 $1,100 inc inc $8 $30 $7,694 Corona Associate Planner $7,183 $83 $7,266 $1,564 inc inc $0 $49 $8,879 Menifee Associate Planner $7,927 $7,927 $1,800 inc inc $13 $9,740 Murrieta Associate Planner $7,586 $150 $7,736 $1,563 $98 $40 $15 $52 $9,503 Palm Springs Associate Planner $8,291 $415 $8,706 $2,094 inc inc $11 $103 $10,913 Redlands Associate Planner $7,245 $362 $7,607 $900 $127 $19 $8,653 Rialto Associate Planner $7,240 $434 $507 $400 $8,581 $1,300 inc inc $9,881 Riverside Associate Planner $7,299 $7,299 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $8,758 San Bernardino Associate Planner $6,867 $6,867 $1,030 inc inc $1 $12 $7,910 Temecula Associate Planner II $8,240 $330 $8,570 $1,600 inc inc $10,170 Upland Associate Planner $6,761 $304 $473 $7,539 $1,184 inc inc $8,723 Beaumont Associate Planner - Drift
Average $7,558 $8,057 $9,595
% +/-
Median $7,251 $7,607 $8,986
13 % +/-
75th Percenile $7,927 $8,570 $9,881
12 % +/-
Median Gain/Loss
15 Print Date: 1/26/2022 517
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Associate Planner - Drift Check
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Associate Planner
Cathedral City Associate Planner
Colton Associate Planner
Corona Associate Planner
Menifee Associate Planner
Murrieta Associate Planner
Palm Springs Associate Planner
Redlands Associate Planner
Rialto Associate Planner
Riverside Associate Planner
San Bernardino Associate Planner
Temecula Associate Planner II
Upland Associate Planner
Beaumont Associate Planner - Drift
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,233 2@60 $11,219 11 8 13 32
$903 ($883)2@60 $14,947 12 8 18 38
$2,170 2.5@55 $9,863 11 8 7 13 39
$4,067 2.7@55 $12,946 8 21 29
$1,241 2.7@55 $10,981 10 9 13 32
$768 2@60 $10,271 9 5 23 37
$2,911 2@60 $13,824 10 21 31
$1,888 2@55 $10,542 11 8 17 35
$3,422 2.7@55 $13,304 12 10 10 23 54
$2,319 2.7@55 $11,076 8 8 13 29
$2,973 ($158)2@55 $10,724 11 8 3 17 39
$2,838 2@60 $13,008 8 23 31
$3,121 ($95)2.5@55 $11,749 11 8 4 15 38
$11,881 35.6
$11,219 35.3
$13,008 38.0
16 Print Date: 1/26/2022 518
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building Inspector 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Building Inspector II $7,207 $360 $100 $7,667 $2,441 inc inc $17 $10,125 Colton Building Inspector II $5,469 $109 $273 $5,852 $1,100 inc inc $8 $25 $6,985 Corona Building Inspector II $5,194 $83 $5,277 $1,564 inc inc $0 $35 $6,876 Menifee Building Inspector $6,860 $6,860 $1,800 inc inc $13 $8,672 Murrieta Building Inspector II $6,266 $100 $6,366 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $43 $8,117 Palm Springs Building Inspector $6,903 $30 $345 $7,278 $2,106 inc inc $11 $26 $9,421 Redlands Building Inspector II $6,558 $328 $6,886 $900 $127 $19 $7,932 Rialto Building Inspector $5,942 $357 $446 $600 $7,344 $1,300 inc inc $8,644 Riverside Building Inspector II $7,260 $7,260 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $8,719 San Bernardino Building Inspector II $5,912 $5,912 $880 inc inc $1 $10 $6,803 Temecula Building Inspector II $7,651 $10 $306 $7,967 $1,600 inc inc $9,567 Upland Building Inspector II $5,976 $269 $17 $100 $6,362 $1,267 inc inc $7,629 Beaumont Building Inspector $6,795 $100 $679 $7,574 $1,675 inc inc $7 $9,256 Average $6,433 $6,753 $8,291
% +/-5.3%10.8%10.4%
Median $6,412 $6,873 $8,381
12 % +/-5.6%9.3%9.5%
75th Percenile $6,979 $7,295 $8,894
13 % +/--2.7%3.7%3.9%
Median Gain/Loss 3.6%0.2%
17 Print Date: 1/26/2022 519
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building Inspector
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Building Inspector II
Colton Building Inspector II
Corona Building Inspector II
Menifee Building Inspector
Murrieta Building Inspector II
Palm Springs Building Inspector
Redlands Building Inspector II
Rialto Building Inspector
Riverside Building Inspector II
San Bernardino Building Inspector II
Temecula Building Inspector II
Upland Building Inspector II
Beaumont Building Inspector
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$663 2@60 $10,789 12 8 18 38
$1,810 2.5@55 $8,795 11 8 13 32
$2,941 2.7@55 $9,817 8 21 29
$1,074 2.7@55 $9,746 10 9 13 32
$634 2@60 $8,751 9 23 32
$2,423 2@60 $11,844 10 21 31
$1,709 2@55 $9,641 11 8 17 35
$2,809 2.7@55 $11,453 12 10 23 44
$2,307 2.7@55 $11,025 8 8 13 29
$2,559 ($77)2@55 $9,286 11 8 17 35
$2,635 2@60 $12,203 8 23 31
$2,758 ($84)2.5@55 $10,303 11 8 15 34
$1,754 3@60 $11,010 9 8 17 34
$10,304 33.5

6.4%1.5%
$10,060 32.2

8.6%5.3%
$11,132 35.2
-1.1%-3.6%
-0.8%
18 Print Date: 1/26/2022 520
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building Permit Technician II 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Building Permit Specialist $5,158 $5,158 $1,400 inc $21 inc $6,579 Cathedral City Permit Technician II $6,076 $304 $100 $6,480 $2,441 inc inc $15 $8,935 Colton Planning/Building Technician $4,567 $91 $228 $4,887 $1,100 inc inc $8 $21 $6,015 Corona Senior Building Permit Technician $4,701 $83 $4,784 $1,564 inc inc $0 $32 $6,380 Menifee Building Permit Technician $6,055 $6,055 $1,800 inc inc $13 $7,868 Murrieta Development Services Technician $5,597 $100 $5,697 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $38 $7,443 Palm Springs Permit Center Technician $6,570 $329 $6,899 $2,106 inc inc $11 $24 $9,040 Redlands Permit Technician II $5,763 $288 $6,051 $900 $127 $19 $7,097 Rialto Permit Technician $4,877 $293 $366 $600 $6,135 $1,300 inc inc $7,435 Riverside Building Permit Technician $5,030 $5,030 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $6,489 San Bernardino Community Development Technician $4,607 $4,607 $880 inc inc $1 $8 $5,496 Temecula Community Development Technician II $5,978 $239 $6,217 $1,600 inc inc $7,817 Upland Development Services Technician $4,555 $205 $100 $4,860 $1,267 inc inc $6,127 Beaumont Building Permit Technician II $5,859 $586 $6,445 $1,675 inc inc $7 $8,127 Average $5,349 $5,605 $7,132
% +/-8.7%13.0%12.2%
Median $5,158 $5,697 $7,097
13 % +/-12.0%11.6%12.7%
75th Percenile $5,978 $6,135 $7,817
13 % +/--2.0%4.8%3.8%
Median Gain/Loss -0.4%1.1%
19 Print Date: 1/26/2022 521
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building Permit Technician II
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Building Permit Specialist
Cathedral City Permit Technician II
Colton Planning/Building Technician
Corona Senior Building Permit Technician
Menifee Building Permit Technician
Murrieta Development Services Technician
Palm Springs Permit Center Technician
Redlands Permit Technician II
Rialto Permit Technician
Riverside Building Permit Technician
San Bernardino Community Development Technician
Temecula Community Development Technician II
Upland Development Services Technician
Beaumont Building Permit Technician II
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,589 2@60 $8,167 11 8 13 32
$559 2@60 $9,494 12 8 18 38
$1,511 2.5@55 $7,527 11 8 13 32
$2,662 2.7@55 $9,042 8 21 29
$948 2.7@55 $8,816 10 9 13 32
$567 2@60 $8,010 9 23 32
$2,307 2@60 $11,346 10 21 31
$1,502 2@55 $8,599 11 8 17 35
$2,305 2.7@55 $9,741 12 10 23 44
$1,598 2.7@55 $8,087 8 8 13 29
$1,994 ($60)2@55 $7,430 11 8 17 35
$2,059 2@60 $9,876 8 23 31
$2,103 ($64)2.5@55 $8,166 11 8 15 34
$1,512 3@60 $9,639 9 8 17 34
$8,792 33.4

8.8%1.8%
$8,599 32.2

10.8%5.4%
$9,494 35.2

1.5%-3.4%
-1.9%
20 Print Date: 1/26/2022 522
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building Plans Examiner 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Plans Examiner $6,016 $120 $301 $6,437 $1,100 inc inc $8 $27 $7,573 Corona Plan Checker $5,542 $83 $5,625 $1,564 inc inc $0 $38 $7,227 Menifee Plans Examiner $7,693 $7,693 $1,800 inc inc $13 $9,506 Murrieta Plans Examiner $7,432 $100 $7,532 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $51 $9,291 Palm Springs Plans Examiner $7,252 $363 $7,615 $2,106 inc inc $11 $27 $9,758 Redlands Plans Examiner $7,245 $362 $7,607 $900 $127 $19 $8,653 Rialto Plans Examiner $5,942 $357 $446 $600 $7,344 $1,300 inc inc $8,644 Riverside Plans Examiner $8,086 $8,086 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $9,545 San Bernardino Plans Examiner II $6,867 $6,867 $880 inc inc $1 $12 $7,760 Temecula Plan Checker $9,322 $373 $9,695 $1,600 inc inc $11,295 Upland Plans Examiner $6,930 $312 $17 $100 $7,359 $1,267 inc inc $8,626 Beaumont Building Plans Examiner $7,138 $714 $7,852 $1,675 inc inc $7 $9,534 Average $7,121 $7,442 $8,898
% +/-0.2%5.2%6.7%
Median $7,245 $7,532 $8,653
11 % +/--1.5%4.1%9.2%
75th Percenile $7,563 $7,654 $9,525
13 % +/--5.9%2.5%0.1%
Median Gain/Loss 5.6%5.2%
21 Print Date: 1/26/2022 523
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building Plans Examiner
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Plans Examiner
Corona Plan Checker
Menifee Plans Examiner
Murrieta Plans Examiner
Palm Springs Plans Examiner
Redlands Plans Examiner
Rialto Plans Examiner
Riverside Plans Examiner
San Bernardino Plans Examiner II
Temecula Plan Checker
Upland Plans Examiner
Beaumont Building Plans Examiner
Average
% +/-
Median
11 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,991 2.5@55 $9,564 11 8 13 32
$3,138 2.7@55 $10,364 8 21 29
$1,204 2.7@55 $10,710 10 9 13 32
$752 2@60 $10,043 9 23 32
$2,546 2@60 $12,304 10 21 31
$1,888 2@55 $10,542 11 8 17 35
$2,809 2.7@55 $11,453 12 10 23 44
$2,569 2.7@55 $12,113 8 8 13 29
$2,973 ($90)2@55 $10,643 11 8 17 35
$3,211 2@60 $14,506 8 23 31
$3,199 ($97)2.5@55 $11,727 11 8 15 34
$1,842 3@60 $11,376 9 8 17 34
$11,270 33.1

0.9%2.7%
$10,710 32.0

5.9%5.8%
$11,920 34.3
-4.8%-1.0%
-3.4%
22 Print Date: 1/26/2022 524
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building/Grounds/Maintenance Supervisor 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Public Works Superintendent $9,282 $275 $9,557 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $11,016 Cathedral City Public Works Supervisor $8,476 $1,271 $424 $100 $593 $10,865 $2,300 inc inc $37 $20 $13,221 Colton Building Maintenance Supervisor $7,173 $7,173 $1,100 inc inc $8 $32 $8,313 Corona Parks Superintendent $8,260 $167 $8,427 $1,564 inc inc $0 $56 $10,047 Menifee Public Works Maintenance Supervisor $7,927 $7,927 $1,800 inc inc $13 $9,740 Murrieta Maintenance Supervisor $7,218 $150 $7,368 $1,563 $98 $40 $14 $49 $9,132 Palm Springs Maintenance Supervisor $8,084 $404 $8,488 $2,094 inc inc $11 $100 $10,693 Redlands Field Services Coordinator $6,776 $339 $7,115 $900 $127 $19 $8,161 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Park Supervisor $6,917 $7 $75 $6,999 $1,482 $45 inc $40 $8,566 San Bernardino Parks & Landscape Maintenance Supervisor $7,111 $7,111 $1,030 inc inc $1 $12 $8,154 Temecula Maintenance Supervisor - Landscape $9,795 $10 $686 $10,491 $1,600 inc inc $12,091 Upland Maintenance Supervisor $6,596 $297 $462 $7,355 $1,184 inc inc $8,539 Beaumont Bldg/Grounds/Maintenance Supervisor $7,687 $7,687 $1,675 inc inc $7 $9,369 Average $7,801 $8,240 $9,806
% +/--1.5%-7.2%-4.7%
Median $7,573 $7,648 $9,436
12 % +/-1.5%0.5%-0.7%
75th Percenile $8,314 $8,755 $10,774
12 % +/--8.2%-13.9%-15.0%
Median Gain/Loss -1.0%-1.2%
23 Print Date: 1/26/2022 525
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building/Grounds/Maintenance Supervisor
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Public Works Superintendent
Cathedral City Public Works Supervisor
Colton Building Maintenance Supervisor
Corona Parks Superintendent
Menifee Public Works Maintenance Supervisor
Murrieta Maintenance Supervisor
Palm Springs Maintenance Supervisor
Redlands Field Services Coordinator
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Park Supervisor
San Bernardino Parks & Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Temecula Maintenance Supervisor - Landscape
Upland Maintenance Supervisor
Beaumont Bldg/Grounds/Maintenance Supervisor
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,859 2@60 $13,875 11 8 13 32
$780 ($763)2@60 $13,239 12 8 18 38
$2,374 2.5@55 $10,687 11 8 13 32
$4,677 2.7@55 $14,723 8 9 23 40
$1,241 2.7@55 $10,981 10 9 4 13 36
$731 2@60 $9,862 9 5 23 37
$2,838 2@60 $13,531 10 4 21 35
$1,766 2@55 $9,927 11 8 17 35
$2,198 2.7@55 $10,764 8 8 14 30
$3,078 ($164)2@55 $11,069 11 8 17 35
$3,374 ($294)2@60 $15,171 8 5 24 37
$3,045 ($92)2.5@55 $11,491 11 8 4 15 38
$1,984 3@60 $11,354 9 8 17 34
$12,110 35.5
-6.7%-4.4%
$11,280 35.6

0.6%-4.8%
$13,617 37.2
-19.9%-9.5%

1.4%
24 Print Date: 1/26/2022 526
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building/Grounds/Maintenance Worker 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Maintenance Worker $4,029 $4,029 $1,400 inc $21 inc $5,450 Cathedral City Facilities Maintenance Worker II $5,383 $269 $100 $5,752 $2,441 inc inc $13 $8,206 Colton Maintenance Worker II $4,000 $80 $200 $4,280 $1,100 inc inc $8 $18 $5,407 Corona Park Services Worker III $5,194 $83 $5,277 $1,564 inc inc $0 $35 $6,876 Menifee Facility Maintenance Worker $5,086 $5,086 $1,800 inc inc $13 $6,898 Murrieta Maintenance Worker II $4,537 $100 $4,637 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $31 $6,376 Palm Springs Maintenance Mechanic I $5,394 $270 $5,664 $2,106 inc inc $11 $20 $7,801 Redlands Grounds Maintenance Worker II $3,988 $199 $4,187 $900 $127 $19 $5,234 Rialto Facility Maintenance Technician $4,877 $293 $366 $600 $6,135 $1,300 inc inc $7,435 Riverside Park Maintenance Worker II $4,821 $7 $4,828 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $6,287 San Bernardino Parks Maintenance Worker II $3,967 $3,967 $880 inc inc $1 $7 $4,855 Temecula Maintenance Worker II - Facilities $5,689 $228 $5,917 $1,600 inc inc $7,517 Upland Maintenance Worker $4,335 $195 $100 $4,630 $1,267 inc inc $5,897 Beaumont Bldg/Grounds/Maintenance Worker $4,808 $481 $5,289 $1,675 inc inc $7 $6,971 Average $4,715 $4,953 $6,480
% +/-1.9%6.4%7.0%
Median $4,821 $4,828 $6,376
13 % +/--0.3%8.7%8.5%
75th Percenile $5,194 $5,664 $7,435
13 % +/--8.0%-7.1%-6.7%
Median Gain/Loss 9.0%-0.2%
25 Print Date: 1/26/2022 527
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Building/Grounds/Maintenance Worker
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Maintenance Worker
Cathedral City Facilities Maintenance Worker II
Colton Maintenance Worker II
Corona Park Services Worker III
Menifee Facility Maintenance Worker
Murrieta Maintenance Worker II
Palm Springs Maintenance Mechanic I
Redlands Grounds Maintenance Worker II
Rialto Facility Maintenance Technician
Riverside Park Maintenance Worker II
San Bernardino Parks Maintenance Worker II
Temecula Maintenance Worker II - Facilities
Upland Maintenance Worker
Beaumont Bldg/Grounds/Maintenance Worker
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,241 2@60 $6,691 11 8 13 32
$495 2@60 $8,701 12 8 18 38
$1,324 2.5@55 $6,730 11 8 13 32
$2,941 2.7@55 $9,817 8 21 29
$796 2.7@55 $7,694 10 9 13 32
$459 2@60 $6,836 9 23 32
$1,894 2@60 $9,694 10 21 31
$1,039 2@55 $6,273 11 8 17 35
$2,305 2.7@55 $9,741 12 10 23 44
$1,532 2.7@55 $7,818 8 8 13 29
$1,717 ($52)2@55 $6,520 11 8 17 35
$1,959 2@60 $9,476 8 23 31
$2,001 ($61)2.5@55 $7,837 11 8 15 34
$1,241 3@60 $8,212 9 8 17 34
$7,987 33.4

2.7%1.8%
$7,818 32.2

4.8%5.4%
$9,476 35.2
-15.4%-3.4%
-3.7%
26 Print Date: 1/26/2022 528
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Chief Building Official 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Building & Safety Manager $11,359 $1,704 $568 $100 $795 $14,526 $2,300 inc inc $49 $27 $16,902 Colton Building Official $10,361 $10,361 $1,100 inc inc $8 $47 $11,516 Corona Building Official/Building Inspection Manager $8,946 $167 $9,113 $1,564 inc inc $0 $61 $10,737 Menifee Building Official $12,924 $12,924 $1,800 inc inc $17 $14,741 Murrieta City Building Official $11,967 $150 $12,117 $1,563 $98 $40 $24 $81 $13,922 Palm Springs Building Official $11,537 $577 $12,114 $2,094 inc inc $11 $143 $14,362 Redlands Chief Building Official $11,442 $229 $11,671 $900 $127 $19 $12,717 Rialto Building & Safety Manager $10,230 $614 $716 $400 $11,960 $1,300 inc inc $13,260 Riverside Building Official $12,797 $75 $12,872 $1,482 $45 inc $74 $14,473 San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula Building Official $13,501 $10 $945 $14,456 $1,600 inc inc $16,056 Upland Building Official $10,288 $463 $720 $11,471 $1,184 inc inc $12,655 Beaumont Building Official $14,251 $14,251 $1,675 inc inc $7 $15,933 Average $11,396 $12,144 $13,758
% +/-20.0%14.8%13.7%
Median $11,442 $12,114 $13,922
11 % +/-19.7%15.0%12.6%
75th Percenile $12,382 $12,898 $14,607
12 % +/-13.1%9.5%8.3%
Median Gain/Loss -4.7%-2.4%
27 Print Date: 1/26/2022 529
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Chief Building Official
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Building & Safety Manager
Colton Building Official
Corona Building Official/Building Inspection Manager
Menifee Building Official
Murrieta City Building Official
Palm Springs Building Official
Redlands Chief Building Official
Rialto Building & Safety Manager
Riverside Building Official
San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula Building Official
Upland Building Official
Beaumont Building Official
Average
% +/-
Median
11 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,045 ($1,022)2@60 $16,925 12 8 18 38
$3,429 2.5@55 $14,945 11 8 7 13 39
$5,065 2.7@55 $15,802 8 9 23 40
$2,023 2.7@55 $16,764 10 9 5 13 37
$1,212 2@60 $15,134 9 5 23 37
$4,050 2@60 $18,412 10 4 21 35
$2,982 2@55 $15,699 9 8 10 17 44
$4,836 2.7@55 $18,096 12 10 10 23 54
$4,066 2.7@55 $18,538 8 8 3 15 34
$4,650 ($405)2@60 $20,302 8 5 24 37
$4,749 ($144)2.5@55 $17,260 11 8 4 15 38
$3,679 3@60 $19,612 9 8 17 34
$17,080 39.3

12.9%-15.7%
$16,925 37.7

13.7%-10.8%
$18,254 39.7

6.9%-16.7%

1.1%
28 Print Date: 1/26/2022 530
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Chief Plant Operator – Wastewater 4 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Wastewater Utilities Supervisor $7,850 $7,850 $1,100 inc inc $8 $35 $8,993 Corona Deputy Chief Op - Water Reclamation $9,545 $167 $9,712 $1,564 inc inc $0 $65 $11,340 Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Wastewater Operations Supervisor $8,580 $429 $9,009 $900 $127 $19 $10,055 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Wastewater Plant Supervisor $10,113 $13 $75 $10,201 $1,482 $45 inc $58 $11,786 San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Chief Plant Operator – Wastewater $12,596 $12,596 $1,675 inc inc $7 $14,278 Average $9,022 $9,193 $10,544
% +/-28.4%27.0%26.2%
Median $9,063 $9,360 $10,698
4 % +/-28.1%25.7%25.1%
75th Percenile $9,687 $9,834 $11,452
6 % +/-23.1%21.9%19.8%
Median Gain/Loss -2.4%-0.6%
29 Print Date: 1/26/2022 531
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Chief Plant Operator – Wastewater
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Wastewater Utilities Supervisor
Corona Deputy Chief Op - Water Reclamation
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Wastewater Operations Supervisor
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Wastewater Plant Supervisor
San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Chief Plant Operator – Wastewater
Average
% +/-
Median
4 % +/-
75th Percenile
6 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,598 2.5@55 $11,591 11 8 7 13 39
$5,404 2.7@55 $16,744 8 9 23 40
$2,236 2@55 $12,291 11 8 17 35
$3,213 2.7@55 $14,999 8 8 14 30
$3,251 3@60 $17,529 9 8 17 34
$13,906 36.2

20.7%-6.4%
$13,645 37.2

22.2%-9.3%
$15,435 39.3

11.9%-15.7%
-2.9%
30 Print Date: 1/26/2022 532
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
City Engineer / Public Works Director 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Public Works Director/City Engineer $15,183 $275 $15,458 $1,667 inc $21 $39 $17,184 Cathedral City Director of Engineering/Public Works $16,782 $2,517 $839 $100 $1,175 $21,413 $2,300 inc inc $72 $40 $23,826 Colton Public Works & Utility Services Director $15,091 $15,091 $1,183 inc inc $17 $68 $16,359 Corona Public Works Director $16,114 $167 $16,281 $1,564 inc inc $0 $110 $17,954 Menifee Director of Public Works and Engineering $17,259 $17,259 $1,800 inc inc $17 $19,076 Murrieta Director of PW/City Engineer $18,034 $250 $18,284 $1,563 $98 $40 $36 $123 $20,143 Palm Springs City Engineer $14,993 $750 $15,743 $2,094 inc inc $11 $186 $18,034 Redlands Director of Municipal Util & PW Eng $18,637 $373 $19,010 $2,706 $127 $19 $21,862 Rialto Public Works Director $16,354 $1,227 $750 $18,331 $1,300 $137 $25 $19,793 Riverside Public Works Director $19,958 $75 $20,033 $1,482 $45 inc $115 $21,675 San Bernardino Director of Public Works $17,020 $17,020 $1,250 inc inc $18 $30 $18,318 Temecula Director of Public Works $17,283 $1,210 $18,493 $1,600 inc inc $20,093 Upland Public Works Director $14,822 $371 $1,334 $16,527 $1,184 inc inc $17,711 Beaumont City Engineer/Public Works Director $18,243 $18,243 $1,675 inc inc $7 $19,925 Average $16,733 $17,611 $19,387
% +/-8.3%3.5%2.7%
Median $16,782 $17,259 $19,076
13 % +/-8.0%5.4%4.3%
75th Percenile $17,283 $18,493 $20,143
13 % +/-5.3%-1.4%-1.1%
Median Gain/Loss -2.6%-1.1%
31 Print Date: 1/26/2022 533
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
City Engineer / Public Works Director
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Public Works Director/City Engineer
Cathedral City Director of Engineering/Public Works
Colton Public Works & Utility Services Director
Corona Public Works Director
Menifee Director of Public Works and Engineering
Murrieta Director of PW/City Engineer
Palm Springs City Engineer
Redlands Director of Municipal Util & PW Eng
Rialto Public Works Director
Riverside Public Works Director
San Bernardino Director of Public Works
Temecula Director of Public Works
Upland Public Works Director
Beaumont City Engineer/Public Works Director
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$4,676 2@60 $21,861 11 8 8 13 40
$1,544 ($1,510)2@60 $23,860 12 8 18 38
$4,994 2.5@55 $21,354 12 8 7 13 40
$9,123 2.7@55 $27,077 8 9 25 42
$2,702 2.7@55 $21,778 10 9 5 13 37
$1,826 2@60 $21,968 9 10 23 42
$5,264 2@60 $23,297 10 4 21 35
$4,858 2@55 $26,720 9 33 42
$7,731 2.7@55 $27,524 10 10 12 20 52
$6,341 2.7@55 $28,016 8 8 4 17 37
$7,368 ($392)2@55 $25,294 11 8 7 17 42
$5,953 ($518)2@60 $25,527 8 7 24 39
$6,841 ($208)2.5@55 $24,344 11 8 7 15 40
$4,709 3@60 $24,634 9 8 3 17 37
$24,509 40.3

0.5%-8.0%
$24,344 40.2

1.2%-7.6%
$26,720 41.7
-8.5%-11.6%
-3.1%
32 Print Date: 1/26/2022 534
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
City Manager 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits
Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning City Manager $20,930 $275 $21,205 $1,667 inc $21 $39 $22,931 Cathedral City City Manager $16,362 $2,454 $818 $1,000 $1,145 $21,780 $2,300 inc inc $71 $39 $24,190 Colton City Manager $16,554 $16,554 $1,183 inc inc $17 $74 $17,829 Corona City Manager $20,782 $167 $20,949 $1,564 inc inc $0 $141 $22,654 Menifee City Manager $22,082 $1,546 $23,628 $1,800 inc inc $17 $25,445 Murrieta City Manager $21,385 $1,625 $23,010 $1,563 $98 $40 $85 $145 $24,941 Palm Springs City Manager $22,917 $625 $23,542 $2,094 inc inc $22 $284 $25,942 Redlands City Manager $26,862 $537 $27,399 $2,706 $127 $19 $30,252 Rialto City Manager $20,000 $1,500 $750 $22,250 $1,300 $137 $25 $23,712 Riverside City Manager $26,803 $75 $26,878 $1,482 $45 inc $154 $28,559 San Bernardino City Manager $23,750 $23,750 $1,250 inc inc $26 $42 $25,067 Temecula City Manager $21,093 $1,477 $22,570 $1,600 inc inc $24,170 Upland City Manager $23,239 $581 $2,092 $25,911 $1,184 inc inc $27,095 Beaumont City Manager $23,353 $1,800 $25,153 $1,675 inc inc $7 $26,835 City ManagerAvg Average $21,751 $23,033 $24,830
% +/-6.9%8.4%7.5%
Median $21,385 $23,010 $24,941
13 % +/-8.4%8.5%7.1%
75th Percenile $23,239 $23,750 $25,942
13 % +/-0.5%5.6%3.3%
Median Gain/Loss 0.1%-1.5%
33 Print Date: 1/26/2022 535
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
City Manager
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning City Manager
Cathedral City City Manager
Colton City Manager
Corona City Manager
Menifee City Manager
Murrieta City Manager
Palm Springs City Manager
Redlands City Manager
Rialto City Manager
Riverside City Manager
San Bernardino City Manager
Temecula City Manager
Upland City Manager
Beaumont City Manager
City ManagerAvg Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$6,447 2@60 $29,378 10 8 8 13 40
$1,506 ($1,473)2@60 $24,223 12 8 22 42
$5,478 ($497)2.5@55 $22,810 12 8 7 13 40
$11,766 2.7@55 $34,420 8 9 25 42
$3,456 2.7@55 $28,901 10 9 7 13 38
$2,165 2@60 $27,106 9 10 23 42
$8,045 2@60 $33,987 10 23 33
$7,001 2@55 $37,253 9 33 42
$9,454 2.7@55 $33,167 10 10 12 13 45
$8,515 2.7@55 $37,075 7 8 7 17 39
$10,282 ($547)2@55 $34,802 11 8 7 17 42
$7,265 ($633)2@60 $30,802 8 7 24 39
$10,726 ($325)2.5@55 $37,497 11 8 7 15 40
$6,028 3@60 $32,863 9 8 3 17 37
$31,648 40.2

3.7%-7.7%
$33,167 40.2
-0.9%-7.6%
$34,802 41.8
-5.9%-12.1%
-8.0%
34 Print Date: 1/26/2022 536
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Development Director 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Community Development Director $12,461 $275 $12,736 $1,667 inc $21 $39 $14,463 Cathedral City Director of Planning/Building $16,782 $2,517 $839 $100 $1,175 $21,413 $2,300 inc inc $72 $40 $23,826 Colton Development Services Director $14,100 $14,100 $1,183 inc inc $17 $63 $15,363 Corona Community Development Director $16,114 $167 $16,281 $1,564 inc inc $0 $110 $17,954 Menifee Community Development Director $17,259 $17,259 $1,800 inc inc $17 $19,076 Murrieta City Planner $12,746 $250 $12,996 $1,563 $98 $40 $25 $87 $14,808 Palm Springs Director of Development Services $15,751 $788 $16,539 $2,094 inc inc $11 $195 $18,839 Redlands Development Services Director $16,957 $339 $17,296 $2,706 $127 $19 $20,149 Rialto Community Development Director $17,181 $1,289 $750 $19,220 $1,300 $137 $25 $20,682 Riverside City Planner $12,797 $75 $12,872 $1,482 $45 inc $74 $14,473 San Bernardino Director of Community & Econ Development $17,020 $17,020 $1,250 inc inc $18 $30 $18,318 Temecula Director of Community Development $16,049 $1,123 $17,172 $1,600 inc inc $18,772 Upland Development Services Director $14,244 $356 $1,282 $15,882 $1,184 inc inc $17,066 Beaumont Community Development Director $14,974 $14,974 $1,675 inc inc $7 $16,656 Average $15,343 $16,214 $17,984
% +/--2.5%-8.3%-8.0%
Median $16,049 $16,539 $18,318
13 % +/--7.2%-10.4%-10.0%
75th Percenile $16,957 $17,259 $19,076
13 % +/--13.2%-15.3%-14.5%
Median Gain/Loss -3.3%0.5%
35 Print Date: 1/26/2022 537
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Development Director
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Community Development Director
Cathedral City Director of Planning/Building
Colton Development Services Director
Corona Community Development Director
Menifee Community Development Director
Murrieta City Planner
Palm Springs Director of Development Services
Redlands Development Services Director
Rialto Community Development Director
Riverside City Planner
San Bernardino Director of Community & Econ Development Temecula Director of Community Development
Upland Development Services Director
Beaumont Community Development Director
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$3,838 2@60 $18,301 11 8 8 13 40
$1,544 ($1,510)2@60 $23,860 12 8 18 38
$4,666 2.5@55 $20,029 12 8 7 13 40
$9,123 2.7@55 $27,077 8 9 25 42
$2,702 2.7@55 $21,778 10 9 5 13 37
$1,290 2@60 $16,099 9 10 23 42
$5,530 2@60 $24,369 10 4 21 35
$4,420 2@55 $24,568 9 33 42
$8,122 2.7@55 $28,804 10 10 12 20 52
$4,066 2.7@55 $18,538 8 8 4 17 37
$7,368 ($392)2@55 $25,294 11 8 7 17 42
$5,528 ($481)2@60 $23,819 8 7 24 39
$6,575 ($199)2.5@55 $23,441 11 8 7 15 40
$3,865 3@60 $20,521 9 8 3 17 37
$22,767 40.3
-10.9%-8.0%
$23,819 40.2
-16.1%-7.6%
$24,568 41.7
-19.7%-11.6%
-6.1%
36 Print Date: 1/26/2022 538
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Enhancement Officer II 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Code Compliance Officer $5,554 $5,554 $1,400 inc $21 inc $6,975 Cathedral City Code Compliance Officer II $6,704 $335 $100 $100 $7,239 $2,441 inc inc $16 $9,696 Colton Code Enforcement Officer $5,118 $102 $256 $5,476 $1,100 inc inc $8 $23 $6,608 Corona Code Enforcement Officer II $5,194 $83 $5,277 $1,564 inc inc $0 $35 $6,876 Menifee Code Enforcement Officer II $6,493 $6,493 $1,800 inc inc $13 $8,306 Murrieta Code Enforcement Officer $6,572 $50 $100 $6,722 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $45 $8,475 Palm Springs Code Compliance Officer $6,251 $30 $313 $6,594 $2,106 inc inc $11 $23 $8,734 Redlands Code Enforcement Officer $5,649 $282 $17 $5,948 $900 $127 $19 $6,994 Rialto Code Enforcement Officer $5,518 $331 $96 $414 $600 $6,959 $1,300 inc inc $8,259 Riverside Code Enforcement Officer II $6,783 $23 $6,806 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $8,265 San Bernardino Code Enforcement Officer II $5,625 $5,625 $880 inc inc $1 $10 $6,516 Temecula Code Enforcement Officer II $6,280 $10 $251 $6,542 $1,600 inc inc $8,142 Upland Code Enforcement Officer $5,549 $250 $25 $100 $5,924 $1,267 inc inc $7,191 Beaumont Community Enhancement Officer II $6,467 $100 $647 $7,214 $1,675 inc inc $7 $8,896 Average $5,945 $6,243 $7,772
% +/-8.1%13.5%12.6%
Median $5,649 $6,493 $8,142
13 % +/-12.6%10.0%8.5%
75th Percenile $6,493 $6,722 $8,306
13 % +/--0.4%6.8%6.6%
Median Gain/Loss -2.7%-1.5%
37 Print Date: 1/26/2022 539
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Enhancement Officer II
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Code Compliance Officer
Cathedral City Code Compliance Officer II
Colton Code Enforcement Officer
Corona Code Enforcement Officer II
Menifee Code Enforcement Officer II
Murrieta Code Enforcement Officer
Palm Springs Code Compliance Officer
Redlands Code Enforcement Officer
Rialto Code Enforcement Officer
Riverside Code Enforcement Officer II
San Bernardino Code Enforcement Officer II
Temecula Code Enforcement Officer II
Upland Code Enforcement Officer
Beaumont Community Enhancement Officer II
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,711 2@60 $8,686 11 8 13 32
$617 2@60 $10,313 12 8 18 38
$1,694 2.5@55 $8,302 11 8 13 32
$2,941 2.7@55 $9,817 8 21 29
$1,016 2.7@55 $9,323 10 9 13 32
$665 2@60 $9,140 9 23 32
$2,195 2@60 $10,928 10 21 31
$1,472 2@55 $8,467 11 8 17 35
$2,608 2.7@55 $10,867 12 10 215 237
$2,155 2.7@55 $10,420 8 8 13 29
$2,435 ($73)2@55 $8,878 11 8 17 35
$2,163 2@60 $10,305 8 23 31
$2,561 ($78)2.5@55 $9,674 11 8 15 34
$1,669 3@60 $10,565 9 8 17 34
$9,624 48.2

8.9%-41.8%
$9,674 32.2

8.4%5.4%
$10,313 35.2

2.4%-3.4%
-0.0%
38 Print Date: 1/26/2022 540
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Services Coordinator - Drift Check 8 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Program Coordinator $4,448 $4,448 $1,400 inc $21 inc $5,868 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Recreation Services Coordinator $4,568 $91 $228 $4,888 $1,100 inc inc $8 $21 $6,017 Corona Recreation Coordinator $5,066 $83 $5,149 $1,564 inc inc $0 $34 $6,747 Menifee Community Services Coordinator $5,704 $5,704 $1,800 inc inc $13 $7,516 Murrieta Senior Recreation Coordinator $5,949 $100 $6,049 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $40 $7,798 Palm Springs Program Coordinator $5,394 $270 $5,664 $2,106 inc inc $11 $20 $7,801 Redlands Program Specialist $5,114 $256 $5,370 $900 $127 $19 $6,416 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino Community Recreation Program Coordinator $3,416 $3,416 $880 inc inc $1 $6 $4,303 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Community Services Coordinator - Drift
Average $4,957 $5,086 $6,558
% +/-
Median $5,090 $5,260 $6,582
8 % +/-
75th Percenile $5,471 $5,674 $7,587
8 % +/-
Median Gain/Loss
39 Print Date: 1/26/2022 541
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Services Coordinator - Drift Check
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Program Coordinator
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Recreation Services Coordinator
Corona Recreation Coordinator
Menifee Community Services Coordinator
Murrieta Senior Recreation Coordinator
Palm Springs Program Coordinator
Redlands Program Specialist
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino Community Recreation Program Coordinator Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Community Services Coordinator - Drift
Average
% +/-
Median
8 % +/-
75th Percenile
8 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,370 2@60 $7,238 11 8 13 32
$1,512 2.5@55 $7,529 11 8 13 32
$2,868 2.7@55 $9,616 8 21 29
$893 2.7@55 $8,409 10 9 13 32
$602 2@60 $8,400 9 23 32
$1,894 2@60 $9,694 10 21 31
$1,333 2@55 $7,749 11 8 17 35
$1,479 ($45)2@55 $5,737 11 8 17 35
$8,047 32.3
$8,074 32.1
$8,711 33.0
40 Print Date: 1/26/2022 542
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Services Director 9 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Parks and Recreation Director $12,461 $275 $12,736 $1,667 inc $21 $39 $14,463 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Community Services Director $14,100 $14,100 $1,183 inc inc $17 $63 $15,363 Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee Community Services Director $16,419 $16,419 $1,800 inc inc $17 $18,236 Murrieta Parks and Recreation Manager $11,038 $217 $11,255 $1,563 $98 $40 $22 $75 $13,052 Palm Springs Director of Parks and Recreation $13,921 $696 $14,617 $2,094 inc inc $11 $173 $16,895 Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Director of Community Services $14,454 $1,084 $750 $16,288 $1,300 $137 $25 $17,750 Riverside Parks/Recreation and Community Services Director$19,010 $75 $19,085 $1,482 $45 inc $109 $20,721 San Bernardino Director of Parks, Rec, & Community Services $14,509 $14,509 $1,250 inc inc $16 $25 $15,800 Temecula Director of Community Services $16,049 $1,123 $17,172 $1,600 inc inc $18,772 Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Community Services Director $14,251 $14,251 $1,675 inc inc $7 $15,933 Average $14,662 $15,131 $16,784
% +/--2.9%-6.2%-5.3%
Median $14,454 $14,617 $16,895
9 % +/--1.4%-2.6%-6.0%
75th Percenile $16,049 $16,419 $18,236
10 % +/--12.6%-15.2%-14.5%
Median Gain/Loss -1.1%-3.5%
41 Print Date: 1/26/2022 543
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Services Director
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Parks and Recreation Director
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Community Services Director
Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee Community Services Director
Murrieta Parks and Recreation Manager
Palm Springs Director of Parks and Recreation
Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Director of Community Services
Riverside Parks/Recreation and Community Services Director San Bernardino Director of Parks, Rec, & Community Services Temecula Director of Community Services
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Community Services Director
Average
% +/-
Median
9 % +/-
75th Percenile
10 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$3,838 2@60 $18,301 11 8 8 13 40
$4,666 2.5@55 $20,029 12 8 7 13 40
$2,570 2.7@55 $20,806 10 9 5 13 37
$1,117 2@60 $14,169 9 7 23 39
$4,887 2@60 $21,782 10 4 21 35
$6,833 2.7@55 $24,583 10 10 12 20 52
$6,039 2.7@55 $26,761 8 8 4 17 37
$6,281 ($334)2@55 $21,747 11 8 7 17 42
$5,528 ($481)2@60 $23,819 8 7 24 39
$3,679 3@60 $19,612 9 8 3 17 37
$21,333 39.9
-8.8%-6.9%
$21,747 38.8
-10.9%-3.8%
$23,819 40.3
-21.4%-8.1%
-4.9%
42 Print Date: 1/26/2022 544
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Services Manager 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Recreation Manager $7,251 $275 $7,526 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $8,986 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Recreation Services Manager $8,239 $8,239 $1,100 inc inc $8 $37 $9,385 Corona Recreation Services Manager $10,813 $167 $10,980 $1,564 inc inc $0 $74 $12,617 Menifee Community Services Manager $10,429 $10,429 $1,800 inc inc $17 $12,246 Murrieta Community Services Manager $8,580 $217 $8,797 $1,563 $98 $40 $17 $58 $10,572 Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Recreation Services Coordinator $5,879 $294 $6,173 $900 $127 $19 $7,219 Rialto Recreation & Community Srvcs Manager $9,267 $556 $649 $400 $10,872 $1,300 inc inc $12,172 Riverside Recreation Superintendent $10,432 $75 $10,507 $1,482 $45 inc $60 $12,094 San Bernardino Community Recreation Manager $7,218 $7,218 $1,030 inc inc $1 $13 $8,262 Temecula Community Services Manager $10,039 $703 $10,742 $1,600 inc inc $12,342 Upland Recreation Manager $8,444 $380 $591 $9,415 $1,184 inc inc $10,599 Beaumont Community Services Manager $7,880 $7,880 $1,675 inc inc $7 $9,562 Average $8,781 $9,172 $10,590
% +/--11.4%-16.4%-10.8%
Median $8,580 $9,415 $10,599
11 % +/--8.9%-19.5%-10.8%
75th Percenile $10,234 $10,624 $12,209
12 % +/--29.9%-34.8%-27.7%
Median Gain/Loss -10.6%8.6%
43 Print Date: 1/26/2022 545
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Community Services Manager
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Recreation Manager
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Recreation Services Manager
Corona Recreation Services Manager
Menifee Community Services Manager
Murrieta Community Services Manager
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Recreation Services Coordinator
Rialto Recreation & Community Srvcs Manager
Riverside Recreation Superintendent
San Bernardino Community Recreation Manager
Temecula Community Services Manager
Upland Recreation Manager
Beaumont Community Services Manager
Average
% +/-
Median
11 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,233 2@60 $11,219 10 8 13 31
$2,727 2.5@55 $12,112 11 8 7 13 39
$6,122 2.7@55 $18,739 8 9 25 42
$1,632 2.7@55 $13,879 10 9 5 13 37
$869 2@60 $11,441 9 7 23 39
$1,532 2@55 $8,751 11 8 17 35
$4,381 2.7@55 $16,552 12 10 10 23 54
$3,314 2.7@55 $15,408 8 8 3 15 34
$3,125 ($166)2@55 $11,220 11 8 3 17 39
$3,458 ($301)2@60 $15,498 8 5 24 37
$3,897 ($118)2.5@55 $14,378 11 8 4 15 38
$2,034 3@60 $11,596 9 8 17 34
$13,563 38.6
-17.0%-13.5%
$13,879 37.7
-19.7%-10.8%
$15,453 38.9
-33.3%-14.3%
-8.8%
44 Print Date: 1/26/2022 546
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Customer Service Coordinator II 8 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Office Specialist $3,931 $3,931 $1,400 inc $21 inc $5,352 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Customer Service Representative II $3,973 $79 $199 $4,251 $1,100 inc inc $8 $18 $5,377 Corona Customer Service Representative III $4,966 $83 $5,049 $1,564 inc inc $0 $34 $6,647 Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta Accounting Assistant $4,461 $100 $4,561 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $30 $6,300 Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Customer Service Technician II $4,275 $214 $4,489 $900 $127 $19 $5,535 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Senior Office Specialist $4,233 $4,233 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $5,692 San Bernardino Senior Customer Service Representative $3,967 $3,967 $880 inc inc $1 $7 $4,855 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Customer Service Specialist II $4,443 $200 $100 $4,743 $1,267 inc inc $6,010 Beaumont Customer Service Representative $4,808 $481 $5,289 $1,675 inc inc $7 $6,971 Average $4,281 $4,403 $5,721
% +/-11.0%16.8%17.9%
Median $4,254 $4,370 $5,613
8 % +/-11.5%17.4%19.5%
75th Percenile $4,448 $4,606 $6,082
9 % +/-7.5%12.9%12.7%
Median Gain/Loss 5.9%2.1%
45 Print Date: 1/26/2022 547
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Customer Service Coordinator II
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Office Specialist
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Customer Service Representative II
Corona Customer Service Representative III
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta Accounting Assistant
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Customer Service Technician II
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Senior Office Specialist
San Bernardino Senior Customer Service Representative
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Customer Service Specialist II
Beaumont Customer Service Representative
Average
% +/-
Median
8 % +/-
75th Percenile
9 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,211 2@60 $6,562 11 8 13 32
$1,315 2.5@55 $6,692 11 8 13 32
$2,812 2.7@55 $9,458 8 21 29
$452 2@60 $6,751 9 23 32
$1,114 2@55 $6,649 11 8 17 35
$1,345 2.7@55 $7,036 8 8 13 29
$1,717 ($52)2@55 $6,520 11 8 17 35
$2,051 ($62)2.5@55 $7,998 11 8 15 34
$1,241 3@60 $8,212 9 8 17 34
$7,209 32.3

12.2%4.9%
$6,722 32.2

18.2%5.2%
$7,277 33.9

11.4%0.2%
-1.3%
46 Print Date: 1/26/2022 548
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Deputy City Clerk 4 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Chief Deputy City Clerk $5,881 $5,881 $1,100 inc inc $8 $26 $7,016 Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee Deputy City Clerk $6,493 $6,493 $1,800 inc inc $13 $8,306 Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs Deputy City Clerk $6,161 $308 $6,469 $2,094 inc inc $11 $76 $8,650 Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Deputy City Clerk $6,891 $413 $482 $400 $8,187 $1,300 inc inc $9,487 Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Deputy City Clerk $9,138 $9,138 $1,675 inc inc $7 $10,820 Average $6,357 $6,758 $8,365
% +/-30.4%26.1%22.7%
Median $6,327 $6,481 $8,478
4 % +/-30.8%29.1%21.6%
75th Percenile $6,593 $6,917 $8,860
6 % +/-27.9%24.3%18.1%
Median Gain/Loss -1.7%-7.4%
47 Print Date: 1/26/2022 549
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Deputy City Clerk
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Chief Deputy City Clerk
Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee Deputy City Clerk
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs Deputy City Clerk
Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Deputy City Clerk
Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Deputy City Clerk
Average
% +/-
Median
4 % +/-
75th Percenile
6 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,946 2.5@55 $8,962 11 8 7 13 39
$1,016 2.7@55 $9,323 10 9 13 32
$2,163 2@60 $10,813 10 4 21 35
$3,258 2.7@55 $12,744 12 10 10 23 54
$2,359 3@60 $13,179 9 8 17 34
$10,461 40.0

20.6%-17.5%
$10,068 36.8

23.6%-8.4%
$11,296 42.9

14.3%-26.1%

2.0%
48 Print Date: 1/26/2022 550
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Economic Development Manager 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Economic Development Manager $11,033 $275 $11,308 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $12,768 Cathedral City Economic Development Director $16,782 $2,517 $839 $100 $1,175 $21,413 $2,300 inc inc $72 $40 $23,826 Colton Economic Development Manager $9,240 $9,240 $1,100 inc inc $8 $42 $10,390 Corona Economic Development Manager I $9,081 $167 $9,248 $1,564 inc inc $0 $62 $10,873 Menifee Economic Development Director $16,419 $16,419 $1,800 inc inc $17 $18,236 Murrieta Business Development Program Manager $7,393 $217 $7,610 $1,563 $98 $40 $15 $50 $9,375 Palm Springs Central Business District Administrator $9,851 $493 $10,344 $2,094 inc inc $11 $122 $12,571 Redlands Economic Development Manager $11,163 $223 $11,386 $900 $127 $19 $12,432 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Economic Development Manager $14,717 $75 $14,792 $1,482 $45 inc $85 $16,404 San Bernardino Economic Development Division Manager $10,757 $10,757 $1,250 inc inc $7 $19 $12,033 Temecula Economic Development Manager $10,811 $757 $11,568 $1,600 inc inc $13,168 Upland Development Services Manager $9,792 $441 $685 $10,918 $1,184 inc inc $12,102 Beaumont Economic Development Manager $11,133 $11,133 $1,675 inc inc $7 $12,815 Average $11,420 $12,084 $13,681
% +/--2.6%-8.5%-6.8%
Median $10,784 $11,113 $12,502
12 % +/-3.1%0.2%2.4%
75th Percenile $12,052 $12,374 $13,977
12 % +/--8.2%-11.1%-9.1%
Median Gain/Loss -3.0%2.3%
49 Print Date: 1/26/2022 551
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Economic Development Manager
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Economic Development Manager
Cathedral City Economic Development Director
Colton Economic Development Manager
Corona Economic Development Manager I
Menifee Economic Development Director
Murrieta Business Development Program Manager
Palm Springs Central Business District Administrator
Redlands Economic Development Manager
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Economic Development Manager
San Bernardino Economic Development Division Manager
Temecula Economic Development Manager
Upland Development Services Manager
Beaumont Economic Development Manager
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$3,398 2@60 $16,166 11 8 13 32
$1,544 ($1,510)2@60 $23,860 12 8 18 38
$3,058 2.5@55 $13,448 11 8 7 13 39
$5,141 2.7@55 $16,014 8 9 25 42
$2,570 2.7@55 $20,807 10 9 5 13 37
$748 2@60 $10,123 9 7 23 39
$3,458 2@60 $16,029 10 4 21 35
$2,910 2@55 $15,342 9 8 10 17 44
$4,676 2.7@55 $21,079 8 8 3 15 34
$4,657 ($248)2@55 $16,442 11 8 7 17 42
$3,724 ($324)2@60 $16,567 8 5 24 37
$4,520 ($137)2.5@55 $16,485 11 8 4 15 38
$2,874 3@60 $15,689 9 8 17 34
$16,864 37.9
-7.5%-11.6%
$16,304 37.8
-3.9%-11.3%
$17,627 39.7
-12.4%-16.7%
-6.4%
50 Print Date: 1/26/2022 552
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Engineering Development Technician II 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Engineering Services Assistant $4,339 $4,339 $1,400 inc $21 inc $5,760 Cathedral City Engineering Technician I $6,227 $311 $100 $6,638 $2,441 inc inc $15 $9,094 Colton Engineering Technician II $5,660 $113 $283 $6,056 $1,100 inc inc $8 $25 $7,190 Corona Engineering Technician $4,941 $83 $5,024 $1,564 inc inc $0 $34 $6,622 Menifee Engineering Technician II $6,691 $6,691 $1,800 inc inc $13 $8,503 Murrieta Development Services Technician $5,597 $100 $5,697 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $38 $7,443 Palm Springs Permit Center Technician $6,570 $329 $6,899 $2,106 inc inc $11 $24 $9,040 Redlands Counter Services Technician $4,405 $220 $4,625 $900 $127 $19 $5,671 Rialto Engineering Technician $5,656 $339 $424 $600 $7,020 $1,300 inc inc $8,320 Riverside Engineering Technician $7,481 $4 $7,485 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $8,944 San Bernardino Community Development Technician $4,607 $4,607 $880 inc inc $1 $8 $5,496 Temecula Engineering Technician II $6,599 $264 $6,863 $1,600 inc inc $8,463 Upland Engineering Technician $4,554 $205 $100 $4,859 $1,267 inc inc $6,126 Beaumont Engineering Technician II $5,859 $586 $6,445 $1,675 inc inc $7 $8,127 Average $5,641 $5,908 $7,436
% +/-3.7%8.3%8.5%
Median $5,656 $6,056 $7,443
13 % +/-3.5%6.0%8.4%
75th Percenile $6,570 $6,863 $8,503
13 % +/--12.1%-6.5%-4.6%
Median Gain/Loss 2.6%2.4%
51 Print Date: 1/26/2022 553
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Engineering Development Technician II
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Engineering Services Assistant
Cathedral City Engineering Technician I
Colton Engineering Technician II
Corona Engineering Technician
Menifee Engineering Technician II
Murrieta Development Services Technician
Palm Springs Permit Center Technician
Redlands Counter Services Technician
Rialto Engineering Technician
Riverside Engineering Technician
San Bernardino Community Development Technician
Temecula Engineering Technician II
Upland Engineering Technician
Beaumont Engineering Technician II
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,336 2@60 $7,096 11 8 13 32
$573 2@60 $9,667 12 8 18 38
$1,873 2.5@55 $9,063 11 8 13 32
$2,797 2.7@55 $9,419 8 21 29
$1,047 2.7@55 $9,551 10 9 13 32
$567 2@60 $8,010 9 23 32
$2,307 2@60 $11,346 10 21 31
$1,148 2@55 $6,819 11 8 17 35
$2,674 2.7@55 $10,993 12 10 23 44
$2,377 2.7@55 $11,320 8 8 13 29
$1,994 ($60)2@55 $7,430 11 8 17 35
$2,273 2@60 $10,736 8 23 31
$2,102 ($64)2.5@55 $8,164 11 8 15 34
$1,512 3@60 $9,639 9 8 17 34
$9,201 33.4

4.5%1.8%
$9,419 32.2

2.3%5.4%
$10,736 35.2
-11.4%-3.4%
-6.1%
52 Print Date: 1/26/2022 554
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Executive Assistant 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Executive Assistant $5,419 $5,419 $1,400 inc $21 inc $6,840 Cathedral City Administrative Assistant II $7,322 $1,098 $366 $100 $513 $9,399 $2,300 inc inc $32 $18 $11,748 Colton Executive Assistant $5,219 $5,219 $1,100 inc inc $8 $23 $6,351 Corona Executive Assistant II $5,570 $167 $5,737 $1,564 inc inc $0 $38 $7,338 Menifee Executive Assistant $5,819 $5,819 $1,800 inc inc $13 $7,631 Murrieta Executive Assistant $6,374 $133 $6,507 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $43 $8,259 Palm Springs Executive Administrative Assistant $6,700 $335 $7,035 $2,094 inc inc $11 $83 $9,223 Redlands Senior Administrative Assistant $5,114 $256 $5,370 $900 $127 $19 $6,416 Rialto Executive Assistant $5,656 $339 $396 $400 $6,791 $1,300 inc inc $8,091 Riverside Executive Assistant $6,240 $75 $6,315 $1,482 $45 inc $36 $7,878 San Bernardino Executive Assistant to Director $5,091 $5,091 $1,250 inc inc $5 $9 $6,354 Temecula Executive Assistant $6,280 $440 $6,720 $1,600 inc inc $8,320 Upland Executive Assistant to the CM $5,976 $269 $418 $6,663 $1,184 inc inc $7,847 Beaumont Executive Assistant $5,576 $5,576 $1,675 inc inc $7 $7,258 Average $5,906 $6,314 $7,869
% +/--5.9%-13.2%-8.4%
Median $5,819 $6,315 $7,847
13 % +/--4.3%-13.3%-8.1%
75th Percenile $6,280 $6,720 $8,259
13 % +/--12.6%-20.5%-13.8%
Median Gain/Loss -8.9%5.1%
53 Print Date: 1/26/2022 555
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Executive Assistant
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Executive Assistant
Cathedral City Administrative Assistant II
Colton Executive Assistant
Corona Executive Assistant II
Menifee Executive Assistant
Murrieta Executive Assistant
Palm Springs Executive Administrative Assistant
Redlands Senior Administrative Assistant
Rialto Executive Assistant
Riverside Executive Assistant
San Bernardino Executive Assistant to Director
Temecula Executive Assistant
Upland Executive Assistant to the CM
Beaumont Executive Assistant
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,669 2@60 $8,509 11 8 13 32
$674 ($659)2@60 $11,763 12 8 18 38
$1,727 2.5@55 $8,079 11 8 7 13 39
$3,154 2.7@55 $10,492 8 9 25 42
$911 2.7@55 $8,542 10 9 4 13 36
$645 2@60 $8,904 9 23 32
$2,352 2@60 $11,575 10 4 21 35
$1,333 2@55 $7,749 11 8 17 35
$2,674 2.7@55 $10,765 12 10 10 23 54
$1,982 2.7@55 $9,860 8 8 3 15 34
$2,204 ($117)2@55 $8,441 11 8 17 35
$2,163 ($188)2@60 $10,294 8 5 24 37
$2,758 ($84)2.5@55 $10,522 11 8 4 15 38
$1,439 3@60 $8,697 9 8 17 34
$9,653 37.5
-11.0%-10.2%
$9,860 35.9
-13.4%-5.7%
$10,522 38.0
-21.0%-11.8%
-5.3%
54 Print Date: 1/26/2022 556
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Finance Director 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Administrative Services Dir/Deputy CM $15,183 $275 $15,458 $1,667 inc $21 $39 $17,184 Cathedral City Administrative Services Director $18,502 $2,775 $925 $100 $1,295 $23,598 $2,300 inc inc $80 $44 $26,022 Colton Finance Director $14,100 $14,100 $1,183 inc inc $17 $63 $15,363 Corona ACM/Administrative Services Director $18,715 $167 $18,882 $1,564 inc inc $0 $127 $20,573 Menifee Deputy City Manager $18,142 $18,142 $1,800 inc inc $17 $19,959 Murrieta Administrative Services Director $18,034 $250 $18,284 $1,563 $98 $40 $36 $123 $20,143 Palm Springs Director of Finance & Treasurer $16,132 $807 $16,939 $2,094 inc inc $11 $200 $19,244 Redlands Director of Management Services $17,738 $355 $18,093 $2,706 $127 $19 $20,945 Rialto Finance Director $16,354 $1,227 $750 $18,331 $1,300 $137 $25 $19,793 Riverside Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer $19,958 $75 $20,033 $1,482 $45 inc $115 $21,675 San Bernardino Director of Finance $17,020 $17,020 $1,250 inc inc $18 $30 $18,318 Temecula Director of Finance $16,049 $1,123 $17,172 $1,600 inc inc $18,772 Upland Asst City Manager (Administrative Services)$16,858 $421 $1,517 $18,797 $1,184 inc inc $19,981 Beaumont Finance Director $14,974 $14,974 $1,675 inc inc $7 $16,656 Average $17,137 $18,065 $19,844
% +/--14.4%-20.6%-19.1%
Median $17,020 $18,142 $19,959
13 % +/--13.7%-21.2%-19.8%
75th Percenile $18,142 $18,797 $20,573
13 % +/--21.2%-25.5%-23.5%
Median Gain/Loss -7.5%1.3%
55 Print Date: 1/26/2022 557
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Finance Director
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Administrative Services Dir/Deputy CM
Cathedral City Administrative Services Director
Colton Finance Director
Corona ACM/Administrative Services Director
Menifee Deputy City Manager
Murrieta Administrative Services Director
Palm Springs Director of Finance & Treasurer
Redlands Director of Management Services
Rialto Finance Director
Riverside Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer
San Bernardino Director of Finance
Temecula Director of Finance
Upland Asst City Manager (Administrative Services)
Beaumont Finance Director
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$4,676 2@60 $21,861 11 8 8 13 40
$1,703 ($1,665)2@60 $26,059 12 8 18 38
$4,666 2.5@55 $20,029 12 8 7 13 40
$10,596 2.7@55 $31,168 8 9 25 42
$2,840 2.7@55 $22,799 10 9 5 13 37
$1,826 2@60 $21,968 9 10 23 42
$5,663 2@60 $24,907 10 4 21 35
$4,623 2@55 $25,568 9 33 42
$7,731 2.7@55 $27,524 10 10 12 20 52
$6,341 2.7@55 $28,016 8 8 4 17 37
$7,368 ($392)2@55 $25,294 11 8 7 17 42
$5,528 ($481)2@60 $23,819 8 7 24 39
$7,781 ($236)2.5@55 $27,526 11 8 7 15 40
$3,865 3@60 $20,521 9 8 3 17 37
$25,118 40.3
-22.4%-8.0%
$25,294 40.2
-23.3%-7.6%
$27,524 41.7
-34.1%-11.6%
-3.4%
56 Print Date: 1/26/2022 558
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
HR/Payroll Technician 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Human Resources Technician $5,032 $275 $5,307 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $6,767 Cathedral City Payroll Coordinator $7,322 $1,098 $366 $100 $513 $9,399 $2,300 inc inc $32 $18 $11,748 Colton Payroll Technician II $4,900 $98 $245 $5,243 $1,100 inc inc $8 $22 $6,373 Corona Payroll Technician III $5,654 $167 $5,821 $1,564 inc inc $0 $38 $7,423 Menifee Accounting Technician II $5,536 $5,536 $1,800 inc inc $13 $7,348 Murrieta Human Resources Technician $5,260 $133 $5,393 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $36 $7,137 Palm Springs Payroll Coordinator $7,146 $357 $7,503 $2,094 inc inc $11 $89 $9,697 Redlands Human Resources Technician $4,723 $236 $4,959 $900 $127 $19 $6,005 Rialto Accounting Technician $5,518 $331 $414 $600 $6,863 $1,300 inc inc $8,163 Riverside Accounting Technician $5,161 $5,161 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $6,620 San Bernardino Payroll Technician $4,607 $4,607 $1,250 inc inc $5 $8 $5,870 Temecula Human Resources Technician II $6,599 $462 $7,061 $1,600 inc inc $8,661 Upland Payroll Technician $5,688 $256 $100 $6,044 $1,267 inc inc $7,311 Beaumont HR/Payroll Technician $5,307 $531 $5,838 $1,675 inc inc $7 $7,520 Average $5,627 $6,069 $7,625
% +/--6.0%-4.0%-1.4%
Median $5,518 $5,536 $7,311
13 % +/--4.0%5.2%2.8%
75th Percenile $5,688 $6,863 $8,163
13 % +/--7.2%-17.6%-8.5%
Median Gain/Loss 9.2%-2.4%
57 Print Date: 1/26/2022 559
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
HR/Payroll Technician
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Human Resources Technician
Cathedral City Payroll Coordinator
Colton Payroll Technician II
Corona Payroll Technician III
Menifee Accounting Technician II
Murrieta Human Resources Technician
Palm Springs Payroll Coordinator
Redlands Human Resources Technician
Rialto Accounting Technician
Riverside Accounting Technician
San Bernardino Payroll Technician
Temecula Human Resources Technician II
Upland Payroll Technician
Beaumont HR/Payroll Technician
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,550 2@60 $8,317 10 8 13 31
$674 ($659)2@60 $11,763 12 8 18 38
$1,621 2.5@55 $7,995 11 8 13 32
$3,201 2.7@55 $10,624 8 25 33
$866 2.7@55 $8,215 10 9 13 32
$533 2@60 $7,670 9 23 32
$2,509 2@60 $12,206 10 4 21 35
$1,231 2@55 $7,236 11 8 17 35
$2,608 2.7@55 $10,771 12 10 23 44
$1,640 2.7@55 $8,259 8 8 13 29
$1,994 ($106)2@55 $7,758 11 8 17 35
$2,273 ($198)2@60 $10,736 8 5 24 37
$2,625 ($80)2.5@55 $9,857 11 8 15 34
$1,370 3@60 $8,890 9 8 17 34
$9,339 34.4
-5.0%-1.3%
$8,317 33.5

6.5%1.5%
$10,736 35.3
-20.8%-3.9%

3.7%
58 Print Date: 1/26/2022 560
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Information Technology Manager 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Information Technology Manager $9,282 $275 $9,557 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $11,016 Cathedral City Chief Technology Officer $13,807 $2,071 $690 $100 $966 $17,635 $2,300 inc inc $60 $33 $20,028 Colton No Comparable Class
Corona Chief Information Officer $16,114 $167 $16,281 $1,564 inc inc $0 $110 $17,954 Menifee Information Technology Director $17,259 $17,259 $1,800 inc inc $17 $19,076 Murrieta Information Technology Manager $11,296 $150 $11,446 $1,563 $98 $40 $23 $77 $13,245 Palm Springs Information Technology Manager $11,997 $600 $12,597 $2,094 inc inc $11 $149 $14,851 Redlands IT Operations Manager $9,504 $72 $9,576 $913 $127 $19 $10,634 Rialto Information Technology Systems Manager $11,291 $677 $790 $400 $13,159 $1,300 inc inc $14,459 Riverside Chief Innovation Officer $19,010 $75 $19,085 $1,482 $45 inc $109 $20,721 San Bernardino Director of Information Technology $14,509 $14,509 $1,250 inc inc $16 $25 $15,800 Temecula Director of IT/Support Svcs $14,903 $1,043 $15,946 $1,600 inc inc $17,546 Upland Information Technology Manager $10,037 $452 $703 $11,191 $1,184 inc inc $12,375 Beaumont Information Technology Manager $11,412 $11,412 $1,675 inc inc $7 $13,094 Average $13,251 $14,020 $15,642
% +/--16.1%-22.9%-19.5%
Median $12,902 $13,834 $15,325
12 % +/--13.1%-21.2%-17.0%
75th Percenile $15,206 $16,525 $18,234
12 % +/--33.2%-44.8%-39.3%
Median Gain/Loss -8.2%4.2%
59 Print Date: 1/26/2022 561
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Information Technology Manager
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Information Technology Manager
Cathedral City Chief Technology Officer
Colton No Comparable Class
Corona Chief Information Officer
Menifee Information Technology Director
Murrieta Information Technology Manager
Palm Springs Information Technology Manager
Redlands IT Operations Manager
Rialto Information Technology Systems Manager
Riverside Chief Innovation Officer
San Bernardino Director of Information Technology
Temecula Director of IT/Support Svcs
Upland Information Technology Manager
Beaumont Information Technology Manager
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,859 2@60 $13,875 10 8 13 31
$1,271 ($1,243)2@60 $20,056 12 8 18 38
$9,123 2.7@55 $27,077 8 9 25 42
$2,702 2.7@55 $21,778 10 9 5 13 37
$1,144 2@60 $14,389 9 5 23 37
$4,212 2@60 $19,062 10 4 21 35
$2,477 2@55 $13,111 11 8 10 17 45
$5,337 2.7@55 $19,796 12 10 10 23 54
$6,039 2.7@55 $26,761 8 8 4 17 37
$6,281 ($334)2@55 $21,747 11 8 7 17 42
$5,133 ($447)2@60 $22,232 8 5 24 37
$4,633 ($141)2.5@55 $16,868 11 8 4 15 38
$2,946 3@60 $16,040 9 8 17 34
$19,729 39.4
-23.0%-15.8%
$19,926 37.4
-24.2%-9.9%
$21,891 41.7
-36.5%-22.7%
-7.2%
60 Print Date: 1/26/2022 562
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
IT Analyst II 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits
Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Information Technology Analyst II $7,470 $7,470 $1,400 inc $21 inc $8,891 Cathedral City Enterprise Applications Engineer $9,345 $1,402 $467 $100 $654 $11,968 $2,300 inc inc $40 $22 $14,331 Colton Information Technology Coordinator $7,266 $7,266 $1,100 inc inc $8 $33 $8,407 Corona Network Analyst $7,076 $83 $7,159 $1,564 inc inc $0 $48 $8,771 Menifee Information Technology Analyst $8,458 $8,458 $1,800 inc inc $13 $10,271 Murrieta Information Technology Analyst $7,539 $150 $7,689 $1,563 $98 $40 $15 $51 $9,455 Palm Springs Information Technology Analyst $7,509 $375 $7,884 $2,094 inc inc $11 $93 $10,083 Redlands System Administrator $7,485 $72 $7,557 $913 $127 $19 $8,615 Rialto Information Systems Analyst $7,063 $424 $494 $400 $8,381 $1,300 inc inc $9,681 Riverside Innovation & Technology Analyst II $8,303 $75 $8,378 $1,482 $45 inc $48 $9,953 San Bernardino Information Technology Analyst II $7,218 $7,218 $1,250 inc inc $5 $13 $8,485 Temecula Information Technology Specialist II $7,105 $284 $7,389 $1,600 inc inc $8,989 Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont IT Analyst II $6,309 $631 $6,940 $1,675 inc inc $7 $8,622 IT Analyst IIAvg Average $7,653 $8,068 $9,661
% +/--21.3%-16.3%-12.0%
Median $7,477 $7,623 $9,222
12 % +/--18.5%-9.8%-7.0%
75th Percenile $7,730 $8,379 $9,985
12 % +/--22.5%-20.7%-15.8%
Median Gain/Loss 8.7%2.9%
61 Print Date: 1/26/2022 563
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
IT Analyst II
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Information Technology Analyst II
Cathedral City Enterprise Applications Engineer
Colton Information Technology Coordinator
Corona Network Analyst
Menifee Information Technology Analyst
Murrieta Information Technology Analyst
Palm Springs Information Technology Analyst
Redlands System Administrator
Rialto Information Systems Analyst
Riverside Innovation & Technology Analyst II
San Bernardino Information Technology Analyst II
Temecula Information Technology Specialist II
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont IT Analyst II
IT Analyst IIAvg Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,301 2@60 $11,192 11 8 13 32
$860 ($841)2@60 $14,350 12 8 18 38
$2,404 2.5@55 $10,811 11 8 7 13 39
$4,006 2.7@55 $12,777 8 21 29
$1,324 2.7@55 $11,595 10 9 4 13 36
$763 2@60 $10,219 9 5 23 37
$2,636 2@60 $12,719 10 4 21 35
$1,951 2@55 $10,566 11 8 10 17 45
$3,339 2.7@55 $13,020 12 10 10 23 54
$2,638 2.7@55 $12,591 8 8 3 15 34
$3,125 ($166)2@55 $11,444 11 8 17 35
$2,447 2@60 $11,436 8 23 31
$1,629 3@60 $10,251 9 8 17 34
$11,893 37.1
-16.0%-9.1%
$11,519 35.5
-12.4%-4.5%
$12,733 38.2
-24.2%-12.5%
-5.4%
62 Print Date: 1/26/2022 564
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Management Analyst 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Management Analyst $7,251 $275 $7,526 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $8,986 Cathedral City Senior Analyst $8,073 $1,211 $404 $100 $565 $10,353 $2,300 inc inc $35 $19 $12,707 Colton Administrative Analyst II $6,240 $6,240 $1,100 inc inc $8 $28 $7,376 Corona Management Analyst II $7,328 $167 $7,495 $1,564 inc inc $0 $50 $9,108 Menifee Management Analyst II $8,458 $8,458 $1,800 inc inc $13 $10,271 Murrieta Management Analyst $7,576 $217 $7,793 $1,563 $98 $40 $15 $52 $9,559 Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Management Analyst $7,121 $72 $7,193 $913 $127 $19 $8,251 Rialto Administrative Analyst $6,723 $403 $471 $400 $7,997 $1,300 inc inc $9,297 Riverside Management Analyst $6,862 $75 $6,937 $1,482 $45 inc $40 $8,503 San Bernardino Administrative Analyst II $6,532 $6,532 $1,250 inc inc $7 $11 $7,800 Temecula Management Analyst $8,039 $563 $8,602 $1,600 inc inc $10,202 Upland Management Analyst $6,435 $290 $450 $7,175 $1,184 inc inc $8,359 Beaumont Management Analyst $7,880 $788 $8,668 $1,675 inc inc $7 $10,350 Average $7,220 $7,692 $9,202
% +/-8.4%11.3%11.1%
Median $7,186 $7,510 $9,047
12 % +/-8.8%13.4%12.6%
75th Percenile $7,692 $8,112 $9,720
12 % +/-2.4%6.4%6.1%
Median Gain/Loss 4.5%-0.8%
63 Print Date: 1/26/2022 565
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Management Analyst
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Management Analyst
Cathedral City Senior Analyst
Colton Administrative Analyst II
Corona Management Analyst II
Menifee Management Analyst II
Murrieta Management Analyst
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Management Analyst
Rialto Administrative Analyst
Riverside Management Analyst
San Bernardino Administrative Analyst II
Temecula Management Analyst
Upland Management Analyst
Beaumont Management Analyst
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,233 2@60 $11,219 11 8 13 32
$743 ($727)2@60 $12,723 12 8 18 38
$2,065 2.5@55 $9,442 11 8 7 13 39
$4,149 2.7@55 $13,257 8 9 25 42
$1,324 2.7@55 $11,595 10 9 4 13 36
$767 2@60 $10,326 9 7 23 39
$1,856 2@55 $10,107 11 8 10 17 45
$3,178 2.7@55 $12,475 12 10 10 23 54
$2,180 2.7@55 $10,683 8 8 3 15 34
$2,828 ($150)2@55 $10,477 11 8 7 17 42
$2,769 ($241)2@60 $12,729 8 5 24 37
$2,970 ($90)2.5@55 $11,239 11 8 4 15 38
$2,034 3@60 $12,384 9 8 17 34
$11,356 39.6

8.3%-16.6%
$11,229 38.4

9.3%-12.8%
$12,537 41.7
-1.2%-22.7%
-3.3%
64 Print Date: 1/26/2022 566
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Mechanic 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits
Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Fleet Maintenance Mechanic $4,909 $4,909 $1,400 inc $21 inc $6,330 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Equipment Mechanic $4,560 $91 $228 $4,880 $1,100 inc inc $8 $21 $6,009 Corona Fleet Services Technician $5,016 $83 $5,099 $1,564 inc inc $0 $34 $6,697 Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Omnitrans Equipment Mechanic $5,663 $5,663 $1,355 inc inc $14 $52 $7,084 Palm Springs Maintenance Technician III - Fleet $6,409 $320 $6,729 $2,106 inc inc $11 $24 $8,870 Redlands Mechanic II $5,165 $258 $5,423 $900 $127 $19 $6,469 Rialto Equipment Mechanic $5,124 $307 $384 $600 $6,416 $1,300 inc inc $7,716 Riverside Mechanic $5,065 $7 $5,072 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $6,531 RTA Mechanic $6,061 $6,061 $1,217 $7,278
San Bernardino Equipment Mechanic II $4,843 $4,843 $880 inc inc $1 $8 $5,732 Sunline Mechanic $5,458 $25 $5,483 $1,432 $6,915
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Equipment Mechanic $5,027 $226 $100 $5,353 $1,267 inc inc $6,620 Beaumont Equipment Mechanic $5,576 $558 $6,134 $1,675 inc inc $7 $7,816 MechanicAvg Average $5,275 $5,494 $6,854
MechanicAvgPct % +/-5.4%10.4%12.3%
MechanicMedian Median $5,095 $5,388 $6,659
12 % +/-8.6%12.2%14.8%
75th Percenile $5,509 $5,762 $7,132
13 % +/-1.2%6.1%8.7%
Median Gain/Loss 3.5%2.7%
65 Print Date: 1/26/2022 567
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Mechanic
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Fleet Maintenance Mechanic
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Equipment Mechanic
Corona Fleet Services Technician
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Omnitrans Equipment Mechanic
Palm Springs Maintenance Technician III - Fleet
Redlands Mechanic II
Rialto Equipment Mechanic
Riverside Mechanic
RTA Mechanic
San Bernardino Equipment Mechanic II
Sunline Mechanic
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Equipment Mechanic
Beaumont Equipment Mechanic
MechanicAvg Average
MechanicAvgPct % +/-
MechanicMedian Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,512 2@60 $7,842 11 8 13 32
$1,509 2.5@55 $7,518 11 8 13 32
$2,840 2.7@55 $9,537 8 21 29
$930 2%@55 $8,014 7 8 17 32
$2,250 2@60 $11,120 10 21 31
$1,346 2@55 $7,816 11 8 17 35
$2,422 2.7@55 $10,138 12 10 23 44
$1,609 2.7@55 $8,140 8 8 13 29
$606 2%@55 $7,884 9 8 20 37
$2,097 ($63)2@55 $7,766 11 8 17 35
2%@60 $6,915 4 7 25 36
$2,320 ($70)2.5@55 $8,870 11 8 15 34
$1,439 3@60 $9,255 9 8 17 34
$8,463 33.9

8.6%0.3%
$7,949 32.9

14.1%3.2%
$9,037 35.5

2.4%-4.4%
-0.7%
66 Print Date: 1/26/2022 568
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Planning Manager 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Planning Manager $8,739 $8,739 $1,100 inc inc $8 $39 $9,886 Corona Planning Manager $11,365 $167 $11,532 $1,564 inc inc $0 $77 $13,173 Menifee Planning Manager $12,924 $12,924 $1,800 inc inc $17 $14,741 Murrieta City Planner $12,746 $217 $12,963 $1,563 $98 $40 $25 $87 $14,775 Palm Springs Assistant Director of Planning $12,003 $600 $12,603 $2,094 inc inc $11 $149 $14,857 Redlands City Planner $11,728 $235 $11,963 $900 $127 $19 $13,009 Rialto Community Development Manager $11,574 $694 $868 $400 $13,536 $1,300 inc inc $14,836 Riverside City Planner $12,797 $75 $12,872 $1,482 $45 inc $74 $14,473 San Bernardino Planning Division Manager $9,784 $9,784 $1,250 inc inc $7 $17 $11,058 Temecula Planning Manager $12,232 $856 $13,088 $1,600 inc inc $14,688 Upland Planning Manager $10,288 $463 $720 $11,471 $1,184 inc inc $12,655 Beaumont Planning Manager $10,086 $10,086 $1,675 inc inc $7 $11,768 Average $11,471 $11,952 $13,468
% +/--13.7%-18.5%-14.4%
Median $11,728 $12,603 $14,473
11 % +/--16.3%-25.0%-23.0%
75th Percenile $12,489 $12,943 $14,758
13 % +/--23.8%-28.3%-25.4%
Median Gain/Loss -8.7%2.0%
67 Print Date: 1/26/2022 569
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Planning Manager
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Planning Manager
Corona Planning Manager
Menifee Planning Manager
Murrieta City Planner
Palm Springs Assistant Director of Planning
Redlands City Planner
Rialto Community Development Manager
Riverside City Planner
San Bernardino Planning Division Manager
Temecula Planning Manager
Upland Planning Manager
Beaumont Planning Manager
Average
% +/-
Median
11 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,892 2.5@55 $12,778 11 8 7 13 39
$6,435 2.7@55 $19,607 8 9 25 42
$2,023 2.7@55 $16,764 10 9 5 13 37
$1,290 2@60 $16,065 9 7 23 39
$4,214 2@60 $19,071 10 4 21 35
$3,057 2@55 $16,065 9 8 10 17 44
$5,471 2.7@55 $20,308 10 10 10 23 53
$4,066 2.7@55 $18,538 8 8 3 15 34
$4,236 ($225)2@55 $15,068 11 8 7 17 42
$4,213 ($367)2@60 $18,534 8 5 24 37
$4,749 ($144)2.5@55 $17,260 11 8 4 15 38
$2,603 3@60 $14,372 9 8 17 34
$17,278 39.8
-20.2%-17.1%
$17,260 38.7
-20.1%-13.9%
$18,805 41.7
-30.8%-22.8%

2.9%
68 Print Date: 1/26/2022 570
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Police Services Analyst 9 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Crime Analyst $7,207 $360 $100 $7,667 $2,441 inc inc $17 $10,125 Colton No Comparable Class
Corona Crime Analyst $6,185 $83 $6,268 $1,564 inc inc $0 $42 $7,874 Menifee Crime Analyst $8,458 $8,458 $1,800 inc inc $13 $10,271 Murrieta Crime Analyst $6,568 $100 $6,668 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $45 $8,421 Palm Springs Crime Analyst $6,251 $313 $6,564 $2,106 inc inc $11 $23 $8,704 Redlands Crime Analyst $6,809 $130 $6,939 $900 $127 $19 $7,985 Rialto Crime Analyst Supervisor $6,636 $398 $498 $750 $8,282 $1,300 inc inc $9,582 Riverside Crime Analyst $6,881 $6,881 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $8,340 San Bernardino Crime Analyst $5,625 $5,625 $880 inc inc $1 $10 $6,516 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Police Services Analyst $7,316 $100 $732 $8,148 $1,500 inc inc $7 $9,655 Average $6,736 $7,039 $8,646
% +/-7.9%13.6%10.4%
Median $6,636 $6,881 $8,421
9 % +/-9.3%15.6%12.8%
75th Percenile $6,881 $7,667 $9,582
10 % +/-6.0%5.9%0.8%
Median Gain/Loss 6.3%-2.8%
69 Print Date: 1/26/2022 571
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Police Services Analyst
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Crime Analyst
Colton No Comparable Class
Corona Crime Analyst
Menifee Crime Analyst
Murrieta Crime Analyst
Palm Springs Crime Analyst
Redlands Crime Analyst
Rialto Crime Analyst Supervisor
Riverside Crime Analyst
San Bernardino Crime Analyst
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Police Services Analyst
Average
% +/-
Median
9 % +/-
75th Percenile
10 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$663 2@60 $10,789 12 8 18 38
$3,502 2.7@55 $11,376 8 21 29
$1,324 2.7@55 $11,595 10 9 4 13 36
$665 2@60 $9,086 9 23 32
$2,195 2@60 $10,898 10 21 31
$1,775 2@55 $9,760 9 8 17 34
$3,137 2.7@55 $12,719 11 10 23 44
$2,186 2.7@55 $10,526 8 8 13 29
$2,435 ($73)2@55 $8,878 11 8 17 35
$1,889 3@60 $11,544 9 8 17 34
$10,625 34.1

8.0%-0.3%
$10,789 33.7

6.5%1.0%
$11,376 35.9

1.5%-5.6%
-6.2%
70 Print Date: 1/26/2022 572
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Public Safety Dispatcher II 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Public Safety Dispatcher $4,789 $4,789 $1,400 inc $21 inc $6,210 Cathedral City Public Safety Dispatcher II $6,535 $327 $75 $100 $7,037 $2,441 inc inc $16 $9,493 Colton Police Dispatcher II $4,801 $75 $4,876 $1,100 inc inc $8 $22 $6,006 Corona Public Safety Dispatcher II $5,598 $83 $5,681 $1,564 inc inc $0 $38 $7,283 Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta Public Safety Dispatcher II $6,084 $50 $100 $6,234 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $41 $7,984 Palm Springs Dispatcher $6,099 $305 $6,404 $2,106 inc inc $11 $23 $8,544 Redlands Dispatcher III $5,362 $142 $72 $5,575 $900 $127 $19 $6,621 Rialto Emergency Dispatcher II $5,209 $313 $67 $391 $600 $6,579 $1,300 inc inc $7,879 Riverside Public Safety Dispatcher II $6,229 $26 $6,255 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $7,713 San Bernardino Police Dispatcher II $4,843 $4,843 $880 inc inc $1 $8 $5,732 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Dispatcher II $5,153 $232 $25 $100 $5,510 $1,267 inc inc $6,777 Beaumont Public Safety Dispatcher II $5,179 $100 $518 $5,797 $1,500 inc inc $7 $7,304 Average $5,518 $5,798 $7,295
% +/--6.5%0.0%0.1%
Median $5,362 $5,681 $7,283
11 % +/--3.5%2.0%0.3%
75th Percenile $6,092 $6,329 $7,931
11 % +/--17.6%-9.2%-8.6%
Median Gain/Loss 5.5%-1.7%
71 Print Date: 1/26/2022 573
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Public Safety Dispatcher II
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Public Safety Dispatcher
Cathedral City Public Safety Dispatcher II
Colton Police Dispatcher II
Corona Public Safety Dispatcher II
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta Public Safety Dispatcher II
Palm Springs Dispatcher
Redlands Dispatcher III
Rialto Emergency Dispatcher II
Riverside Public Safety Dispatcher II
San Bernardino Police Dispatcher II
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Dispatcher II
Beaumont Public Safety Dispatcher II
Average
% +/-
Median
11 % +/-
75th Percenile
11 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,475 2@60 $7,686 11 8 13 32
$601 2@60 $10,095 12 8 18 38
$1,589 2.5@55 $7,595 12 8 13 33
$3,169 2.7@55 $10,452 8 21 29
$616 2@60 $8,600 9 23 32
$2,141 2@60 $10,685 10 21 31
$1,398 2@55 $8,019 9 8 17 34
$2,462 2.7@55 $10,341 11 10 23 44
$1,979 2.7@55 $9,692 8 8 13 29
$2,097 ($63)2@55 $7,766 11 8 17 35
$2,378 ($72)2.5@55 $9,083 11 8 15 34
$1,337 3@60 $8,641 9 8 17 34
$9,092 33.6
-5.2%1.1%
$9,083 33.0
-5.1%2.9%
$10,218 34.4
-18.2%-1.2%
-5.4%
72 Print Date: 1/26/2022 574
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Public Works Inspector 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Public Works Inspector $6,131 $6,131 $1,400 inc $21 inc $7,552 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Public Works and Utility Inspector $6,462 $42 $323 $6,827 $1,100 inc inc $13 $29 $7,968 Corona Public Works Inspector II $5,570 $83 $5,653 $1,564 inc inc $0 $38 $7,255 Menifee Public Works Inspector II $7,210 $7,210 $1,800 inc inc $13 $9,023 Murrieta Public Works Inspector $6,393 $100 $6,493 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $43 $8,245 Palm Springs Public Works Inspector $7,075 $354 $7,429 $2,106 inc inc $11 $26 $9,572 Redlands Construction Inspector II $7,173 $359 $7,532 $900 $127 $19 $8,578 Rialto Construction Inspector $6,090 $365 $457 $600 $7,512 $1,300 inc inc $8,812 Riverside Construction Inspector II $6,783 $11 $6,794 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $8,252 San Bernardino Construction Inspector II $5,912 $5,912 $880 inc inc $1 $10 $6,803 Temecula Public Works Inspector II $6,280 $10 $251 $6,542 $1,600 inc inc $8,142 Upland Senior Public Works Inspector $6,596 $297 $100 $6,993 $1,267 inc inc $8,260 Beaumont Public Works Inspector $7,687 $100 $769 $8,556 $1,675 inc inc $7 $10,238 Average $6,473 $6,752 $8,205
% +/-15.8%21.1%19.9%
Median $6,427 $6,810 $8,249
12 % +/-16.4%20.4%19.4%
75th Percenile $6,856 $7,265 $8,636
13 % +/-10.8%15.1%15.6%
Median Gain/Loss 4.0%-1.0%
73 Print Date: 1/26/2022 575
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Public Works Inspector
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Public Works Inspector
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Public Works and Utility Inspector
Corona Public Works Inspector II
Menifee Public Works Inspector II
Murrieta Public Works Inspector
Palm Springs Public Works Inspector
Redlands Construction Inspector II
Rialto Construction Inspector
Riverside Construction Inspector II
San Bernardino Construction Inspector II
Temecula Public Works Inspector II
Upland Senior Public Works Inspector
Beaumont Public Works Inspector
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,888 2@60 $9,440 11 8 13 32
$2,139 2.5@55 $10,107 12 8 13 33
$3,154 2.7@55 $10,408 8 21 29
$1,129 2.7@55 $10,152 10 9 13 32
$647 2@60 $8,892 9 23 32
$2,484 2@60 $12,056 10 21 31
$1,870 2@55 $10,447 11 8 17 35
$2,879 2.7@55 $11,691 12 10 23 44
$2,155 2.7@55 $10,407 8 8 13 29
$2,559 ($77)2@55 $9,286 11 8 17 35
$2,163 2@60 $10,305 8 23 31
$3,045 ($92)2.5@55 $11,212 11 8 15 34
$1,984 3@60 $12,222 9 8 17 34
$10,367 33.1

15.2%2.7%
$10,356 32.1

15.3%5.6%
$10,639 33.9

13.0%0.2%
-4.2%
74 Print Date: 1/26/2022 576
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Public Works Manager - Drift Check 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Public Works Superintendent $9,282 $275 $9,557 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $11,016 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Public Works Superintendent $7,613 $7,613 $1,100 inc inc $8 $34 $8,756 Corona Public Works Program Manager $8,813 $167 $8,980 $1,564 inc inc $0 $60 $10,603 Menifee Public Works Manager $11,581 $11,581 $1,800 inc inc $17 $13,398 Murrieta Maintenance Manager $9,953 $150 $10,103 $1,563 $98 $40 $20 $68 $11,891 Palm Springs Street Maintenance Manager $8,929 $446 $9,375 $2,094 inc inc $11 $111 $11,591 Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Public Works Superintendent $9,499 $570 $712 $400 $11,181 $1,300 inc inc $12,481 Riverside Field Service Operations Manager $12,022 $75 $12,097 $1,482 $45 inc $69 $13,693 San Bernardino Operations & Maintenance Division Mgr $10,285 $10,285 $1,250 inc inc $7 $18 $11,560 Temecula Maintenance Manager $11,081 $10 $776 $11,867 $1,600 inc inc $13,467 Upland Operations Manager $11,356 $511 $795 $12,662 $1,184 inc inc $13,846 Beaumont Public Works Manager - Drift
Average $10,038 $10,482 $12,027
% +/-
Median $9,953 $10,285 $11,891
11 % +/-
75th Percenile $11,219 $11,724 $13,432
11 % +/-
Median Gain/Loss
75 Print Date: 1/26/2022 577
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Public Works Manager - Drift Check
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Public Works Superintendent
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Public Works Superintendent
Corona Public Works Program Manager
Menifee Public Works Manager
Murrieta Maintenance Manager
Palm Springs Street Maintenance Manager
Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Public Works Superintendent
Riverside Field Service Operations Manager
San Bernardino Operations & Maintenance Division Mgr
Temecula Maintenance Manager
Upland Operations Manager
Beaumont Public Works Manager - Drift
Average
% +/-
Median
11 % +/-
75th Percenile
11 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,859 2@60 $13,875 11 8 13 32
$2,520 2.5@55 $11,275 11 8 13 32
$4,990 2.7@55 $15,593 8 9 23 40
$1,813 2.7@55 $15,210 10 9 5 13 37
$1,008 2@60 $12,898 9 5 23 37
$3,135 2@60 $14,726 10 4 21 35
$4,490 2.7@55 $16,972 10 10 10 23 53
$3,819 2.7@55 $17,513 8 8 3 15 34
$4,452 ($237)2@55 $15,775 11 8 7 17 42
$3,817 ($332)2@60 $16,951 8 5 24 37
$5,242 ($159)2.5@55 $18,929 11 8 4 15 38
$15,429 37.9
$15,593 37.0
$16,962 39.0
76 Print Date: 1/26/2022 578
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Recreation Coordinator - Drift Check 10 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Recreation Services Coordinator $4,568 $91 $228 $4,888 $1,100 inc inc $8 $21 $6,017 Corona Recreation Coordinator $5,066 $83 $5,149 $1,564 inc inc $0 $34 $6,747 Menifee Community Services Coordinator $5,704 $5,704 $1,800 inc inc $13 $7,516 Murrieta Recreation Coordinator $4,885 $100 $4,985 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $33 $6,727 Palm Springs Program Coordinator $5,394 $270 $5,664 $2,106 inc inc $11 $20 $7,801 Redlands Program Specialist $5,114 $256 $5,370 $900 $127 $19 $6,416 Rialto Recreation Programmer $5,124 $307 $384 $600 $6,416 $1,300 inc inc $7,716 Riverside Assistant Recreation Coordinator $3,658 $3,658 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $5,117 San Bernardino Community Recreation Program Coordinator $3,416 $3,416 $880 inc inc $1 $6 $4,303 Temecula Community Services Coordinator II $5,833 $233 $6,066 $1,600 inc inc $7,666 Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Recreation Coordinator - Drift
Average $4,876 $5,132 $6,603
% +/-
Median $5,090 $5,260 $6,737
10 % +/-
75th Percenile $5,327 $5,694 $7,629
11 % +/-
Median Gain/Loss
77 Print Date: 1/26/2022 579
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Recreation Coordinator - Drift Check
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Recreation Services Coordinator
Corona Recreation Coordinator
Menifee Community Services Coordinator
Murrieta Recreation Coordinator
Palm Springs Program Coordinator
Redlands Program Specialist
Rialto Recreation Programmer
Riverside Assistant Recreation Coordinator
San Bernardino Community Recreation Program Coordinator Temecula Community Services Coordinator II
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Recreation Coordinator - Drift
Average
% +/-
Median
10 % +/-
75th Percenile
11 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,512 2.5@55 $7,529 11 8 13 32
$2,868 2.7@55 $9,616 8 21 29
$893 2.7@55 $8,409 10 9 13 32
$495 2@60 $7,221 9 23 32
$1,894 2@60 $9,694 10 21 31
$1,333 2@55 $7,749 11 8 17 35
$2,422 2.7@55 $10,138 12 10 23 44
$1,162 2.7@55 $6,279 8 8 13 29
$1,479 ($45)2@55 $5,737 11 8 17 35
$2,009 2@60 $9,675 8 23 31
$8,205 33.0
$8,079 31.9
$9,660 34.5
78 Print Date: 1/26/2022 580
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Recreation Specialist 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Recreation Leader $2,923 $2,923 $2,923
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Recreation Leader $2,574 $2,574 $2,574
Corona Library & Recreation Services Leader II $3,202 $3,202 $3,202 Menifee Recreation Leader $3,867 $3,867 $3,867
Murrieta Recreation Leader $2,740 $2,740 $2,740
Palm Springs Recreation Program Assistant $3,816 $191 $4,007 $2,106 inc inc $11 $14 $6,138 Redlands Program Assistant $2,586 $2,586 $2,586
Rialto Recreation Specialist $2,981 $2,981 $2,981
Riverside Recreation Leader $2,730 $2,730 $2,730
San Bernardino Recreation Leader $2,789 $2,789 $880 inc inc $1 $5 $3,675 Temecula Recreation Leader $3,389 $136 $3,525 $1,600 inc inc $5,125 Upland Recreation Leader $2,950 $2,950 $2,950
Beaumont Recreation Specialist $3,160 $316 $3,476 $1,675 inc inc $7 $5,158 Average $3,046 $3,073 $3,458
% +/-3.6%11.6%33.0%
Median $2,936 $2,936 $2,966
12 % +/-7.1%15.5%42.5%
75th Percenile $3,249 $3,283 $3,723
13 % +/--2.8%5.6%27.8%
Median Gain/Loss 8.4%27.0%
79 Print Date: 1/26/2022 581
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Recreation Specialist
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Recreation Leader
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Recreation Leader
Corona Library & Recreation Services Leader II
Menifee Recreation Leader
Murrieta Recreation Leader
Palm Springs Recreation Program Assistant
Redlands Program Assistant
Rialto Recreation Specialist
Riverside Recreation Leader
San Bernardino Recreation Leader
Temecula Recreation Leader
Upland Recreation Leader
Beaumont Recreation Specialist
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,923
$2,574
$3,202
$3,867
$2,740
$1,340 2@60 $7,478 10 21 31
$2,586
$2,981
$2,730
$1,207 ($36)2@55 $4,846 11 8 17 35
$1,167 2@60 $6,292 8 23 31
$2,950
$816 3@60 $5,973 9 8 17 34
$3,764 8.0

37.0%76.3%
$2,966

50.4%100.0%
$4,112 7.7

31.2%77.4%

7.9%
80 Print Date: 1/26/2022 582
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Senior Accountant 9 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Accountant II $5,693 $5,693 $1,400 inc $21 inc $7,114 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Senior Accountant $6,813 $6,813 $1,100 inc inc $8 $31 $7,952 Corona Accounting Supervisor $7,703 $167 $7,870 $1,564 inc inc $0 $52 $9,486 Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Senior Accountant $7,560 $72 $7,632 $913 $127 $19 $8,690 Rialto Senior Accountant $7,063 $424 $494 $400 $8,381 $1,300 inc inc $9,681 Riverside Senior Accountant $7,814 $75 $7,889 $1,482 $45 inc $45 $9,461 San Bernardino Accountant III $6,532 $6,532 $1,030 inc inc $1 $11 $7,574 Temecula Accountant II $8,656 $606 $9,262 $1,600 inc inc $10,862 Upland Senior Accountant $6,761 $304 $100 $7,165 $1,267 inc inc $8,432 Beaumont Senior Accountant $10,086 $10,086 $1,675 inc inc $7 $11,768 Average $7,177 $7,471 $8,806
% +/-28.8%25.9%25.2%
Median $7,063 $7,632 $8,690
9 % +/-30.0%24.3%26.2%
75th Percenile $7,703 $7,889 $9,486
10 % +/-23.6%21.8%19.4%
Median Gain/Loss -5.6%1.8%
81 Print Date: 1/26/2022 583
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Senior Accountant
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Accountant II
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Senior Accountant
Corona Accounting Supervisor
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Senior Accountant
Rialto Senior Accountant
Riverside Senior Accountant
San Bernardino Accountant III
Temecula Accountant II
Upland Senior Accountant
Beaumont Senior Accountant
Average
% +/-
Median
9 % +/-
75th Percenile
10 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,754 2@60 $8,868 11 8 13 32
$2,255 2.5@55 $10,207 11 8 7 13 39
$4,361 2.7@55 $13,847 8 9 23 40
$1,970 2@55 $10,661 11 8 10 17 45
$3,339 2.7@55 $13,020 12 10 10 23 54
$2,483 2.7@55 $11,943 8 8 3 15 34
$2,828 ($150)2@55 $10,252 11 8 3 17 39
$2,981 ($260)2@60 $13,584 8 5 24 37
$3,121 ($95)2.5@55 $11,458 11 8 15 34
$2,603 3@60 $14,372 9 8 17 34
$11,538 39.4

19.7%-15.8%
$11,458 38.5

20.3%-13.3%
$13,020 40.3

9.4%-18.6%
-5.9%
82 Print Date: 1/26/2022 584
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Special Projects/Press Information Officer 7 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Public Information Officer $7,110 $275 $7,385 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $8,845 Cathedral City Communications/Events Manager $9,812 $1,472 $491 $100 $687 $12,561 $2,300 inc inc $42 $24 $14,927 Colton No Comparable Class
Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee Public Information Officer $11,072 $11,072 $1,800 inc inc $17 $12,889 Murrieta Public Information Officer $10,338 $217 $10,555 $1,563 $98 $40 $21 $70 $12,346 Palm Springs Director of Communications $9,702 $485 $10,187 $2,094 inc inc $11 $120 $12,412 Redlands Public Information Officer $9,867 $197 $10,064 $900 $127 $19 $11,110 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Communications Officer $8,670 $75 $8,745 $1,482 $45 inc $50 $10,322 San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Special Projects/Press Information Officer $8,280 $8,280 $1,675 inc inc $7 $9,962 Average $9,510 $10,081 $11,836
% +/--14.9%-21.8%-18.8%
Median $9,812 $10,187 $12,346
7 % +/--18.5%-23.0%-23.9%
75th Percenile $10,103 $10,814 $12,651
7 % +/--22.0%-30.6%-27.0%
Median Gain/Loss -4.5%-0.9%
83 Print Date: 1/26/2022 585
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Special Projects/Press Information Officer
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Public Information Officer
Cathedral City Communications/Events Manager
Colton No Comparable Class
Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee Public Information Officer
Murrieta Public Information Officer
Palm Springs Director of Communications
Redlands Public Information Officer
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Communications Officer
San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Special Projects/Press Information Officer
Average
% +/-
Median
7 % +/-
75th Percenile
7 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,190 2@60 $11,035 10 8 13 31
$903 ($883)2@60 $14,947 12 8 18 38
$1,733 2.7@55 $14,622 10 9 5 13 37
$1,047 2@60 $13,392 9 7 23 39
$3,406 2@60 $15,818 10 4 21 35
$2,572 2@55 $13,682 9 8 10 17 44
$2,754 2.7@55 $13,076 8 8 3 15 34
$2,137 3@60 $12,099 9 8 17 34
$13,796 36.7
-14.0%-8.1%
$13,682 36.8
-13.1%-8.1%
$14,785 38.4
-22.2%-12.8%

10.8%
84 Print Date: 1/26/2022 586
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Street Maintenance Supervisor 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Public Work Supervisor $7,871 $1,181 $394 $100 $551 $10,096 $2,300 inc inc $34 $19 $12,449 Colton Collection System Maintenance Supervisor $5,118 $5,118 $1,100 inc inc $8 $23 $6,249 Corona Public Works Program Supervisor $6,632 $167 $6,799 $1,564 inc inc $0 $45 $8,407 Menifee Public Works Maintenance Supervisor $7,927 $7,927 $1,800 inc inc $13 $9,740 Murrieta Maintenance Supervisor $7,218 $150 $7,368 $1,563 $98 $40 $14 $49 $9,132 Palm Springs Maintenance Supervisor $8,084 $404 $8,488 $2,094 inc inc $11 $100 $10,693 Redlands Field Services Coordinator $6,776 $72 $6,848 $913 $127 $19 $7,906 Rialto Public Works Supervisor $7,421 $445 $557 $400 $8,823 $1,300 inc inc $10,123 Riverside Street Maintenance Supervisor $7,592 $75 $7,667 $1,482 $45 inc $44 $9,238 San Bernardino Maintenance Supervisor $6,532 $6,532 $1,030 inc inc $1 $11 $7,574 Temecula Maintenance Supervisor $9,095 $10 $637 $9,742 $1,600 inc inc $11,342 Upland Maintenance Supervisor $6,596 $297 $462 $7,355 $1,184 inc inc $8,539 Beaumont Street Maintenance Supervisor $6,467 $6,467 $1,675 inc inc $7 $8,149 Average $7,239 $7,730 $9,283
% +/--11.9%-19.5%-13.9%
Median $7,320 $7,518 $9,185
12 % +/--13.2%-16.2%-12.7%
75th Percenile $7,885 $8,572 $10,265
13 % +/--21.9%-32.5%-26.0%
Median Gain/Loss -3.1%3.5%
85 Print Date: 1/26/2022 587
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Street Maintenance Supervisor
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City Public Work Supervisor
Colton Collection System Maintenance Supervisor
Corona Public Works Program Supervisor
Menifee Public Works Maintenance Supervisor
Murrieta Maintenance Supervisor
Palm Springs Maintenance Supervisor
Redlands Field Services Coordinator
Rialto Public Works Supervisor
Riverside Street Maintenance Supervisor
San Bernardino Maintenance Supervisor
Temecula Maintenance Supervisor
Upland Maintenance Supervisor
Beaumont Street Maintenance Supervisor
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$724 ($708)2@60 $12,465 12 8 18 38
$1,694 2.5@55 $7,943 11 8 7 13 39
$3,755 2.7@55 $12,162 8 9 23 40
$1,241 2.7@55 $10,981 10 9 4 13 36
$731 2@60 $9,862 9 5 23 37
$2,838 2@60 $13,531 10 4 21 35
$1,766 2@55 $9,672 11 8 10 17 45
$3,508 2.7@55 $13,631 10 10 10 23 53
$2,412 2.7@55 $11,650 8 8 14 30
$2,828 ($150)2@55 $10,252 11 8 3 17 39
$3,133 ($273)2@60 $14,202 8 5 24 37
$3,045 ($92)2.5@55 $11,491 11 8 4 15 38
$1,669 3@60 $9,818 9 8 17 34
$11,487 38.8
-17.0%-14.3%
$11,570 37.8
-17.8%-11.3%
$12,732 39.3
-29.7%-15.7%
-5.1%
86 Print Date: 1/26/2022 588
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Street Maintenance Worker 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Maintenance Worker $4,029 $4,029 $1,400 inc $21 inc $5,450 Cathedral City Street Maintenance Worker II $5,383 $269 $100 $5,752 $2,441 inc inc $13 $8,206 Colton Maintenance Worker II $4,000 $80 $200 $4,280 $1,100 inc inc $8 $18 $5,407 Corona Senior Street Maintenance Worker $4,941 $83 $5,024 $1,564 inc inc $0 $34 $6,622 Menifee Street Maintenance Worker II $5,086 $5,086 $1,800 inc inc $13 $6,898 Murrieta Maintenance Worker II $4,537 $100 $4,637 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $31 $6,376 Palm Springs Street/Traffic Maintenance Worker $4,887 $244 $5,131 $2,106 inc inc $11 $18 $7,266 Redlands Maintenance Worker II $3,988 $199 $4,187 $900 $127 $19 $5,234 Rialto Field Service Worker $4,103 $246 $308 $600 $5,257 $1,300 inc inc $6,557 Riverside Street Maintenance Worker $4,821 $7 $4,828 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $6,287 San Bernardino Maintenance Worker II $3,967 $3,967 $880 inc inc $1 $7 $4,855 Temecula Maintenance Worker II - Streets/Parks $5,283 $211 $5,494 $1,600 inc inc $7,094 Upland Maintenance Worker $4,335 $195 $100 $4,630 $1,267 inc inc $5,897 Beaumont Street Maintenance Worker $5,576 $558 $6,134 $1,675 inc inc $7 $7,816 Average $4,566 $4,793 $6,319
% +/-18.1%21.9%19.1%
Median $4,537 $4,828 $6,376
13 % +/-18.6%21.3%18.4%
75th Percenile $4,941 $5,131 $6,898
13 % +/-11.4%16.3%11.7%
Median Gain/Loss 2.7%-2.9%
87 Print Date: 1/26/2022 589
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Street Maintenance Worker
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Maintenance Worker
Cathedral City Street Maintenance Worker II
Colton Maintenance Worker II
Corona Senior Street Maintenance Worker
Menifee Street Maintenance Worker II
Murrieta Maintenance Worker II
Palm Springs Street/Traffic Maintenance Worker
Redlands Maintenance Worker II
Rialto Field Service Worker
Riverside Street Maintenance Worker
San Bernardino Maintenance Worker II
Temecula Maintenance Worker II - Streets/Parks
Upland Maintenance Worker
Beaumont Street Maintenance Worker
Average
% +/-
Median
13 % +/-
75th Percenile
13 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,241 2@60 $6,691 11 8 13 32
$495 2@60 $8,701 12 8 18 38
$1,324 2.5@55 $6,730 11 8 13 32
$2,797 2.7@55 $9,419 8 21 29
$796 2.7@55 $7,694 10 9 13 32
$459 2@60 $6,836 9 23 32
$1,716 2@60 $8,982 10 21 31
$1,039 2@55 $6,273 11 8 17 35
$1,940 2.7@55 $8,496 12 10 23 44
$1,532 2.7@55 $7,818 8 8 13 29
$1,717 ($52)2@55 $6,520 11 8 17 35
$1,820 2@60 $8,914 8 23 31
$2,001 ($61)2.5@55 $7,837 11 8 15 34
$1,439 3@60 $9,255 9 8 17 34
$7,763 33.4

16.1%1.8%
$7,818 32.2

15.5%5.4%
$8,701 35.2

6.0%-3.4%
-2.9%
88 Print Date: 1/26/2022 590
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Support Services Specialist II 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Police Assistant II $4,339 $4,339 $1,400 inc $21 inc $5,760 Cathedral City Property & Evidence Technician II $6,704 $335 $75 $100 $7,214 $2,441 inc inc $16 $9,671 Colton Police Services Clerk II $3,524 $70 $176 $3,771 $1,100 inc inc $8 $16 $4,895 Corona Property Administrator $3,870 $83 $3,953 $1,564 inc inc $0 $26 $5,543 Menifee Crime Scene/Property & Evidence Spec $6,860 $6,860 $1,800 inc inc $13 $8,672 Murrieta Property & Evidence Technician $4,442 $50 $100 $4,592 $1,563 $98 $40 $8 $30 $6,331 Palm Springs Property Technician $5,664 $283 $5,947 $2,106 inc inc $11 $21 $8,085 Redlands Community Service Officer II $4,759 $142 $72 $4,972 $900 $127 $19 $6,018 Rialto Property & Evidence Technician $5,082 $305 $381 $600 $6,368 $1,300 inc inc $7,668 Riverside Police Property Specialist $4,596 $26 $4,622 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $6,080 San Bernardino Property & Evidence Technician II $4,843 $4,843 $880 inc inc $1 $8 $5,732 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Records Specialist II $4,026 $181 $25 $100 $4,332 $1,267 inc inc $5,599 Beaumont Support Services Specialist II $4,465 $100 $447 $5,012 $1,500 inc inc $7 $6,519 Average $4,892 $5,151 $6,671
% +/--9.6%-2.8%-2.3%
Median $4,678 $4,732 $6,049
12 % +/--4.8%5.6%7.2%
75th Percenile $5,228 $6,052 $7,772
12 % +/--17.1%-20.8%-19.2%
Median Gain/Loss 10.3%1.6%
89 Print Date: 1/26/2022 591
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Support Services Specialist II
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Police Assistant II
Cathedral City Property & Evidence Technician II
Colton Police Services Clerk II
Corona Property Administrator
Menifee Crime Scene/Property & Evidence Spec
Murrieta Property & Evidence Technician
Palm Springs Property Technician
Redlands Community Service Officer II
Rialto Property & Evidence Technician
Riverside Police Property Specialist
San Bernardino Property & Evidence Technician II
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Records Specialist II
Beaumont Support Services Specialist II
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,336 2@60 $7,096 11 8 13 32
$617 2@60 $10,288 12 8 18 38
$1,166 2.5@55 $6,062 11 8 13 32
$2,191 2.7@55 $7,734 8 21 29
$1,074 2.7@55 $9,746 10 9 13 32
$450 2@60 $6,780 9 23 32
$1,988 2@60 $10,074 10 21 31
$1,240 2@55 $7,259 9 8 17 34
$2,402 2.7@55 $10,070 11 10 23 44
$1,460 2.7@55 $7,541 8 8 13 29
$2,097 ($63)2@55 $7,766 11 8 17 35
$1,858 ($56)2.5@55 $7,401 11 8 15 34
$1,153 3@60 $7,671 9 8 17 34
$8,151 33.4
-6.3%1.7%
$7,637 32.2

0.4%5.2%
$9,827 34.0
-28.1%-0.1%
-6.8%
90 Print Date: 1/26/2022 592
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Support Services Supervisor 7 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Police Support Services Manager $7,322 $7,322 $1,100 inc inc $8 $33 $8,464 Corona Support Services Manager $9,545 $167 $153 $9,865 $1,564 inc inc $0 $65 $11,494 Menifee Police Support Services Manager $11,581 $11,581 $1,800 inc inc $17 $13,398 Murrieta Public Safety Radio Systems Administrator $6,787 $50 $150 $6,987 $1,563 $98 $40 $14 $46 $8,747 Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Police Operations Manager $9,626 $193 $9,819 $900 $127 $19 $10,865 Rialto Emergency Dispatch Supervisor $5,866 $352 $67 $440 $750 $7,475 $1,300 inc inc $8,775 Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Dispatch Supervisor $6,435 $290 $25 $450 $7,200 $1,184 inc inc $8,384 Beaumont Support Services Supervisor $7,316 $100 $732 $8,148 $1,500 inc inc $7 $9,655 Average $8,166 $8,607 $10,018
% +/--11.6%-5.6%-3.8%
Median $7,322 $7,475 $8,775
7 % +/--0.1%8.3%9.1%
75th Percenile $9,586 $9,842 $11,179
9 % +/--31.0%-20.8%-15.8%
Median Gain/Loss 8.3%0.9%
91 Print Date: 1/26/2022 593
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Support Services Supervisor
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Police Support Services Manager
Corona Support Services Manager
Menifee Police Support Services Manager
Murrieta Public Safety Radio Systems Administrator
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Police Operations Manager
Rialto Emergency Dispatch Supervisor
Riverside No Comparable Class
San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Dispatch Supervisor
Beaumont Support Services Supervisor
Average
% +/-
Median
7 % +/-
75th Percenile
9 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,423 2.5@55 $10,887 11 8 7 13 39
$5,404 2.7@55 $16,898 8 9 23 40
$1,813 2.7@55 $15,210 10 9 5 13 37
$687 2@60 $9,434 9 23 32
$2,509 2@55 $13,374 9 8 10 17 44
$2,773 2.7@55 $11,548 11 10 23 44
$2,970 ($90)2.5@55 $11,264 11 8 4 15 38
$1,889 3@60 $11,544 9 8 17 34
$12,659 39.0
-9.7%-14.7%
$11,548 39.0

0.0%-14.7%
$14,292 42.0
-23.8%-23.4%
-9.2%
92 Print Date: 1/26/2022 594
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor 9 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Fleet Manager $8,619 $275 $8,894 $1,400 inc $21 $39 $10,354 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton No Comparable Class
Corona Fleet Services Supervisor $7,328 $167 $7,495 $1,564 inc inc $0 $50 $9,108 Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Omnitrans Maintenance Manager $11,053 $11,053 $1,876 inc inc $29 $101 $13,058 Palm Springs Fleet Maintenance Manager $9,610 $481 $10,091 $2,094 inc inc $11 $119 $12,315 Redlands Fleet Services Coordinator $6,776 $72 $6,848 $913 $127 $19 $7,906 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Fleet Management Supervisor $8,366 $4 $75 $8,445 $1,482 $45 inc $48 $10,020 RTA Maintenance Supervisor $9,711 $9,711 $1,217 $10,928 San Bernardino Equipment Maintenance Supervisor $5,912 $5,912 $1,030 inc inc $1 $10 $6,953 Sunline Deputy Chief Ops Officer - Maintenance $8,635 $25 $8,660 $1,432 $10,092 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor $6,467 $6,467 $1,675 inc inc $7 $8,149 Average $8,446 $8,568 $10,082
% +/--30.6%-32.5%-23.7%
Median $8,619 $8,660 $10,092
9 % +/--33.3%-33.9%-23.8%
75th Percenile $9,610 $9,711 $10,928
10 % +/--48.6%-50.2%-34.1%
Median Gain/Loss -0.6%10.1%
93 Print Date: 1/26/2022 595
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Fleet Manager
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton No Comparable Class
Corona Fleet Services Supervisor
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Omnitrans Maintenance Manager
Palm Springs Fleet Maintenance Manager
Redlands Fleet Services Coordinator
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Fleet Management Supervisor
RTA Maintenance Supervisor
San Bernardino Equipment Maintenance Supervisor
Sunline Deputy Chief Ops Officer - Maintenance
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor
Average
% +/-
Median
9 % +/-
75th Percenile
10 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,655 2@60 $13,008 11 8 13 32
$4,149 2.7@55 $13,257 8 9 23 40
$1,816 2%@55 $14,874 7 8 17 32
$3,374 2@60 $15,688 10 4 21 35
$1,766 2@55 $9,672 11 8 10 17 45
$2,658 2.7@55 $12,678 8 8 14 30
$970 2%@55 $11,898 9 8 20 37
$2,559 ($136)2@55 $9,376 11 8 17 35
2%@60 $10,092 4 7 25 36
$1,669 3@60 $9,818 9 8 17 34
$12,283 35.9
-25.1%-5.5%
$12,678 35.2
-29.1%-3.4%
$13,257 37.3
-35.0%-9.8%
-5.3%
94 Print Date: 1/26/2022 596
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Wastewater Collection System Worker II 6 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Wastewater Collection System Technician $4,884 $4,884 $1,400 inc $21 inc $6,305 Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Collection System Maintenance Tech II $5,185 $42 $259 $5,486 $1,100 inc inc $13 $23 $6,622 Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Line Maintenance Worker II $5,063 $253 $5,316 $900 $127 $19 $6,362 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Wastewater Collection System Technician II $5,863 $7 $5,870 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $7,329 San Bernardino Sewer Maintenance Worker $4,383 $4,383 $880 inc inc $1 $8 $5,272 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Maintenance Worker $4,335 $195 $100 $4,630 $1,267 inc inc $5,897 Beaumont Wastewater Collection System Worker II $6,155 $616 $6,771 $1,675 inc inc $7 $8,453 Average $4,952 $5,095 $6,298
% +/-19.5%24.7%25.5%
Median $4,974 $5,100 $6,334
6 % +/-19.2%24.7%25.1%
75th Percenile $5,155 $5,444 $6,557
7 % +/-16.3%19.6%22.4%
Median Gain/Loss 5.5%0.4%
95 Print Date: 1/26/2022 597
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Wastewater Collection System Worker II
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Wastewater Collection System Technician
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Collection System Maintenance Tech II
Corona No Comparable Class
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Line Maintenance Worker II
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Wastewater Collection System Technician II
San Bernardino Sewer Maintenance Worker
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Maintenance Worker
Beaumont Wastewater Collection System Worker II
Average
% +/-
Median
6 % +/-
75th Percenile
7 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,504 2@60 $7,810 11 8 13 32
$1,716 2.5@55 $8,338 12 8 13 33
$1,320 2@55 $7,682 11 8 17 35
$1,863 2.7@55 $9,191 8 8 13 29
$1,897 ($57)2@55 $7,112 11 8 17 35
$2,001 ($61)2.5@55 $7,837 11 8 15 34
$1,589 3@60 $10,041 9 8 17 34
$7,995 33.1

20.4%2.7%
$7,823 33.3

22.1%2.2%
$8,213 34.8

18.2%-2.2%
-3.0%
96 Print Date: 1/26/2022 598
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Wastewater Plant Operator III 4 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Senior Wastewater Treatment Plant Op $6,987 $42 $349 $7,378 $1,100 inc inc $13 $31 $8,522 Corona Water Reclamation Operator III $7,438 $83 $7,521 $1,564 inc inc $0 $51 $9,136 Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Wastewater Facilities Operator III $6,303 $315 $6,618 $900 $127 $19 $7,664 Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Wastewater Plant Operator III $7,838 $8 $7,846 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $9,304 San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Wastewater Plant Operator III $7,316 $732 $8,048 $1,675 inc inc $7 $9,730 Average $7,141 $7,341 $8,656
% +/-2.4%8.8%11.0%
Median $7,212 $7,449 $8,829
4 % +/-1.4%7.4%9.3%
75th Percenile $7,538 $7,602 $9,178
6 % +/--3.0%5.5%5.7%
Median Gain/Loss 6.0%1.8%
97 Print Date: 1/26/2022 599
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Wastewater Plant Operator III
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Cathedral City No Comparable Class
Colton Senior Wastewater Treatment Plant Op
Corona Water Reclamation Operator III
Menifee No Comparable Class
Murrieta No Comparable Class
Palm Springs No Comparable Class
Redlands Wastewater Facilities Operator III
Rialto No Comparable Class
Riverside Wastewater Plant Operator III
San Bernardino No Comparable Class
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland No Comparable Class
Beaumont Wastewater Plant Operator III
Average
% +/-
Median
4 % +/-
75th Percenile
6 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,312 2.5@55 $10,834 12 8 13 33
$4,211 2.7@55 $13,347 8 21 29
$1,643 2@55 $9,307 11 8 17 35
$2,490 2.7@55 $11,795 8 8 13 29
$1,889 3@60 $11,619 9 8 17 34
$11,321 31.6

2.6%7.1%
$11,314 31.2

2.6%8.3%
$12,183 33.6
-4.9%1.2%
-6.6%
98 Print Date: 1/26/2022 600
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Chief of Police 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits
Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.POST Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Police Chief $16,350 $150 $450 $16,950 $1,667 inc $21 $39 $18,677 Cathedral City Police Chief $18,502 $2,775 $135 $925 $925 $100 $1,295 $24,658 $2,300 inc inc $80 $44 $27,082 Colton Police Chief $15,091 $70 $1,000 $16,161 $1,183 inc inc $17 $68 $17,429 Corona Chief of Police $17,805 $167 $287 $873 $19,131 $1,564 inc inc $0 $121 $20,816 Menifee Chief of Police $19,260 $83 $963 $417 $20,723 $1,800 inc inc $17 $22,540 Murrieta Police Chief $19,607 $150 $250 $655 $20,662 $1,563 $98 $40 $39 $133 $22,534 Palm Springs Police Chief $19,818 $135 $991 $20,944 $2,094 inc inc $11 $246 $23,295 Redlands Police Chief $21,693 $142 $434 $22,269 $2,706 $127 $19 $25,121 Rialto Chief of Police $20,710 $1,553 $750 $1,864 $24,877 $1,300 $137 $25 $26,339 Riverside Chief of Police $30,900 $26 $75 $31,001 $1,482 $45 inc $178 $32,706 San Bernardino Chief of Police $23,260 $79 $23,339 $1,250 inc inc $25 $41 $24,655 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Chief of Police $22,119 $553 $74 $1,991 $24,736 $1,184 inc inc $25,920 Beaumont Chief of Police $19,167 $100 $479 $19,746 $1,675 inc inc $7 $21,428 Average $20,426 $22,121 $23,926
% +/--6.6%-12.0%-11.7%
Median $19,713 $21,606 $23,975
12 % +/--2.8%-9.4%-11.9%
75th Percenile $21,800 $24,677 $26,025
12 % +/--13.7%-25.0%-21.5%
Median Gain/Loss -6.6%-2.5%
99 Print Date: 1/26/2022
601
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Chief of Police
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Police Chief
Cathedral City Police Chief
Colton Police Chief
Corona Chief of Police
Menifee Chief of Police
Murrieta Police Chief
Palm Springs Police Chief
Redlands Police Chief
Rialto Chief of Police
Riverside Chief of Police
San Bernardino Chief of Police
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Chief of Police
Beaumont Chief of Police
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$3,546 2@50 $22,223 11 8 8 13 40
$8,119 ($2,220)3@55 $32,981 12 8 22 42
$3,632 3@55 $21,062 12 8 7 13 40
$10,088 ($267)3@50 $30,636 8 9 25 42
$2,674 ($915)$24,299 10 9 5 13 37
$4,410 ($1,110)3@55 $25,834 9 10 23 42
$12,379 ($595)3@55 $35,079 10 4 21 35
$13,268 3@50 $38,389 9 33 42
$14,554 ($2,485)3@50 $38,408 10 10 12 20 52
$16,076 3@50 $48,781 8 8 4 17 37
$21,117 ($698)3@55 $45,074 11 8 7 17 42
$20,709 3@55 $46,630 11 8 7 15 40
$7,859 3@50 $29,288 9 8 3 17 37
$34,116 40.8
-16.5%-9.2%
$34,030 41.0
-16.2%-9.8%
$40,074 41.9
-36.8%-12.2%
-4.3%
100 Print Date: 1/26/2022
602
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Police Lieutenant 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.POST Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Police Lieutenant $12,828 $257 $150 $225 $300 $513 $14,273 $1,400 inc $10 $39 $15,722 Cathedral City Police Commander $14,324 $140 $100 $1,003 $15,567 $2,300 inc inc $62 $34 $17,963 Colton Police Lieutenant $11,047 $75 $829 $1,105 $13,056 $1,100 inc inc $8 $14,164 Corona Police Lieutenant $13,533 $698 $287 $1,083 $15,600 $1,564 inc inc $0 $92 $17,256 Menifee Police Lieutenant $12,809 $83 $640 $333 $13,866 $1,800 inc inc $15,666 Murrieta Police Lieutenant $13,591 $150 $680 $680 $200 $454 $15,754 $1,663 $98 $40 $27 $92 $17,674 Palm Springs Police Lieutenant $13,258 $135 $265 $663 $14,321 $2,006 $80 $13 $11 $164 $16,595 Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Police Lieutenant $11,710 $703 $133 $878 $1,874 $750 $1,054 $17,102 $1,400 inc inc $18,502 Riverside Police Lieutenant $15,501 $26 $2,325 $200 $18,052 $1,543 inc inc $89 $15 $19,699 San Bernardino Lieutenant $14,743 $79 $450 $15,272 $1,318 inc inc $5 $16,594 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Lieutenant $11,919 $596 $74 $596 $596 $596 $14,376 $1,300 inc inc $15,676 Beaumont Police Lieutenant $14,609 $100 $365 $15,074 $1,675 inc inc $7 $16,756 Average $13,206 $15,203 $16,865
% +/-9.6%-0.9%-0.6%
Median $13,258 $15,272 $16,595
11 % +/-9.2%-1.3%1.0%
75th Percenile $13,958 $15,677 $17,818
11 % +/-4.5%-4.0%-6.3%
Median Gain/Loss -10.6%2.3%
101 Print Date: 1/26/2022
603
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Police Lieutenant
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Police Lieutenant
Cathedral City Police Commander
Colton Police Lieutenant
Corona Police Lieutenant
Menifee Police Lieutenant
Murrieta Police Lieutenant
Palm Springs Police Lieutenant
Redlands No Comparable Class
Rialto Police Lieutenant
Riverside Police Lieutenant
San Bernardino Lieutenant
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Lieutenant
Beaumont Police Lieutenant
Average
% +/-
Median
11 % +/-
75th Percenile
11 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,782 2@50 $18,505 8 8 13 29
$6,286 ($1,719)3@55 $22,530 8 18 26
$2,659 ($331)3@55 $16,492 10 8 8 13 40
$7,667 ($203)3@50 $24,720 10 24 34
$1,778 ($608)$16,836 1 9 5 20 35
$3,057 ($769)3@55 $19,961 10 5 23 38
$8,282 ($398)3@55 $24,479 4 17 21
$8,229 ($1,405)3@50 $25,326 2 10 12 32 55
$8,064 3@50 $27,764 11 8 17 36
$13,385 ($442)3@55 $29,537 11 8 7 17 42
$11,159 ($358)3@55 $26,478 8 3 15 25
$5,990 3@50 $22,746 9 8 17 34
$22,966 34.6
-1.0%-1.7%
$24,479 35.1
-7.6%-3.2%
$25,902 38.7
-13.9%-13.7%
-8.6%
102 Print Date: 1/26/2022
604
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Police Sergeant 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits
Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.POST Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Police Sergeant $10,473 $209 $150 $225 $300 $419 $11,777 $1,400 inc inc $13 $13,190 Cathedral City Police Sergeant $12,385 $140 $100 $867 $13,492 $2,300 inc inc $54 $30 $15,875 Colton Police Sergeant $9,206 $75 $552 $921 $10,754 $1,100 inc inc $8 $11,863 Corona Police Sergeant $11,086 $698 $287 $887 $12,957 $1,564 inc inc $0 $75 $14,596 Menifee Police Sergeant $10,544 $83 $527 $250 $11,405 $1,800 inc inc $13,205 Murrieta Police Sergeant $10,646 $150 $260 $520 $150 $356 $12,082 $1,663 $98 $40 $3 $20 $13,904 Palm Springs Police Sergeant $10,426 $135 $1,043 $11,604 $2,006 $80 $13 $11 $129 $13,842 Redlands Police Sergeant $9,976 $499 $267 $1,746 $12,487 $1,100 $127 $19 $13,733 Rialto Police Sergeant $9,611 $577 $133 $721 $1,538 $750 $865 $14,195 $1,400 inc inc $15,595 Riverside Police Sergeant $10,589 $26 $1,588 $200 $12,403 $1,543 inc inc $61 $15 $14,022 San Bernardino Police Sergeant $11,967 $79 $275 $12,321 $1,211 inc inc $2 $13,534 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Sergeant $9,873 $494 $74 $494 $494 $494 $11,921 $1,300 inc inc $13,221 Beaumont Police Sergeant $10,339 $100 $1,034 $11,473 $1,500 inc inc $7 $12,980 Average $10,565 $12,283 $13,882
% +/--2.2%-7.1%-6.9%
Median $10,509 $12,201 $13,788
12 % +/--1.6%-6.3%-6.2%
75th Percenile $10,756 $12,605 $14,166
12 % +/--4.0%-9.9%-9.1%
Median Gain/Loss -4.7%0.1%
103 Print Date: 1/26/2022
605
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Police Sergeant
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Police Sergeant
Cathedral City Police Sergeant
Colton Police Sergeant
Corona Police Sergeant
Menifee Police Sergeant
Murrieta Police Sergeant
Palm Springs Police Sergeant
Redlands Police Sergeant
Rialto Police Sergeant
Riverside Police Sergeant
San Bernardino Police Sergeant
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Sergeant
Beaumont Police Sergeant
Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$2,272 2@50 $15,461 7 8 13 29
$5,435 ($1,486)3@55 $19,824 8 18 26
$2,216 ($276)3@55 $13,802 10 8 13 31
$6,281 ($166)3@50 $20,711 10 24 34
$1,464 ($501)$14,168 1 9 20 30
$2,394 ($603)3@55 $15,696 12 23 35
$6,513 ($313)3@55 $20,042 10 17 27
$6,102 3@50 $19,835 2 8 15 24
$6,754 ($1,153)3@50 $21,195 2 10 12 32 55
$5,509 3@50 $19,531 11 8 17 36
$10,864 ($359)3@55 $24,039 9 8 17 34
$9,244 ($296)3@55 $22,169 8 2 15 24
$4,239 3@50 $17,220 9 8 17 34
$18,873 32.1
-9.6%5.7%
$19,829 30.7
-15.2%9.7%
$20,832 34.3
-21.0%-0.9%
-8.9%
104 Print Date: 1/26/2022
606
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Police Officer 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits
Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.POST Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Police Officer $7,982 $160 $150 $225 $300 $319 $9,136 $1,400 inc inc $13 $10,549 Cathedral City Police Officer $8,945 $140 $447 $100 $9,632 $2,400 inc inc $27 $21 $12,081 Colton Police Officer $6,958 $75 $417 $696 $8,146 $1,100 inc inc $8 $9,254 Corona Police Officer II $8,178 $552 $287 $654 $9,671 $1,564 inc inc $0 $56 $11,290 Menifee Police Officer $8,176 $83 $409 $250 $8,918 $1,800 inc inc $10,718 Murrieta Police Officer $8,228 $150 $260 $520 $150 $275 $9,583 $1,663 $98 $40 $3 $20 $11,406 Palm Springs Police Officer $8,032 $135 $803 $8,970 $2,006 $80 $13 $11 $100 $11,179 Redlands Police Officer $7,409 $370 $267 $1,297 $9,343 $1,100 $127 $19 $10,589 Rialto Police Officer $7,361 $442 $133 $552 $368 $600 $662 $10,119 $1,400 inc inc $11,519 Riverside Police Officer $8,298 $26 $1,245 $9,569 $1,543 inc inc $1 $10 $11,123 San Bernardino Police Officer $9,287 $79 $275 $9,641 $1,211 inc inc $2 $10,854 Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Officer $7,203 $360 $74 $360 $360 $300 $8,657 $1,300 inc inc $9,957 Beaumont Police Officer $7,687 $100 $769 $8,556 $1,500 inc inc $7 $10,063 Police OfficerAvg Average $8,005 $9,282 $10,877
% +/--4.1%-8.5%-8.1%
Median $8,104 $9,456 $10,988
12 % +/--5.4%-10.5%-9.2%
75th Percenile $8,246 $9,634 $11,319
12 % +/--7.3%-12.6%-12.5%
Median Gain/Loss -5.1%1.3%
105 Print Date: 1/26/2022
607
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Police Officer
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Police Officer
Cathedral City Police Officer
Colton Police Officer
Corona Police Officer II
Menifee Police Officer
Murrieta Police Officer
Palm Springs Police Officer
Redlands Police Officer
Rialto Police Officer
Riverside Police Officer
San Bernardino Police Officer
Temecula No Comparable Class
Upland Police Officer
Beaumont Police Officer
Police OfficerAvg Average
% +/-
Median
12 % +/-
75th Percenile
12 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,731 2@50 $12,280 7 8 13 29
$3,925 3@55 $16,006 8 16 24
$1,675 ($209)3@55 $10,720 10 8 13 31
$4,633 ($123)3@50 $15,801 10 24 34
$1,135 ($388)$11,465 1 9 20 30
$1,851 ($466)3@55 $12,791 12 23 35
$5,017 ($241)3@55 $15,956 10 17 27
$4,532 3@50 $15,121 2 8 15 24
$5,173 ($883)3@50 $15,808 10 32 42
$4,317 3@50 $15,440 11 8 13 32
$8,431 ($279)3@55 $19,007 9 8 17 34
$6,744 ($216)3@55 $16,485 8 15 23
$3,152 3@50 $13,215 9 8 17 34
$14,740 30.4
-11.5%10.6%
$15,621 30.7
-18.2%9.7%
$15,968 33.9
-20.8%0.2%
-9.0%
106 Print Date: 1/26/2022
608
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Transit Manager 3 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits
Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Omnitrans Transportation Manager $11,053 $11,053 $1,876 inc inc $29 $101 $13,058 Riverside No Comparable Class
RTA Operations Manager $11,035 $25 $11,060 $1,217 $12,277 Sunline Deputy Operations/Chief Transportation Officer $8,635 $25 $8,660 $1,432 $10,092 Beaumont Transit Manager $9,601 $9,601 $1,675 inc inc $7 $11,283 Average $10,241 $10,258 $11,809
% +/--6.7%-6.8%-4.7%
Median $11,035 $11,053 $12,277
3 % +/--14.9%-15.1%-8.8%
75th Percenile $11,044 $11,056 $12,668
4 % +/--15.0%-15.2%-12.3%
Median Gain/Loss -0.2%6.3%
107 Print Date: 1/26/2022
609
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Transit Manager
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Omnitrans Transportation Manager
Riverside No Comparable Class
RTA Operations Manager
Sunline Deputy Operations/Chief Transportation Officer
Beaumont Transit Manager
Average
% +/-
Median
3 % +/-
75th Percenile
4 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,816 2%@55 $14,874 7 8 17 32
$1,102 2%@55 $13,379 9 8 20 37
2%@60 $10,092 4 7 25 36
$2,478 3@60 $13,761 9 8 3 17 37
$12,782 35.1

7.1%5.9%
$13,379 36.0

2.8%3.6%
$14,127 36.7
-2.7%1.8%

11.6%
108 Print Date: 1/26/2022
610
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Transit Assistant 3 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning No Comparable Class
Omnitrans Dispatcher $6,544 $6,544 $1,876 inc inc $14 $60 $8,494 Riverside No Comparable Class
RTA Transit Clerk $4,495 $4,495 $1,217 $5,712
Sunline Senior Administrative Assistant $3,735 $25 $3,760 $1,432 $5,192 Beaumont Transit Assistant - Drift
Average $4,925 $4,933 $6,466
% +/-
Median $4,495 $4,495 $5,712
3 % +/-
75th Percenile $5,519 $5,519 $7,103
3 % +/-
Median Gain/Loss
109 Print Date: 1/26/2022
611
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Transit Assistant
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning No Comparable Class
Omnitrans Dispatcher
Riverside No Comparable Class
RTA Transit Clerk
Sunline Senior Administrative Assistant
Beaumont Transit Assistant - Drift
Average
% +/-
Median
3 % +/-
75th Percenile
3 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,075 2%@55 $9,569 7 8 17 32
$449 2%@55 $6,161 9 8 20 37
2%@60 $5,192 4 7 25 36
$6,974 35.1
$6,161 36.0
$7,865 36.7
110 Print Date: 1/26/2022
612
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Bus Driver I 5 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits
Survey Agency Comparable Class Range
Max.Long.Uniform Educ.

Inc.

Def.

Comp.

Ret.

Pickup
Base +
Cash Health Dental Vision Life LTD
Base +
Cash +
Ins.

Banning Bus Driver $4,233 $4,233 $1,400 inc $21 inc $5,654 Omnitrans Coach Operator $4,585 $4,585 $1,355 inc inc $14 $42 $5,996 Riverside Mini-Bus Driver $3,077 $7 $3,084 $1,411 $45 inc $3 $4,543 RTA Coach Operator $4,992 $4,992 $1,217 $6,209
Sunline Motor Coach Operator $4,146 $25 $4,171 $1,432 $5,603 Beaumont Bus Driver I $4,146 $415 $4,561 $1,675 inc inc $7 $6,243 Bus Driver IAvg Average $4,207 $4,213 $5,601
% +/--1.5%7.6%10.3%
Median $4,233 $4,233 $5,654
5 % +/--2.1%7.2%9.4%
75th Percenile $4,585 $4,585 $5,996
5 % +/--10.6%-0.5%4.0%
Median Gain/Loss 9.3%2.2%
111 Print Date: 1/26/2022
613
Item 9.

Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective June 2021
Beaumont
Bus Driver I
Survey Agency Comparable Class
Banning Bus Driver
Omnitrans Coach Operator
Riverside Mini-Bus Driver
RTA Coach Operator
Sunline Motor Coach Operator
Beaumont Bus Driver I
Bus Driver IAvg Average
% +/-
Median
5 % +/-
75th Percenile
5 % +/-
Retirement Benefits Leave Benefits
Emp. Ret.EE Cont
to ER Ret. Form.

Base +
Cash +
Ins. + Ret.

Hol Sick Admin Vac
Max
Total
Leave
$1,304 2@60 $6,958 11 8 13 32
$753 2%@55 $6,749 7 8 17 32
$978 2.7@55 $5,520 8 8 13 29
$499 2%@55 $6,708 9 8 20 37
2%@60 $5,603 4 7 25 36
$1,070 3@60 $7,313 9 8 17 34
$6,308 33.4

13.7%1.9%
$6,708 32.2

8.3%5.4%
$6,749 36.0

7.7%-5.9%
-1.2%
112 Print Date: 1/26/2022
614
Item 9.

615
Item 9.

616
Item 9.

617
Item 9.

618
Item 9.

619
Item 9.

620
Item 9.

621
Item 9.

622
Item 9.

623
Item 9.

624
Item 9.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Kristine Day, Assistant City Manager
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Rangel Park Update

Background and Analysis:

At its meeting of January 18, 2022, City Council directed City staff to revise the park concept plan for Rangel Park improvement project to focus on the ball field, basketball court, the playground and remove the splashpad feature. City staff immediately began working with the landscape architect on the project to revise the plan presented and focus on the amenities outlined by the City Council. The City Council instructed staff to prepare a concept plan with a half court, two goal basketball court layout. Attached to this report is a concept drawing showing a half court with three point lines (Size 50’x70’) and a NBA half court without three point lines (Size 40’x50’). The smaller court would allow for additional picnic tables and a larger playground area. City staff requests Council direction on the desired basketball court size.

In order to expediate the project and keep the improvements in budget, City staff is proposing to fix all field fencing, re-paint all field fencing, new irrigation in the outfield, leveled outfield surface with new sod, infield improvements, relocation and addition of bleachers which conform to safety standards, appropriate ADA access around the dugout on the Olive Avenue side, new LED light fixtures with new controls, new scoreboard and improved landscaping around the outside of the field. Below are quotes and budgets for this associated work. (*budget amount)

Fence Repairs/ ADA access $20,365
Paint fence $ 5,000 *
Irrigation replacement $30,000*
Outfield level/sod $35,000*
Infield improvements $10,000*
New bleachers with concrete $10,000*
New LED Field Lights/Controls $100,000*
New Electrical Cabinet $10,000*
625
Item 10.

Scoreboard $7,832
Landscaping field area $10,000*
Total Field Improvements $238,197*

The total park budget for the project was $1,367,000 ($367,000 in CDBG funds, $500,000 in CFD funds, $500,000 DIF). With the deletion of the splashpad, the $500,000 in DIF funds is not eligible for use as the amenities are existing refurbishments leaving the project budget at $867,000. To date approximately $64,000 has been spent on design and engineering. City staff has also been working on quotes for the playground and basketball court side of the park. City staff estimates the following numbers for the remainder portion of the budget.

Design/Engineering $ 64,000
Field Improvements $238,197
Playground $200,000
Basketball/Flatwork $100,000
Park Equipment $ 50,000
Signage $ 50,000
Fencing around playground $ 50,000
Landscaping $ 25,000
Contingency $ 89,803
Project Budget $867,000

Once City Council blesses the concept plan, City staff will begin to execute contracts for equipment and work associated with the park renovation. With the exception of Edison, City staff is confident that all work will be completed for a grand re-opening in June 2022. This schedule will allow the neighborhood to hold their annual 4th of July Tournament.

Tonight City staff is seeking direction on the above improvements and budget as well as the dimension of the basketball court and if City Council desires to fence the boundary of the park.

Fiscal Impact:

City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $1,000.

Recommended Action:

Receive and provide direction to City staff.

626
Item 10.

OVERALL SITE PLAN

RANGEL PARK IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF BEAUMONT

PLAYGROUND ENLARGEMENT

NEW REPOSITIONED BLEACHERS
627
Item 10.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Christina Taylor, Community Development Director
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Request to Authorize Grant Writing Assistance to Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. in the Amount of $15,000

Background and Analysis:

The City of Beaumont currently contracts with Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) for lobbying services at the State and Federal levels. Prior to COVID-19, the City had grant writing services available through the contract with TPA but since COVID-19 has restructured the contract to reduce costs and cover only lobbying services , leaving grant assistance on an as-needed basis.

CalTrans has opened the Cycle 6 Active Transportation Grant funding window. The call for projects begins in March with an application deadline of June 15, 2022. City staff would like to submit an application for an Active Transportation Planning grant for development of a Citywide active transportation planning document. The application process is time intensive with a moderate level of difficulty and City staff requires assistance in preparing a grant of this complexity.

City staff requested a proposal from TPA for grant writing assistance for the Active Transportation grant. The cost for assistance is $15,000 and the proposal is included as Attachment A to this staff report.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost to prepare this staff report is approximately $250.

Recommended Action:

Approve a one-time request for grant writing assistance with Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. in the amount of $15,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
628
Item 11.

Attachments:

A. Grant writing assistance proposal
B. Cycle 6 Active Transportation Grant Summary
629
Item 11.

1 PROPOSAL FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES

FEE SCHEDULE: $15,000 one-time fee

SERVICES: Please see attached Addendum to Exhibit “A” for full description of services provided.

Client Initials

Consultant Initials
630
Item 11.

2 EXHIBIT “A”

The Services provided pursuant to the terms of the Contract for Consultant Services are the following:

GRANT WRITING SERVICES

TPA will utilize the following strategic and comprehensive approach to provide grant writing services to the City of Beaumont for one Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant application.

 Grant Application Development and Submittal: TPA will develop, draft, submit, and follow up on the ATP grant application through the following process:

o Establishment of Clear Accountabilities: TPA will coordinate with the City of Beaumont to ensure the assignment of responsibilities and tasks are made clear so that confusion and inefficiency are avoided and the City is burdened as little as possible while TPA pursues the ATP grant opportunity.

o Provide Overview of Full Application Requirements: For the ATP application, TPA will provide the City of Beaumont with a detailed overview of the requirements for the grant program and corresponding application to ensure that the program is a strong fit for the city’s project. This will include:
 Coordination with California Transportation Commission regarding virtual site visits and initial project feedback
 Application timeline
 Eligible project types
 Funding availability and award maximum and minimums
 List of application components, including proposal questions and any required attachments

o Assemble Project Background and Details: TPA will conduct a detailed informational interview with city staff most involved with each project in order to gain a full understanding of the project background and scope details necessary for developing the grant proposal and addressing all application questions.

o Coordinate Technical Project Details: For technical application components such as site plans, detailed cost estimates, project timelines, engineering plans, and cost-benefit analyses, TPA will coordinate with the City of Beaumont staff to compile all necessary attachments and ensure consistency across all elements of the application.

o Draft Written Proposal: TPA will draft all narrative components of the application and, when applicable, will indicate where additional input or project detail from the city could be provided during the proposal review process.
631
Item 11.

3 o Incorporate Feedback to Finalize Proposal: TPA will provide the City of Beaumont with a full draft for review and feedback. TPA will incorporate any additional details or revisions provided during this process to finalize the grant application and will obtain approval for the final version of the application prior to submission.

o Submit Completed Application: TPA will ensure that the ATP application is submitted prior to the deadline, whether the submission is electronic or through hard copies, in accordance with submission instructions for each individual program. For hard copy submissions, if needed, TPA will print and package applications according to submission instructions and will ship applications through a reliable carrier service such as FedEx in order to provide the City of Beaumont with tracking and delivery confirmation for the application. TPA will also obtain a receipt for proof of submission and provide the City with a final copy of all submitted application documents.

o Funding Advocacy: Throughout the ATP grant application process TPA will leverage relationships with relevant officials and program officers in various funding agencies to ensure that the City of Beaumont’s grant application is aligned with the goals of the specific grant program and that the application is well-crafted and well-positioned for funding.

 Post-Grant Submittal Advocacy: TPA will frequently contact legislators and agency officials to follow up on the status of a grant application and promote its need and urgency. This will include drafting letters of support after grant submissions and distributing them to legislators for their consideration. In addition, TPA will work with legislators to reach out to individual granting agencies to provide background on City’s projects and convey their support for those projects. 632
Item 11.

2/24/22, 3:44 PM Active Transportation Program (ATP) | CTC https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program 1/5 Home Programs Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
The Active Transportation Program was created by Senate Bill 99 to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and biking.

The Active Transportation Program consolidated various transportation programs into a single program and was originally funded at about $123 million a year from a combination of state and federal funds.

The goals of the ATP include, but are not limited to, increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advancing eorts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhancing public health, and providing a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users including disadvantaged communities.

In 2017, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 1, also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act. SB 1 directs $100 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP, significantly augmenting the available funding for this popular program.

Program Benefits
Since its inception, the Active Transportation Program has funded over 800 active transportation projects across the state benefiting both urban and rural areas. More than 400 of the funded projects are Safe Routes to Schools projects and programs that encourage a healthy and active lifestyle throughout students' lives. In addition, ever y cycle has seen more than 85% of funds going towards projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities throughout the state.

While the Active Transportation Program has successfully funded projects across the State, the Program is incredibly oversubscribed and cannot meet all of the State's needs. Therefore, the Commission and Caltrans have developed a list of additional programs that fund active transportation projects and elements to serve as a resource for cities, counties, and agencies looking to fund valuable active transportation projects in their communities.
2023 Active Transportation Program Virtual Site Visits
In preparation for the 2023 Active Transportation Program (Cycle 6), ATP sta will be holding virtual site visits for all interested agencies across the state from November 2021 through Februar y 2022. The site visits will allow Cycle 6 applicants the opportunity to discuss upcoming projects with Commission sta.

If you are interested in scheduling a site visit, please complete the 2023 ATP Virtual Site Visit Registration online scheduling form.

Active Transportation Resource Center
The Active Transportation Resource Center (ATRC) is funded by the California Transportation Commission's Active Transportation Program. The ATRC utilizes a combination of subject matter experts from state agencies, universities, and consultants to provide active transportation trainings, tools, and technical assistance for current and potential ATP applicants. The ATRC also provides resources for infrastructure and non-infrastructure ATP projects.

Active Transportation Program Engagement Summary
The Active Transportation Program Engagement Summary outlines the extensive outreach and engagement held by California Transportation Commission sta in preparation for the 2021 ATP Cycle.

The purpose of the Engagement Summary is to highlight the new approach California Transportation Commission sta took to engage stakeholders in the guideline development process, with the goal of addressing the diverse needs of underrepresented communities. The Engagement Summary discusses the results of the extensive outreach, the lessons learned and where the Program is headed in future cycles.

Contact Us ADA Certification  Settings  Translate

About the
CTC

Meetings &
Events

Programs

Reports &
Resources

Legislation

Committees

Search
633
Item 11.

2/24/22, 3:44 PM Active Transportation Program (ATP) | CTC https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program 2/5 The 2021 Active Transportation Program Engagement Summary was presented at the March 24-25, 2021 Commission Meeting.

Active Transportation Symposium
The 2019 Active Transportation Program Symposium was a two-day event, October 29 and 30, co- hosted by the California Transportation Commission and Caltrans. The goals of the Symposium were to share and gather information on relevant active transportation topics and issues and allow stakeholders to connect with the State in an alternate setting. The Symposium showcased inspiring speakers, engaging panel sessions, and provided networking opportunities. Topics included benefits, equity, safety, and non-infrastructure projects.

The 2019 Active Transportation Symposium took place at the Ziggurat on 707 3 Street, West Sacramento, California. Learn more about the speakers and watch the Webcast of the two day Symposium.

Accessibility Assistance
The California Transportation Commission (CTC) makes every attempt to ensure our documents are accessible. Due to variances between assistive technologies, there may be portions of a document which are not accessible. Where documents cannot be made accessible, we are committed to providing alternative access to the content. Should you need additional assistance, please contact us at (916) 654- 2162, or CTC at [email protected], or visit Request ADA Compliant Documents. rd
2023 ATP (Cycle 6)C
634
Item 11.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: PARS 115 Trust Investment Policy

Background and Analysis:

On December 7, 2021, City Council approved to establish a PARS 115 Trust – Post Employment Benefits Trust Program account and appoint a plan administrator. On January 18, 2022, City Council approved a pension funding policy and investment strategy for the PARS account. The last step to the account setup process is to approve the investment policy for the account.

PARS has provided a template investment policy for the active moderate investment strategy choice City Council approved on January 18, 2022. The policy provides for the following:

 Scope and purpose,
 Investment objectives and constraints,
 Duties and responsibilities, and
 Acknowledgement and acceptance.

Once the policy has been approved by City Council, funds will be moved into the account per the funding policy. Investment results will be reported with the quarte rly investments report brought forth to the Finance and Audit Committee and City Council.

Fiscal Impact:

With the approval of this investment policy, $2,500,000 of earmarked funds will be transferred to the PARS 115 Trust as per the approved pension 115 trust funding policy.

City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $130.

Recommended Action:

Approve PARS 115 Trust Investment Policy.
635
Item 12.

Attachments:

A. Draft PARS 115 Trust Investment Policy
636
Item 12.

Investment Guidelines Document

City of Beaumont

Employee Benefit Fund Pension Plan

January 2022

637
Item 12.

City of Beaumont – Pension Pre-Funding Plan
Investment Guidelines Document – HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 1/5/2022 -CHT) 2

Investment Guidelines Document

Scope and Purpose

The purpose of this Investment Guidelines Document is to:
• Facilitate the process of ongoing communication between the Plan Sponsor and its plan fiduciaries;
• Confirm the Plan’s investment goals and objectives and management policies applicable to the investment portfolio identified below and obtained from the Plan Sponsor; • Provide a framework to construct a well-diversified asset mix that can potentially be expected to meet the account’s short- and long-term needs that is consistent with the account’s investment objectives, liquidity considerations and risk tolerance; • Identify any unique considerations that may restrict or limit the investment discretion of its designated investment managers;
• Help maintain a long-term perspective when market volatility is caused by short-term market movements.

Key Plan Sponsor Account Information as of January 2022 Plan Sponsor: City of Beaumont
Governance: Beaumont City Council
Plan Name (“Plan”): City of Beaumont
Post-Employment Benefits Trust
Trustee: US Bank
Contact: Susan Hughes, 949-224-7209
[email protected]
Type of Account: Pension Plan
Investment Manager: US Bank, as discretionary trustee, has delegated investment management responsibilities to HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (“Investment Manager”), an SEC-registered investment adviser
Contact: Christiane Tsuda, 858-551-5359
[email protected]
638
Item 12.

City of Beaumont – Pension Pre-Funding Plan
Investment Guidelines Document – HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 1/5/2022 -CHT) 3
Investment Authority: Except as otherwise noted, the Trustee, US Bank, has delegated investment authority to HighMark Capital Management, an SEC-registered investment adviser.

Investment Manager has full investment discretion over the managed assets in the account.

Investment Manager is authorized to purchase, sell, exchange, invest, reinvest and manage the designated assets held in the account, all in accordance with account’s investment objectives, without prior approval or subsequent approval of any other party(ies).

Investment Objectives and Constraints
The goal of the Plan’s investment program is to generate adequate long-term returns that, when combined with contributions, will result in sufficient assets to pay the present and future obligations of the Plan. The following objectives are intended to assist in achieving this goal:
• The Plan should seek to earn a return in excess of its policy benchmark over the long- term.
• The Plan’s assets will be managed on a total return basis which takes into consideration both investment income and capital appreciation. While the Plan Sponsor recognizes the importance of preservation of capital, it also adheres to the principle that varying degrees of investment risk are generally rewarded with compensating returns. To achieve these objectives, the Plan Sponsor allocates its assets (asset allocation) with a strategic, long- term perspective of the capital markets.

Investment Time Horizon: Long-term
Anticipated Cash Flows: Assets in the Plan will seek to mitigate the impact of future rate increases from CalPERS. Typically increases in rates come with a one-year advance warning, however this Plan may transfer assets to CalPERS at any time.

Investment Objective: The primary objective is to maximize total Plan return, subject to the risk and quality constraints set forth herein. The investment objective the Plan Sponsor has selected is the Moderate Objective, which has a dual goal to seek growth of income and principal.

Risk Tolerance: Moderate
The account’s risk tolerance has been rated moderate, which demonstrates that the account can accept price fluctuations to pursue its investment objectives.

639
Item 12.

City of Beaumont – Pension Pre-Funding Plan
Investment Guidelines Document – HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 1/5/2022 -CHT) 4
Strategic Asset Allocation: The asset allocation ranges for this objective are listed below:

Strategic Asset Allocation Ranges
Cash Fixed Income Equity
0-20% 40%-60% 40%-60%
Policy: 5% Policy: 45% Policy: 50%

Market conditions may cause the account’s asset allocation to vary from the stated range from time to time. The Investment Manager will rebalance the portfolio no less than quarterly and/or when the actual weighting differs substantially from the strategic range, if appropriate and consistent with your objectives.

Security Guidelines:

Equities
With the exception of limitations and constraints described above, Investment Manager may allocate assets of the equity portion of the account among various market capitalizations (large, mid, small) and investment styles (value, growth). Further, Investment Manager may allocate assets among domestic, international developed and emerging market equity securities.

Total Equities 40%-60%
Equity Style Range
Domestic Large Cap Equity 15%-45%
Domestic Mid Cap Equity 0%-10%
Domestic Small Cap Equity 0%-15%
International Equity (incl. Emerging Markets) 0%-15%
Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) 0%-15%

Fixed Income
In the fixed income portion of the account, Investment Manager may allocate assets among various sectors and industries, as well as varying maturities and credit quality that are consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the portfolio.

Total Fixed Income 40%-60%
Fixed Income Style Range
Long-term bonds (maturities >7 years) 0%-25%
Intermediate-term bonds (maturities 3-7 years) 25%-60%
Short-Term bonds (maturities <3 years) 0%-25%
High Yield bonds 0%-10%

640
Item 12.

City of Beaumont – Pension Pre-Funding Plan
Investment Guidelines Document – HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 1/5/2022 -CHT) 5
Performance Benchmarks:

The performance of the total Plan shall be measured over a three and five-year periods. These periods are considered sufficient to accommodate the market cycles experienced with investments. The performance shall be compared to the return of the total portfolio blended benchmark shown below.

Total Portfolio Blended Benchmark

26.50% S&P500 Index

5.00% Russell Mid Cap Index

7.50% Russell 2000 Index

3.25% MSCI Emerging Market Index

6.00% MSCI EAFE Index

1.75% Wilshire REIT Index

33.50% Bloomberg Barclays Capital US Aggregate Index

10.00% ML 1-3 Year US Corp/Gov’t Index

1.50% US High Yield Master II Index

5.00% Citi 1Mth T-Bill Index

Asset Class/Style Benchmarks
Over a market cycle, the long-term objective for each investment strategy is to add value to a market benchmark. The following are the benchmarks used to monitor each investment strategy:

Large Cap Equity S&P 500 Index
Growth S&P 500 Growth Index
Value S&P 500 Value Index
Mid Cap Equity Russell MidCap Index
Growth Russell MidCap Growth
Value Russell MidCap Value
Small Cap Equity Russell 2000 Index
Growth Russell 2000 Growth
Value Russell 2000 Value
REITs Wilshire REIT
International Equity MSCI EAFE
Investment Grade Bonds Bloomberg Barclays Capital US Aggregate Index High Yield US High Yield Master II

Security Selection
Investment Manager may utilize a full range of investment vehicles when constructing the investment portfolio, including but not limited to individual securities, mutual funds, and exchange- traded funds. In addition, to the extent permissible, Investment Manager is authorized to invest in shares of mutual funds in which the Investment Manager serves as advisor or sub-adviser.

641
Item 12.

City of Beaumont – Pension Pre-Funding Plan
Investment Guidelines Document – HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 1/5/2022 -CHT) 6
Investment Limitations:

The following investment transactions are prohibited:
• Direct investments in precious metals (precious metals mutual funds and exchange-traded funds are permissible).
• Venture Capital
• Short sales*
• Purchases of Letter Stock, Private Placements, or direct payments • Leveraged Transactions*
• Commodities Transactions Puts, calls, straddles, or other option strategies* • Purchases of real estate, with the exception of REITs • Derivatives, with exception of ETFs*
*Permissible in diversified mutual funds and exchange-traded funds

Duties and Responsibilities
Responsibilities of Plan Sponsor
The Plan Administrator, the City of Beaumont, is responsible for  confirming the accuracy of this Investment Guidelines Document, in writing.  Advising Trustee and Investment Manager of any change in the plan/account’s financial situation, funding status, or cash flows, which could possibly necessitate a change to the account’s overall risk tolerance, time horizon or liquidity requirements; and thus would dictate a change to the overall investment objective and goals for the account.  Monitoring and supervising all service vendors and investment options, including investment managers.
 Avoiding prohibited transactions and conflicts of interest.

Responsibilities of Trustee
The plan Trustee is responsible for:
 Valuing the holdings.
 Collecting all income and dividends owed to the Plan.  Settling all transactions (buy-sell orders).

Responsibilities of Investment Manager
The Investment Manager is responsible for:
 Assisting the City with the development and maintenance of this Investment Policy Guideline document annually.
 Meeting with the City of Beaumont annually to review portfolio structure, holdings, and performance.
 Designing, recommending and implementing an appropriate asset allocation consistent with the investment objectives, time horizon, risk profile, guidelines and constraints outlined in this statement.
 Researching and monitoring investment advisers and investment vehicles.  Purchasing, selling, and reinvesting in securities held in the account.  Monitoring the performance of all selected assets.
 Voting proxies, if applicable.
 Recommending changes to any of the above.
642
Item 12.

City of Beaumont – Pension Pre-Funding Plan
Investment Guidelines Document – HighMark Capital Management, Inc. (v. 1/5/2022 -CHT) 7
 Periodically reviewing the suitability of the investments, being available to meet with the committee at least once a year and being available at such other times within reason at your request.
 Preparing and presenting appropriate reports.
 Informing the committee if changes occur in personnel that are responsible for portfolio management or research.

Acknowledgement and Acceptance

I/We being the Plan Sponsor with responsibility for the account(s) held on behalf of the Plan Sponsor specified below, designate Investment Manager as having the investment discretion and management responsibility indicated in relation to all assets of the Plan or specified Account. If such designation is set forth in the Plan/trust, I/We hereby confirm such designation as Investment Manager.

I have read the Investment Guidelines Document, and confirm the accuracy of it, including the terms and conditions under which the assets in this account are to be held, managed, and disposed of by Investment Manager. This Investment Guidelines Document supersedes all previous versions of an Investment Guidelines Document or investment objective instructions that may have been executed for this account.

__________________________________________________ Date:________________ Plan Sponsor: City of Beaumont

__________________________________________________ Date:________________ Investment Manager: Christiane Tsuda, Senior Portfolio Manager, (858) 551-5359

643
Item 12.

Staff Report

TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Thaxton Van Belle, General Manager of Utilities
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Award a Professional Services Agreement to Dudek, Inc., for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services Related to the Maximum Benefit Monitoring Program

Background and Analysis:

The City of Beaumont is a "Maximum Benefit" participant in the Beaumont, San Timoteo, and Yucaipa Groundwater Management Zones (GMZ). To meet the maximum- benefit commitments of the water quality control plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (R8-2014-0005), a monitoring and reporting work plan was approved by the regional board, the Maximum Benefit Monitoring Report 2015 Work Plan (WEI). This work plan describes the monitoring, data collection, and reporting protocols that the maximum - benefit participants will implement to satisfy the commitments in resolution R8-2014- 0005. The City of Beaumont is required to monitor groundwater and surface water to satisfy the requirements established in the maximum benefit monitoring report.

Since July 2016, Dudek, Inc., (Dudek) has provided the maximum benefit monitoring services for the City of Beaumont. Dudek provides groundwater quality and level monitoring services, and surface water quality monitoring for the City. Dudek’s current contract with the City is expiring and a new contract is needed to continue the monitoring services.

City staff prepared a request for proposal (RFP) for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services. The RFP was advertised on December 6, 2021, and two proposals were received on January 6, 2022, from Cardno and Dudek. Each firm was evaluated by a four-person panel based on the following criteria:

 Project Approach and Scope of Services (25%),
 Project Team and Qualifications (20%),
 Related Experience and Past Projects (25%),
 References (10%), and
644
Item 13.

 Proposal Fee (20%).
o Cardno Bid: $217,944 with 5% yearly escalator, and
o Dudek Bid: $52,330 with 3% yearly escalator.

Based on proposal evaluations, City staff is recommending Dudek to perform the required Groundwater and Surface W ater Monitoring Services. Dudek’s proposal showed the greatest understanding of project requirements, contained the best value of services provided, and has a proven history of delivering reliable monitoring services for the City.

Dudek is also under contract with other basin partners, including Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) who is the acting data manager. The City of Beaumont mutually benefits from using Dudek because of familiarity with the basin, and all work performed is easily assimilated into the annual report which is submitted jointly by YVWD and the City of Beaumont without duplicating efforts. The cost of services with Dudek is $52,330 per year with a 3% fixed escalator each year for three years.

Fiscal Impact:

The fiscal impact for Groundwater and Surface Water monitoring will be an annual amount not to exceed $52,330 per year with a 3% fixed escalator. Account line item 700-4050-7068-0000.

Recommended Action:

Award a Professional Services Agreement to Dudek, Inc., for groundwater and surface water monitoring services for three years in the amount not to exceed $52,330 in year one, $53,900 in year two, and $55,500 in year three.

Attachments:

A. Professional Service Agreement with Dudek for the 2022 Proposal for Maximum Benefit Monitoring Program.

B. Dudek Proposal, including the scope of work to provide groundwater and surface water monitoring services.

C. Dudek Fee Schedule.
645
Item 13.

646
Item 13.

647
Item 13.

648
Item 13.

649
Item 13.

650
Item 13.

651
Item 13.

652
Item 13.

653
Item 13.

654
Item 13.

655
Item 13.

RFP FOR

GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER

MONITORING SERVICES FOR THE BEAUMONT

AND SAN TIMOTEO GROUNDWATER

MANAGEMENT ZONES

CITY OF BEAUMONT
JANUARY 06, 2022
605 Third Street / Encinitas, CA 92024 / 760.942.5147 656 Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones i Cover Letter
January 06, 2022
Thaxton Van Belle
General Manager of Utilities
City of Beaumont
550 E. 6th Street
Beaumont, California 92223
Subject: RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones
Dear Mr. Van Belle,
The City of Beaumont (City) requires an experienced team ready and able to successfully provide the groundwater and surface water monitoring services required in the 2014 amendment (Order R8-2014- 0005) to the Santa Ana River Basin’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Since July 2016, Dudek has served as the City’s representative in collecting the required groundwater and surface water data to demonstrate the City’s compliance with the Maximum Benefit Commitments established in Order R8- 2014-0005. To ensure that the City is compliant with the monitoring requirements, Dudek follows the monitoring protocols and schedules outlined in the 2015 Maximum Benefits Monitoring Program (MBMP) Work Plan. Dudek’s experienced team has worked closely with City staff, and is familiar with the City’s procedures, monitoring equipment, and with the many individual parties and stakeholders that are participants in the MBMP. Our team will offer value to the City by leveraging our:
▪ Local groundwater and surface water monitoring experience, including established relationships with City staff and participating stakeholders and individual well owners ▪ Long-standing local agency relationships and knowledge of the regulatory requirements, and ▪ Ability to seamlessly integrate the data collected in the field with the MBMP annual reports that Dudek prepares as the MBMP Data Manager under contract with Yucaipa Valley Water District .

Local Experience and Proven History with the City. The Dudek team brings extensive local experience and knowledge to the project. Dudek’s experience includes conducting semi-annual groundwater monitoring services and biweekly surface water monitoring services in the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones, conducting biological and groundwater monitoring services along San Timoteo Creek as part of a Habitat Monitoring Program, and the development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Yucaipa Subbasin that included the participation of water purveyors operating in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.

Dudek has served the City since 2016 and has successfully met the annual reporting requirements in Order R8-2014-0005. Dudek has, through lessons learned in the field and the development of trusted relationships with the individual well owners par ticipating in the MBMP, improved our efficiency in collecting the data and reduced our annual costs. Our experience with providing the services required under the MBMP as outlined in the scope of services in this proposal, and the familiarity and knowledge of the region, will be a great benefit for the City in terms of project efficiency and cost. 657
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones ii Distinctively Qualified Project Management Team. Mr. Stuart has 24 years’ experience as hydrogeologist, managing groundwater supply projects and hydrogeological investigations throughout California. Responsibilities include the oversight and project management of groundwater resource assessments and development, hazardous waste remediation projects, and regulatory compliance.

Mr. Stuart’s experience includes developing Sustainable Groundwater Management Act-compliant GSPs; managing groundwater and surface water monitoring programs; and designing, calibrating, and implementing 2D and 3D numerical models to simulate groundwater flow and contaminant fate and transport in the unsaturated and saturated zones.

Mr. Stuart and his team will continue building on the trusted relationships with City staff and other MBMP participants and are committed to being:
▪ Informed. Fully understanding the project and client goals; ▪ Connected. Effectively communicating with MBMP participants and Santa Ana Water Board; ▪ Resourceful. Identifying problems and finding practical, cost effective solutions; ▪ Responsive. Providing frequent communication and responding to phone calls and emails; and ▪ Efficient. Maintaining project budgets and momentum.

Joseph Monaco, President and CEO, is authorized by Dudek to contractually obligate Dudek. His signature certifies that Dudek will comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of the State and Federal Government. Additionally, Dudek has reviewed our past and current projects, clients, and contracts, and has reviewed our staffs’ roles within the company, and does not find any conflicts of interest that would impede our ability to perform the scope of work requested by the City in the RFP.

We appreciate the opportunity to propose on this project and welcome any questions regarding our capabilities. Please reach out to Mr. Stuart with any questions or requests for clarification.

Sincerely,
__________________________________ _____________________________________ Joseph Monaco Steven Stuart, PE
President and CEO Project Manager
605 Third Street 605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024 Encinitas, California 92024 760.479.4296 760.479.4128
This fee estimate is valid for 90 days from the date of this proposal; after 90 days, Dudek reserves the right to reassess the fee estimate, if necessary.
658
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones iii Table of Contents

SECTIONS
Cover Letter ................................................................................................................................................................ i Introduction/Information ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Approach .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Firm Profile ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 Location .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Organization, Key Personnel, and Resumes ....................................................................................................... 5 Project Experience .................................................................................................................................................. 8 References ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Scope of Services .................................................................................................................................................. 12 Cost Proposal ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Additional Information .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Insurance/Certification ........................................................................................................................................ 16 TABLE
1 Category 1 Project Team Members ......................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE
1 Organization chart ...................................................................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX
A Resumes

659
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 1 Introduction/Information
Statement of Understanding of Services Proposed
Dudek is very pleased to present this proposal to the City of Beaumont (City) for providing groundwater and surface water monitoring services to meet the data collection requirements for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones (BMZ and STMZ, respectively) as established in the 2014 amendment (Resolution No. R8-2014-0005) to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The requirements for the groundwater and surface water monitoring services are detailed in the Maximum Benefits Monitoring Program (MBMP) Work Plan adopted in 2015.

Dudek has provided the groundwater and surface water monitoring services for the City since July 2016 and has successfully collected, compiled , and submitted all data required in the annual MBMP reports to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region (Water Board) by the annual deadline of April 15. Dudek is under contract with the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD); the designated MBMP data manager for the BMZ, STMZ, and the Yucaipa Groundwater Management Zone (YMZ); and serves to obtain, compile, and analyze all groundwater and surface water data required under the program. Dudek is responsible for preparing and submitting the MBMP annual reports on behalf of YVWD and all participating parties, including the City.

The Dudek Team
The Dudek team in this proposal has served the City over the last few years in conducting all field work and data collection activities detailed in the MBMP Work Plan for the BMZ and STMZ. Dudek has a close and trusted relationship with the City and with the other participating agencies and stakeholders in the MBMP, including the private well owners upon which a large amount of the groundwater data and basin characterization depends. The Dudek team will be led by Project Manager Steven Stuart, who has served as the Dudek project manager for the MBMP services provided for the City since July 2016. Mr. Stuart will be supported by Xiomara Rosenblatt and Desiree Otillio, and both have conducted the surface water and groundwater monitoring services in the field over the last few years.

Ms. Rosenblatt and Ms. Otillio are experienced in coordinating the field monitoring services with City staff, Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino (Clinical Laboratory), and other stakeholders and individual well owners who are a major part of the MBMP.

The proposed team organization is presented in Figure 1, and brief biographical summaries of the qualifications and expertise of the team is presented in the Organization, Key Personnel, and Resume Section. Full resumes of the team are provided in Appendix A.

Dudek Mailing Address
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California
92024
Dudek Main Point
of Contact
Steven Stuart, PE
[email protected]
760.479.4128
660
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 2 Approach
Dudek has an effective and proven project approach. We manage projects to meet client and technical needs, using sound science and engineering principles, a focus on data quality, and careful management of budget and schedule milestones. Our approach to this and every project begins with solid project management and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) processes.

Our focus on these central tenets to performing environmental work has guided the Dudek team since our groundwater and surface water monitoring services were retained by the City in July 2016.

Project Management Approach
The primary aspects of the Dudek approach to project management include communication, managing adherence to the scope, keeping the progression of work on schedule, cost controls, and predicting and avoiding risk. Dudek prides itself on also integrating a fundamental focus on high- quality work, optimized resource allocation, as well as maintaining focus towards meeting both client and project goals and objectives.

The following sections describe the Dudek project management approach.

Project Planning
Planning is a critical step in the successful management of every project. Dudek Project Manager Steven Stuart and supporting staff, Ms. Rosenblatt and Ms. Otillio will coordinate with City staff and Clinical Laboratory at least one week before each surface water monitoring event, and at least four weeks before each semi-annual groundwater monitoring event. The Dudek team will also coordinate with each individual private well owner at least four weeks before each groundwater monitoring event. Planning considerations include the following:
▪ Clarifying the project requirements and confirming the project goals and outcomes ▪ Communicating with the City and other project stakeholders, including private well owners ▪ Monitoring project budget and schedule, and ensuring project deadlines and milestones are met ▪ Integrating quality standards for all data collection and field support Communication
The most-effective project manager is one who facilitates the continual flow of information, data, instructions, and guidance among the City, Dudek team members, and other jurisdictional stakeholders. When maintaining this flow, we use resources efficiently and minimize wasteful rework. We will achieve constant communication through the following:
▪ Regularly calling or emailing the City’s key contact staff person, Mr. Van Belle, to discuss project milestones, activities, and potential issues
▪ Regularly discussing the project with key project staff to coordinate work efforts, monitor task completion, and review budget conformance; Dudek’s key staff have worked together on this same project and other similar monitoring programs for more than three years 661
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 3 ▪ Communicating immediately with City staff regarding any questionable data, or request further information (e.g., data for recycled water discharged to San Timoteo Creek), necessary to meet the data requirements for the annual MBMP reports ▪ Meeting with or holding conference calls with City staff on any matter related to the MBMP ▪ Diligently documenting issues, action items, and decisions Project Execution
The structure and flexibility of the Dudek team provides the ability to adapt resources and the execution approach to meet the data collection requirements of the project. Dudek has identified two additional staff members, Hugh McManus and Stephanie Chao, who may substitute for Ms.

Rosenblatt and Ms. Otillio should they not be available for a particular task. Mr. McManus and Ms.

Chao are experienced with performing surface water and groundwater monitoring services, and their assistance, when needed, will ensure the project progresses on schedule and that all data collection requirements are met. The Dudek team will notify the City when Mr. McManus and/or Ms.

Chao will substitute the services of Ms. Rosenblatt and Ms. Otillio. Each member of our team understands the data collection requirements in the field and that they represent the City. They will conduct themselves professionally when engaging with other stakeholders and will operate in the best interest of the City.

Project Controls
Dudek’s project manager, Mr. Stuart, will monitor and control the project budget, schedule, and quality using a suite of tools from project inception to completion. Dudek project tools include real- time project budget management, schedule management software, and QA/QC checks. As the project advances, our project manager communicates with the team on a regular basis to evaluate project resource requirements, budget, and schedule.

Quality Control
Steps will be taken in the field, office, and laboratory to ensure that data are transferred accurately from collection to analysis to reporting. Sample documentation, including labeling and chain-of- custody forms, will be completed to ensure that data are transferred accurately to the laboratory.

Notes will be taken in the field to double check chain-of-custody forms for accuracy. Laboratory reports will be checked for completeness. Final laboratory reports will be reviewed by the laboratory quality assurance manager or laboratory project manager for errors before release.

Data collected or received by Dudek will be reviewed for completeness and evaluated for accuracy.

Because Dudek serves as the MBMP Data Manager for the BMZ, STMZ, and YMZ under contract with YVWD, there is a seamless transfer of data collected under this contract to the YVWD MBMP database. This is an efficient and cost-savings approach for the City because Dudek provides the data collection and prepares the annual reports. Collected data are reviewed, quickly evaluated, and compiled in the MBMP database with no additional expense required to format and send data to the Data Manager.

662
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 4 Firm Profile
The Dudek Advantage
We are a California-based environmental and engineering consultant with nationwide offices and more than 700 planners, hydrogeologists, scientists, civil engineers, contractors, and support staff. We assist private and public clients on a range of projects that improve and evolve our communiti es, infrastructure, and natural environment. From planning, design, and permitting through construction, we move projects forward through the complexities of regulatory compliance, budgetary and schedule constraints, and conflicting stakeholder interests.

Dudek is committed to technical excellence and is mindful of client cost considerations, melding the two in our negotiations with regulatory agencies. Our professionals find practical, cost-effective approaches to help you achieve your desired project goals. We work to maintain your trust, which allows us to offer constructive solutions with your project’s long-term success in mind.

Our team focuses on the following:
▪ Water Resource Management. Dudek’s water and wastewater engineering team has decades of experience helping local water agencies evaluate alternatives and develop proven water treatment and management solutions for their districts. ▪ Regulatory Compliance. Our scientists and planners have established strong working relationships with the local staffs of state and federal regulatory agencies. Our knowledge of agency expectations, inter-agency agreements, and local regulations involving your project are vital for keeping projects moving forward and obtaining final approvals. ▪ Natural Resource Management. We provide science-based analysis for preserve design and species survey methodologies, coupled with habitat planning, permitting, design, and installation expertise.
▪ Infrastructure Development. We have in-depth experience managing projects where science, regulatory requirements, and community and stakeholder interests converge. We guide clients through analysis, permitting, and implementing private development and public infrastructure projects.

As a mid-sized firm, we provide the personal service of project managers who stay with your project from start to finish, combined with the breadth and depth of capabilities characteristic of larger firms in order to meet your project’s requirements. Our project managers are empowered to be problem-solvers with the ability to make decisions in a timely fashion to keep project momentum moving forward. We are proud of our low employee turnover; our staff’s long tenure means the project manager you see at the bidding stage will likely be with you at project completion.

Dudek at a Glance
▪ Multidisciplinary
environmental
and engineering
services
▪ 700+ employees
▪ 17 nationwide
offices
▪ Founded in 1980
(41 years in
business);
employee-owned
▪ Top 125 U.S.

Environmental
Firms (Engineering
News-Record)
▪ 92% rating for
reliability,
timeliness, and
responsiveness
(Dun & Bradstreet,
2016)
663
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 5 Location
Principal Office
Project Manager Steven Stuart and supporting staff are located at Dudek’s main corporate office in Encinitas, California. Dudek has satellite offices in Palm Desert, Riverside, and Pasadena that may also provide support to the project and facilitate any meetings requested by the City.

Organization, Key Personnel, and Resumes
Key Personnel and Team Organization
Our team consists of highly educated and credentialed geologists, engineers, and scientists in the full breadth of services required under this contract. Dudek offers the City an experienced team of accessible, committed staff members who are ready to begin work immediately.

The proposed team organization for this project is presented in Table 1, followed by our team’s organization chart (Figure 1). Resumes of key personnel are included in Appendix A.

Table 1. Project Team Members
Name and Role Education and Licenses Brief Qualifications Steven Stuart
Project
Manager,
Planning and
Modeling
San Diego State
University
MS, Geology,
emphasis in
Hydrogeology
University of
California, San Diego
BS, Physics,
specialization in
Earth Sciences
PE, CA Civil
No. 79764
24 years’ experience in California managing groundwater supply projects and hydrogeological investigations.

Responsibilities include the oversight of hazardous waste remediation projects, groundwater resource assessments
and investigations, and regulatory compliance. Experience includes developing SGMA-compliant GSPs; managing
groundwater and surface water monitoring programs; and
designing, calibrating, and implementing numerical models to simulate groundwater flow and contaminant fate and
transport in the unsaturated and saturated zones.

Relevant projects include:
▪ Project Management for Maximum Benefits Monitoring
for City of Beaumont
▪ Project Management for Maximum Benefits Monitoring
and Data Manager for YVWD
▪ Project Manager for San Timoteo Creek Habitat
Monitoring Program for YVWD
▪ Project Manager for Development of
Yucaipa Subbasin GSP
664
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 6 Table 1. Project Team Members
Name and Role Education and Licenses Brief Qualifications Xiomara
Rosenblatt
Field
Monitoring
Services,
Data
Compilation
and Analysis
San Diego State
University
MS, Geology
BS, General Geology
GIT No. 1071
4 years’ experience in California-based field work
specializing in hydrogeology and geotechnical field activities.

Responsibilities include assisting in multiple phases of site assessments, municipal water projects, remediation
projects, and data interpretation. This work has involved site walks; well construction oversight; grading and earthwork evaluations; and soil, surface water, and groundwater
sampling. Experience with direct push drilling, test pit sampling, hollow stem auger drilling, and hand auger
sampling. Skilled in subcontractor oversight, soil logging, and soil and groundwater sampling and evaluation.

Relevant projects include:
▪ Field Technician/Data Analysis for Maximum Benefits
Monitoring for City of Beaumont
▪ Field Technician/Data Analysis for Maximum Benefits
Monitoring and Data Manager for YVWD
▪ Annual Monitoring for the 2011 Natural and Cultural
Resources Management Plan, El Cajon, California
Desiree
Otillio
Field
Monitoring
Services,
Data
Compilation
and Analysis
Humboldt State
University
BS, Geology
3 years’ experience as a staff scientist, specializing in geotechnical and hydrologic lab tests, data analysis,
geophysical field work and modeling, and saltwater
interface groundwater modeling.

Relevant projects include:
▪ Field Technician/Data Analysis for Maximum Benefits
Monitoring for City of Beaumont
▪ Field Technician/Data Analysis for Maximum Benefits
Monitoring and Data Manager for YVWD
▪ Watershed Steward, Redwood National Forest
Hugh
McManus
Field
Monitoring
Services,
Data
Compilation
and Analysis
San Diego State
University
BS, Geology
PG No. 9935
7 years’ experience in the hydrogeological and
environmental sector. Experience in well design and
construction oversight, groundwater resource investigations and management, and groundwater compliance reporting.

Prepared well design and completion documentation,
groundwater resources investigations, groundwater
mitigation and monitoring plans, groundwater compliance reports, and environmental site assessments.

Relevant projects include:
▪ Field Technician/Data Analysis for Maximum Benefits
Monitoring for City of Beaumont
▪ Wells 65, 66, and 209 Municipal Groundwater
Production, Eastern Municipal Water District, Riverside County, California
▪ Annual Monitoring for the 2011 Natural and Cultural
Resources Management Plan, El Cajon, California
665
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 7 Table 1. Project Team Members
Name and Role Education and Licenses Brief Qualifications Stephanie
Chao
Field
Monitoring
Services,
Data
Compilation
and Analysis
San Diego State
University
BS, Environmental
Engineering
1 year experience in environmental engineering, specializing in hydrogeology and hazardous waste assessment. Assisted in assessing potential air, soil, and groundwater
contamination for public agencies and private landowners; in conducting Phase I and II Environmental Site
Assessments; and sampling of soil, soil vapor, air, surface water, and groundwater; as well as data management and
report writing.

Relevant projects include:
▪IPS Facility, Groundwater Monitoring Services, Gardena, California
▪Enhanced Evaluation of the Removal of Contaminants
of Emerging Concern in Decentralized Water Reuse
Systems by Non-Targeted Analysis, The Water
Environment & Reuse Foundation and National Science
Foundation, San Diego State University, San Diego,
California
Notes: PE = Professional Engineer; SGMA = Sustainable Groundwater Management Act; GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan; GIT = Geologist-in-Training; PG = Professional Geologist; Figure 1 Organization chart
666
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 8 Project Experience
Surface and Groundwater Monitoring Services in the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones
Client: CITY OF BEAUMONT
Project Duration: 2016–Ongoing
Dudek Personnel: Steven Stuart, Xiomara Rosenblatt, Desiree Otillio Dudek was retained by the City of Beaumont to provide groundwater and surface water monitoring services in the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones as part of the MBMP outlined in Resolution No. R8-2014-0005 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region and the MBMP Work Plan adopted in 2015. Since 2016, Dudek personnel have coordinated the groundwater and surface water monitoring services with City staff to use and calibrate the City’s monitoring equipment, and have coordinated with Clinical Laboratory to obtain appropriate sample containers and arrange delivery of water quality samples after collection. Dudek personnel have coordinated groundwater monitoring services with the private well owners included in the MBMP monitoring program. Dudek personnel have provided the analytical laboratory results to each respective private well owner as a courtesy for allowing the City to access their well and obtain valuable information on groundwater conditions in the BMZ and STMZ.

Surface and Groundwater Monitoring, Data Management System Development Client: YUCAIPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Project Duration: 2014–Ongoing
Dudek Personnel: Steven Stuart, Xiomara Rosenblatt, Desiree Otillio Dudek was retained by YVWD to provide groundwater and
surface water monitoring services per the 2014
amendment (R8-2014-0005) to the Water Quality Control
Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin and to act as data
manager for information collected in the Yucaipa,
Beaumont, and San Timoteo Groundwater Management
Zones. The primary objective of the MBMP is to collect the data needed for the triennial re-computation of ambient water quality in the Santa Ana Basin. Dudek conducts field monitoring services, including measuring groundwater
levels at wells in the MBMP monitoring network, collecting groundwater quality samples, and compiling water level
and water quality data in a digital data management system. Dudek is currently developing the data management system to house information generated by the many services and operations managed by YVWD, and is configuring the data management system to assist YVWD in organizing and analyzing data used to generate reports required by the regulatory agencies. 667
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 9 Habitat Monitoring Program in San Timoteo Creek
Client: YUCAIPA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Project Duration: 2011–Ongoing
Dudek Personnel: Steven Stuart, Xiomara Rosenblatt, Desiree Otillio Dudek was retained by YVWD to provide biological and
groundwater monitoring services per the Habitat
Monitoring Program (HMP) developed as a component of
the Non-Potable Water Distribution System Project
approved by the District and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in 2006. The purpose of the HMP is to establish adaptive management procedures to
protect riparian habitat and the protected species
dependent on the habitat against potential changes to the environment due to a reduction in discharge of advanced tertiary-treated wastewater to San Timoteo Creek by
YVWD. Dudek provides riparian vegetation monitoring services at three stations adjacent to San Timoteo Creek. One station is located upstream of the discharge outfall, and two stations are located downstream of the outfall. Dudek also installed and continues to monitor groundwater levels at single-completion and dual-nested observation wells to characterize the interconnection of shallow groundwater and surface water. Dudek is responsible for preparing annual monitoring reports documenting the health of the habitat and groundwater conditions for EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Yucaipa Subbasin Client: SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Project Duration: 2018–Ongoing
Dudek Personnel: Steven Stuart
The Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency, an eight- member GSAthat includes three local water purveyors,
three municipalities, and two counties, contracted Dudek to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the high-priority Yucaipa Subbasin. Dudek’s
responsibilities included coordinating and compiling
hydrogeological, climatic, and surface water data to
characterize historical and current conditions in the
subbasin; developing a public outreach plan; designing
and building a digital data management system;
providing grant administration assistance; and leading
public meetings over the course of developing the GSP.

Dudek used the existing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) numerical model and a portion of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley numerical model developed by Geoscience to inform the historical, current, and future water budgets for the subbasin. Future model simulations were designed to simulate the effect of climate change on water supply, and to evaluate potential projects that may be implemented to achieve and/or maintain groundwater sustainability.
668
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 10 Annual Monitoring Report for the Natural and
Cultural Resources Management Plan of 2011
Client: UNDISCLOSED
Project Duration: 2016–Ongoing
Dudek Personnel: Xiomara Rosenblatt, Hugh McManus, Desiree Otillio Dudek conducts semi-annual monitoring of surface
water and lake floor water of Willow Lake in San Diego
County. This project requires compliance monitoring
of the lake to satisfy requirements for a Natural and
Cultural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) for a
local tribal community. Dudek’s role in maintaining
groundwater quality compliance for the NRMP
consists of developing a water quality sampling and
analysis plan for the lake, co nducting in-field
monitoring of surface water using a multiparameter
meter to measure pH, temperature, turbidity, and
conductivity, sampling surface water from the lake
surface and lake floor using a discrete interval
sampler, compiling data sets and analy zing multiyear data sets for trends. Water quality results are compared to water quality objectives established by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan. The data collected each year is included in an annual report that meets reporting requirements in the NRMP .

References
Joe Zoba
General Manager
Yucaipa Valley Water District
2770 Second Street
Yucaipa, California 92399
909.797.5119
[email protected]
Length of services provided: 10 years
Description of services: Monitoring services
and report preparation for the HMP and
MBMP monitoring programs, and
development of the Groundwater
Sustainability Plan for the
Yucaipa Subbasin.

Jennifer Ares
Water Resource Manager
Yucaipa Valley Water District
2770 Second Street
Yucaipa, California 92399
909.790.3301
[email protected]
Length of services provided: 10 years
Description of services: Monitoring services and
report preparation for the HMP and MBMP
monitoring programs, and project manager for
the development of a Data Management System
for YVWD to act as a data repository and report
generator for all services provided by YVWD.
669
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 11 Mark Iverson
President
Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Western Heights Water Company
32352 Avenue D
Yucaipa, California 92399
909.908.6074
[email protected]
Length of services provided: 3 years
Description of services: Development of the
Yucaipa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability
Plan, facilitate and present at public meetings,
and provide project management for all aspects
of developing the GSP.

Matt Howard
Water Resources Senior Planner
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
380 East Vanderbilt Way
San Bernardino, California 92408
909.387.9230
[email protected]
Length of services provided: 3 years
Description of services: Development of the
Yucaipa Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability
Plan, facilitate and present at public meetings,
and provide project management for all aspects
of developing the GSP. Participated in weekly
project update meetings and/or conference calls
with Mr. Howard and oversaw the development
of monthly reports and in invoicing to the
California Department of Water Resources during
the development of the GSP.

Lance Eckhart
General Manager/Chief Hydrogeologist
San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency
1210 Beaumont Avenue
Beaumont, California 92223
951.845.2577
[email protected]
Length of services provided: 1 year
Description of services: SGPWA is a member of
the Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency,
and worked with Mr Eckhart over the last year on
the development of the Yucaipa GSP.

670
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 12 Scope of Services
Since J uly 2016, Dudek has successfully provided the City with the groundwater and surface water monitoring services necessary to meet the monitoring requirements established in the 2015 MBMP Work Plan for the BMZ and STMZ.

Dudek is experienced in all aspects of the monitoring
services, from coordinating with City staff on the use of City equipment in the field and with Clinical Laboratory to obtain the proper sampling containers and sample collection , to contacting individua l well owners to gain access to their wells for the semi-annual groundwater monitoring events.

Dudek has established close and trusted relationship s with City staff and the individual well owners since 2016.

Because of these relationships, and from what we have
learned about this project since 2016, we have improved our efficiency in collecting all data in the field and reduced our costs by approximately 40%. We look forward to
continuing our services for the City in the most efficient and cost-savings manner.

The following scope of services addresses the requested scope presented in the City’s Request for Proposal (RFP), and highlights lessons learned from our recent experiences with conducting the field work in the STMZ and BMZ.

Task 1 – Project Management
Project Manager Steven Stuart, PE, has been the project manager for the groundwater and surface water monitoring services provided by Dudek for the City since July 2016. Mr. Stuart will continue to serve as the project manager for the duration of this contract. Having been involved with the MBMP as the Data Manager for YVWD since 2015, Mr. Stuart is well versed with the monitoring and reporting requirements in the 2014 Basin Plan Amendment and the MBMP. Mr. Stuart is committed to maintaining the working relationship with Mr. Thaxton Van Belle and other City staff and will always respond promptly to inquiries from City staff. Mr. Stuart has managed the groundwater and surface water monitoring services successfully and under budget since our contract with the City was initiated in 2016.

Task 2 – Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Services
Dudek personnel will be tasked with coordinating and conducting all fieldwork and data collection required for the two semi-annual groundwater monitoring events. Field work coordination includes contacting Clinical Laboratory at least four weeks prior to the groundwater sampling event to ensure that all appropriate sample containers and paperwork are prepared and available for Dudek personnel to collect at the City’s offices for use in the field. This also includes Dudek personnel contacting each individual well owner at least four weeks prior to the sampling event to make As a mid-sized firm,
we provide the
personal service of
project managers
who stay with your
project from start to
finish.
671
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 13 arrangements to meet with them and access their respective wells. We have found that this provides enough time for most owners to inform us of the conditions of their wells (e.g., should they be down for service) so that we can modify our schedule to accommodate theirs and collect a representative water quality sample per the MBMP sampling schedule. We have also learned that some owners are not always responsive, and we will make efforts during the monitoring event to contact them at their respective locations and introduce ourselves (if we haven’t met before), announce who we represent and why we are there. Under these circumstances we’ve found that they are receptive to our purpose for monitoring and will permit access to their wells. We’ve never experienced a confrontational situation or have been physically escorted off a premise. Over the past five years, Dudek staff have created a friendly and professional relationship with many of the MBMP community members and stakeholders.

The protocols and list of tasks for collecting the required data from sampling wells in the BMZ and STMZ under responsibility by the City are summarized as follows:
▪ For every semi-annual groundwater monitoring event since 2016, Dudek has collected water- level and/or water-quality data at 35 wells designated under the MBMP as “Field – Beaumont” and at eight (8) wells designated as “Field – Multiple” in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 of the 2015 MBMP Work Plan. Of these 43 wells, 12 wells are either inaccessible because their properties are abandoned, were destroyed, were denied access by their owners, or weren’t sampled for water quality because there is no power to the pumps. Dudek, acting as Data Manager for the MBMP for BMZ, STMZ and YMZ, identified 6 other wells in the MBMP to replace some of these wells, thereby reducing the number of wells for data collection from 43 to 37. Recent development in Beaumont, particularly west of Interstate-10 , is the primary reason for the loss of some of these wells in the MBMP monitoring network. Dudek will rely on its familiarity of the area and relationships with stakeholders and private well owners to identify potential wells as replacement wells for those removed from the network to maintain the spatial data requirements for the MBMP.
▪ Of the 37 wells designated for field monitoring by the City, Dudek will manually measure depths-to-water (DTW) at 19 wells designated for water-level data collection in the MBMP Work Plan. Dudek will follow the data collection protocols included in the “Water-Level Measurement Field Form” in Appendix A of the MBMP Work Plan. The water levels will be measured using a Solinst electric water level sounder provided by Dudek, if the well is accessible. The DTW will be measured at 0.01-foot accuracy. The time and date of each DTW measurement, plus the conditions (e.g. static or dynamic) of the water level at each well, will be recorded in the field form. The MBMP Work Plan requires two consecutive paired water- level measurements under static conditions. A field form will be filled out separately for each well where the DTW was measured.
▪ Water-level data will be downloaded from dedicated pressure transducers, if any, at wells where they are deployed. The water-level data will be barometrically corrected and compiled with the manual water-level measurements if the pressure transducers measure absolute pressure.
▪ Of the 25 wells designated for water quality sampling in the MBMP Work Plan, only 16 wells still exist, are accessible, or have operable pumps to facilitate sample collection. Dudek will collect water quality samples from these wells following the protocols included in the “Water- Quality Measurement Field Form” in Appendix A of the MBMP. All 16 wells are equipped with dedicated pumps that will be operated by their respective owners. The first phase of water 672
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 14 quality sampling is purging the well to remove any stagnant water or other water not representative of the native formation from which the water quality samples are required.

Water quality parameters will be measured in the field to evaluate whether the water is representative of formation groundwater and sample collection may proceed. Water quality samples will be collected while each well is operating. ▪ Field parameters pH, temperature, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen will be measured during the purging process to characterize the water quality and identify when the water produced from the well is representative of native groundwater. Measuring these four field parameters are required per the MBMP Work Plan. Dudek will use a multi-parameter device provided by the City to measure the water quality parameters. Dudek staff will calibrate the device prior to use in the field using calibration standards provided by the City.

The calibration of the multi-parameter device will be documented in calibration records prepared by Dudek staff.
▪ The field sampling forms will include the name of the sampler, the date/time of measurement and sample collection, the volume of water purged before representative water quality samples are collected. Representative samples will be determined when the field parameters monitored during purging are stable within 10% of previous measurements, or when three (3) casing volumes have been purged, if information of the well design is known.
▪ Water quality samples will be collected in sample containers provided by Clinical Laboratory, a California certified analytical laboratory (ELAP Certificate No. 1088). All sample containers will be labeled with the data/time of sample collection, the well ID, identification of the preservative (if any) in the container, and the name of the sampler. A chain-of-custody form will be completed as each sample is collected and submitted with the samples to Clinical Laboratory. The analytical laboratory will analyze each sample for the “Laboratory Parameters” listed in Table 2-4, “Analyte List for the Groundwater Quality Program” in the MBMP Work Plan. All water quality samples will be stored in an ice chest during the sampling event. The samples will be delivered on ice to Clinical Laboratory.

Dudek will make multiple attempts to contact respective well owners and accommodate scheduling needs for all participants of the MBMP.

Task 3 – Bi-Weekly Surface Water Monitoring Services
Dudek personnel will conduct all field work required for surface water monitoring detailed in the MBMP Work Plan. This includes bi-weekly measurements of surface water flows and water quality sampling at designated monitoring points, and up to six water quality sampling events following major storm events that contributed significant runoff to Cooper’s Creek and San Timoteo Creek.

Dudek has learned that precipitation events of at least 0.5-inches of rainfall will provide enough runoff to substantially affect stream flows. The MBMP Work Plan does state that the requirement of sampling stream flows after storm events may be discontinued after 3 to 5 years of implementation of the MBMP. Dudek, under contract with YVWD and ser ving as the Data Manager for the MBMP for the STMZ, BMZ and YMZ, will review all stormwater data for these three Management Zones and provide a recommendation to YVWD that sampling after storm events is no longer required. 673
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 15 Dudek anticipates conducting 29 individual surface water monitoring events in 2022. Bi-weekly surface water monitoring will include the following tasks:
▪ Measure surface water flow on a bi-weekly basis using a pygmy current meter at the following surface water monitoring stations: CC-01, CC-02, and CC-03 on Cooper’s Creek; and STC-01 on San Timoteo Creek in the BMA and STMZ. CC-02 and STC-02 are weather dependent for flow; therefore, these locations will be monitored bi-weekly and will be measured only if sufficient flow is observed. The surface water monitoring stations, TMC-01 and TMC-02, which are located on a tributary to Marshall Creek, are only sampled if the City discharges tertiary treated water to discharge point DP-007. Surface water flow will be calculated using the Velocity -Area Method described in Discharge Measurements at Gaging Stations by USGS (Turnispeed, 2010).
▪ Dudek will use the City’s multiparameter water quality field probe to measure temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, and dissolved oxygen of the sur face water at each monitoring station . These parameters will be recorded in a field sampling form completed for each station.
▪ Water quality samples will be collected in sampling containers provided by Clinical Laboratory, labeled with the data/time of sample collection, the surface water monitoring site ID, identification of the preservative (if any) in the container, and the name of the sampler. A chain-of-custody form will be completed as each sample is collected and submitted with the samples to the analytical laboratory. Each surface water sample will be analyzed for constituents listed in Table 3-1 of the 2015 MBMP Work Plan, which includes the constituents required for groundwater plus ammonia as nitrogen. Silica will not be analyzed in the surface water samples.
▪ Water quality samples may also be collected at NC-02, STC-02, and CC-03 following up to six storm events. Dudek anticipates conducting four additional sampling events to capture stormwater flows outside the regularly scheduled bi-weekly sampling events. Dudek anticipates conducting two stormwater sampling events concurrently with regularly scheduled bi-weekly sampling events. The stormwater event samples will be analyzed for the same parameters required with the bi-weekly samples.
▪ All water quality samples will stored in an ice-chest during the sampling event. The samples will be delivered on ice to Clinical Laboratory. This fee does not include costs for the analyses performed by Clinical Laboratory. Dudek anticipates that the City will receive invoices directly from Clinical Laboratory for payment on all surface water samples analyzed. ▪ Dudek will provide maintenance and troubleshooting of City’s pygmy current meter and YSI pro plus as needed.

674
Item 13.

RFP for Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Services for the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones 16 Cost Proposal
Dudek’s cost proposal can be found in the accompanying sealed envelope, as instructed in the RFP.

Additional Information
Project Familiarity
Dudek staff are very familiar with the monitoring requirements outlined in the MBMP Work Plan and the Maximum Benefits Commitments for the City. Having provided the groundwater and surface water monitoring services since 2016, Dudek is well aware of the many details and issues related to each monitoring station and groundwater well, such as accessing the surface water sites and handling water quality profiling while wells are purged for sample collection.
▪ Familiarity and rapport with local community participants in the MBMP leads to an efficient collection of
representative data that benef its not only the City but the individual well owner.
▪ Refined data collection practices that are efficient and cost-effective.
▪ No expensive learning curve because our staff is well versed and experienced with conducting the surface water quality parameter monitoring and flow measurements in the field.
▪ Staff with the skills to troubleshoot and repair equipment in the field; this means our staff can make repairs in the field to ensure that data is collected on schedule and under budget. ▪ Dudek serves as the Data Manager for YVWD in collecting, compiling and documenting all data collected for the MBMP in the BMZ, STMZ and YMZ. The benefit of this is a seamless and very cost-effective way for data collected for the City to be included in the annual MBMP reports submitted to the Santa Ana Water Board. No additional expense is required by the City to compile and submit the data to the Data Manager.

Insurance/Certification
Dudek can affirm that all professional liability insurance requirements stipulated in the RFP will be in force at the time of contract execution.
675
Item 13.

Appendix A
Resumes
676
Item 13.

1 Steven Stuart, PE

PRINCIPAL HYDROGEOLOGIST
Steven Stuart is a professional hydrogeologist with 24years’ experience managing California groundwater supply projects, subsurface remediation projects, and hydrogeological
investigations. He has experience with collecting and analyzing hydrogeologic and geologic data, designing and constructing water production wells and observation wells, designing and
implementing 2D and 3D finite difference numerical models to simulate groundwater flow in the unsaturated and saturated zones, and evaluating the feasibility of potential surface water infiltration projects to recharge local groundwater basins.

In addition, Mr. Stuart has managed and performed various onsite field activities such as aquifer testing to estimate aquifer properties and collecting groundwater samples to evaluate water quality. He has designed numerical groundwater models utilizing the windows based pre/post-processor Groundwater Vistas and conducted simulations with the finite-difference codes MODFLOW and MODFLOW -SURFACT. Mr. Stuart’s numerical modeling experience includes the simulation of contaminant migration, well-field capture zones, and possible future effects on groundwater quality and availability due to changing well-field production rates and/or increased recharge of aquifers.

Pr oje ct Experience
Water Resources and Supply
Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Yucaipa Basin, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. Serving as project manager for the development of a GSP for the high priority Yucaipa groundwater basin. Overseeing the coordination and collaboration of nine member agencies in the Yucaipa Groundwater Sustainability Agency with the hydrogeology, public outreach, grant administration, and data management systems personnel at Dudek.

Maximum Benefits Monitoring Program for Yucaipa Valley Water District and City of Beaumont.

Serving as data project manager for the Yucaipa, Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones pursuant to the maximum benefit commitments specified in the 2014 amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. The primary objective of the maximum benefit groundwater monitoring program is to collect the data needed for the triennial re-computation of ambient water quality in the Santa Ana River Basin. Responsibilities include collecting, compiling and analyzing groundwater and surface water data to evaluate how each water agency and public entity is operating to maintain the “maximum benefit” of the natural water resource in the upper northeastern section of the Chino Basin that includes San Timoteo Creek.

Education
San Diego State
University
MS, Geology
(Hydrogeology
emphasis)
University of California,
San Diego
BS, Physics (Earth
Sciences
specialization)
Certifications
Professional Engineer
(PE), CA No. 79764
Professional
Affiliations
Member of National
Ground Water
Association
677
Item 13.

2 Water Budget Analysis for Rancho Pauma Mutual Water Company. Served as project manager in conducting a water budget analysis for an alluvial sub-basin in Pauma Valley, California. The analysis included an estimate of groundwater in storage under existing conditions and an evaluation of potential impacts to storage by anticipated increases in groundwater production from the basin. The water budget analysis evaluated how water inputs from infiltrating rainfall, applied irrigation, discharge from the San Luis Rey River, and imported water measured against outflows by evapotranspiration and pumping. The analysis estimated a level of groundwater production that may lead to overdraft and declines in groundwater storage.

Groundwater Availability Evaluation for Joshua Basin Water District. Modified an existing 3-D MODFLOW numerical model developed by USGS to evaluate potential changes to groundwater storage resulting from increased pumping from the basin to meet the projected water demands of a growing population. The USGS numerical model did not account for recharge derived from septic system discharges. To estimate the contribution of septic system discharge to basin recharge, a variably saturated numerical flow model was developed using the USGS code, VS2DT. The variably saturated model results indicated a potentially marked contribution to recharge from septic systems if the systems incorporated seepage pits set 12 to 20 feet below land surface. Predictive simulations must include septic system discharges as a component of recharge to the basin to more accurately evaluate the impact of population growth on groundwater storage.

Water Availability Analysis for Water Appropriation Application, Eastern Municipal Water District.

Served as project manager in preparing a supplemental WAA for EMWD’s 2009 application to appropriate water from an unnamed subterranean stream tributary to the West San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. The supplemental WAA was requested by the Division of Water Rights at the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to include an evaluation of the water that is likely to be available in typical dry years as well as normal years, the water available after factoring in prior rights, and the potential impacts of diverting the subterranean stream flow on groundwater dependent ecosystems. The WAA also included a flow frequency analysis per the Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams. The supplemental WAA concluded that there was unappropriated water available, the flow frequency analysis indicated annual variation in locally derived water, but operations at Perris Reservoir maintained a constant flux of locally derived water to the subterranean stream, and no impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems. The SWRCB issued a permit to appropriate water from the subterranean stream in October 2018.

Third Party Review of Hydrogeological and Biological Resources for City of Poway. Served as project manager in providing a third party review of previous hydrogeological and biological investigations related to groundwater production and riparian habitat at the Maderas Golf Club in Poway, California. Groundwater production at the Maderas Golf Club is regulated by a conditional use permit (CUP), which included an operational plan and monitoring program to minimize potential impacts to groundwater levels at adjacent residential wells and riparian habitat. Findings from reviewing the previous investigations indicated limited hydraulic connection between the golf course wells and wells in adjacent residential community; and no hydraulic connection with groundwater in shallow alluvium that supports the local riparian habitat. Modifications were made to the operational plan and monitoring program of the CUP to provide a more efficient pumping schedule, but retain the necessary monitoring protocols to protect the water resources of nearby residential well owners. Mr. Stuart presented the findings from the third-party review to the Poway City Council. 678
Item 13.

3 Nitrate Study for Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ramona Municipal Water District.

Served as project manager in preparing a nitrate study per the Master Recycling Permit for the RMWD Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant (SMWTP) in Ramona, California. The intent of the study was to evaluate whether or not recycled water originating from SMWTP and used for irrigation purposes would cause nitrate concentrations in groundwater to exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective. The sole user of recycled water from SMWTP is a golf course. The study estimated an agronomic rate for irrigated turf grass and evaluated the fate and transport of nitrate from land surface to the underlying groundwater table. Concurrently, a nitrate loading study was prepared to evaluate whether the use of recycled water and nitrogen fertilizer exceeded the agronomic rate of the irrigated turf and posed a potential threat to groundwater quality.

Nitrate Study for North City Water Reclamation Plant, City of San Diego. Served as project manager in preparing a nitrate study per the Master Recycling Permit (Order R9-2015 -0091 issued by RWQCB) for the City of San Diego North City Water Reclamation Plant in San Diego, California. The RWQCB required that the City conduct a nitrate study to demonstrate whether or not the discharge from the NCWRP will cause groundwater to exceed the groundwater quality objective of 45 mg/L for NO3 in areas with applicable numerical groundwater quality objectives. The nitrate study included a review and assessment of the existing treatment processes in removing nitrogen; a review of proposed modifications to the existing treatment process to enhance the removal of nitrogen and improve water quality in the recycled water effluent; a review and assessment of the fate and transport of nitrogen in recycled water from application for irrigation purposes to groundwater; a review and assessment of the application of recycled water at agronomic rates; a review of groundwater monitoring; and a review of other best management practices. Also evaluated the assimilative capacity in groundwater for nitrate in areas served with recycled water from NCWRP for irrigation purposes. The report concluded that the use of recycled water from NCWRP for irrigation purposes would not increase the ambient concentration of nitrate in groundwater above 45 mg/L.

Water Well Aquifer Study for City of San Clemente. Served as project manager investigating two City of San Clemente water supply wells that experienced degrading water quality and performance. The investigation included continuous fluid temperature and resistivity surveys under static and dynamic conditions, flow meter surveys characterizing the flow profile during pumping, and depth- discrete water quality sampling to identify the sources of poor water quality to each well. Findings from the investigation indicated that one of the wells was influenced by the presence of incipient seawater or the initial intrusion of formational saline water. Dudek provided recommendations to the City to reduce pumping at the well influenced by higher TDS water and continue monitoring, and to seal off the lower screen interval where poorer water quality enters the well.

Well Rehabilitation for Joshua Basin Water District. Served as project manager in directing well rehabilitation efforts for a major water supply well operated by Joshua Basin Water District in Joshua Tree, California. The well experienced marked degradation in water quality following initial attempts of rehabilitation. Dudek prepared a more aggressive approach utilizing a focused intake submersible pump assembly tool to isolate extraction to a 10-foot zone. Rehabilitation included aggressive agitation during mechanical development with a multidisc swab tool and disinfection with a chlorine enhancer. Dudek oversaw and documented all phases of rehabilitation, including the collection and submittal of water quality samples to evaluate progress. 679
Item 13.

4 Installation of a Municipal Water Supply Well for Joshua Basin Water District in Joshua Tree, California. Served as project manager in overseeing the drilling, design, construction, development and testing of a production well and observation well for the Joshua Basin Water District.

Installations of the wells were funded by a grant provided by FEMA, which required detailed invoicing, progress reports, and accounting for all aspects of the project.

Groundwater Monitoring Wells at San Sevaine Spreading Basins for Inland Empire Utilities Agency.

Served as project manager for locating and designing monitoring wells that satisfy the monitoring requirements established by the DPH for the use of recycled water discharged to spreading basins for the purpose of recharging groundwater. Also provide design specifications for the installation of nested lysimeters to provide pore water samples at discrete depths beneath the spreading basins to evaluate soil filtration and movement of recycled water through the upper unsaturated zone.

Feasibility Study to Use Lower Tijuana River Basin for Aquifer Storage and Recover for City of San Diego. Served as project manager in conducting a feasibility study evaluating the potential use of the lower Tijuana River valley alluvial aquifer and underlying San Diego Formation to seasonally store and recover recycled water originating from the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant in Imperial Beach, California. The study included an analysis of groundwater level data obtained from existing wells and results of previous aquifer tests conducted by Dudek. The study concluded that it was feasible to store 4 MGD recycled water in the eastern half of the lower Tijuana River basin, resulting in an approximate 5 feet rise in the water table.

Ecohydrology
Habitat Monitoring Program for Yucaipa Valley Water District. Serving as project manager for a habitat monitoring program (HMP) in the San Timoteo Creek study area to evaluate the potential impact to riparian habitat resulting from the reduced discharge of recycled water to San Timoteo Creek. The HMP includes collecting surface water and groundwater data, coupled with vegetation surveys and aerial imaging, at monitoring stations both upstream and downstream of the existing recycled water discharge point. Data was collected two years prior to reductions in discharge to establish baseline conditions for groundwater and riparian habitat, followed by biweekly to semiannual monitoring to evaluate potential effects due to reduced discharge. Responsible for preparing annual reports for Yucaipa Valley Water District and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that document the findings from the previous water year and assessing conditions relative to the baseline condition.

San Diego River and San Vicente Creek Biological and Groundwater Resources Monitoring for City of San Diego. Served as project manager for designing and implementing a monitoring program to establish baseline groundwater level conditions in shallow alluvium underlying riparian habitat downstream of El Capitan Reservoir and San Vicente Reservoir for the City of San Diego.

Monitoring stations were installed downstream of San Diego River and San Vicente Creek, and downstream of their confluence, with two control points located in nearby drainages not influenced by modifications to stream flow originating in the upper reach of San Diego River. Soil moisture sensors and piezometers were installed at monitoring stations located just downstream of the El Capitan earthen dam to characterize the soil moisture profile from land surface to the shallow water table.
680
Item 13.

5 Groundwater Site Investigation for Sweetwater Authority. Served as project manager of an investigation of existing groundwater conditions at the Upper Sweetwater Reservoir Habitat Management Program area. The October 2007 Harris Fire caused extensive fire damage to the habitat in the area. Sweetwater Authority suspected that decaying baseline vegetation, the invasion of non-native species such as giant reed and salt cedar, and low moisture content of the shallow subsurface soil contributed to the extensive damage caused by the fire. Consequently, as part of the process to develop a conceptual design to recover the habitat, an investigation into existing groundwater and soil moisture conditions was implemented to estimate the potential response of the water table to proposed modifications of the HMP area floodplain. A network of six shallow groundwater observation wells, plus two soil moisture sensor arrays, were installed to characterize the soil moisture profile from land surface to the water table. A 2-D variably saturated flow numerical model was developed to simulate the potential effects to shallow groundwater levels and soil moisture when modifying a floodplain for a riparian habitat restoration project. The numerical model was used to estimate the depth to the water table and the height of the capillary fringe above the water table. Results from the numerical model were used to design a habitat mitigation plan to sustain new riparian habitat.

Gobernadora Multipurpose Basin for Santa Margarita Water District. Conducted an investigation to assess the potential impacts to groundwater dependent habitat downstream of a proposed diversion of stream flow to a new recharge basin. The investigation included the modification of an existing 3-D finite-difference numerical model to evaluate the potential impacts to groundwater levels at a downstream ecological reserve when diverting stream flow and pumping groundwater at a multipurpose basin upstream of the reserve. The modified numerical incorporated monthly stress periods to simulate monthly variations in rainfall, stream flow and evapotranspiration, which was defined using transpiration rates for riparian vegetation mapped in the reserve. The numerical model results were used to develop an operational plan for the basin to minimize the impacts to downstream habitat.

Investigation of Potential Impacts on Grapevine Canyon Wetlands for Tejon Mountain Village, LLC.

Served as project manager in evaluating the potential impact of increased groundwater production on wetland habitat in Grapevine Canyon in Tejon Ranch. The investigation included identifying sources of water to Grapevine Creek, which were rainfall and storm water runoff, discharge from Tejon Lake, and springs. A network of shallow groundwater wells, plus soil moisture sensor arrays, were installed to complement existing, deeper wells in the area. Aquifer testing and water quality sampling provided data to evaluate hydraulic connections and sources of shallow groundwater supporting the local wetland habitat. A principal component analysis was conducted to identify source water contributions to the near surface groundwater.

Groundwater and Soil Moisture Content Monitoring Report for Newhall Land. Served as project manager in evaluating seasonal water quantity and quality requirements of cismontane alkali marsh on Newhall Ranch in Los Angeles County. Directed the installation and monitoring of shallow piezometers, soil moisture tensiometers, continuous groundwater level measurements and periodic water quality sampling during the project. Conducted short-term in situ hydraulic tests (i.e., slug tests) at piezometers to characterize the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow subsurface. Soil samples were analyzed to characterize the capillary pressure curves and groundwater flow in the shallow unsaturated subsurface.
681
Item 13.

6 Soil and Groundwater Remediation
Soil Vapor Extraction in Los Angeles for Lonza, Inc. Served as project manager in overseeing the design, installation and operation of an aggressive soil vapor extraction and treatment program to remediate the shallow 15 feet of soil impacted by VOCs originating from former chemical manufacturing operations. The program included the installation of shallow soil vapor extraction wells at 10-foot centers with soil vapor sampling probes installed at midpoints between SVE wells.

The SVE well field was designed to provide the ability to direct extraction at select areas of the treatment area. The aggressive SVE program reduced residual concentrations of chlorinated solvents to levels where the State of California issued a No Further Action letter.

Hexavalent Chromium Remediation at former Marley Cooling Tower Company Site in Stockton, California. Currently serving as project manager in overseeing data collection, monitoring and reporting requirements for remediation efforts targeting chromium-contaminated groundwater.

Supervised the installation and testing of additional wells to the groundwater monitoring network.

Provided oversight of a bench scale study characterizing the soil reductant demand to evaluate the effectiveness of an in situ chemical reduction program to reduce concentrations of hexavalent chromium in groundwater. Supervised the preparation of semiannual groundwater monitoring reports and 5-year Review reports for the Department of Toxic Substances Control and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Designed a 3-D MODFLOW groundwater numerical model to simulate the transport of dissolved chromium in aquifer units beneath the site. The numerical model is used to evaluate the hydraulic capture and containment of a hexavalent chromium plume by a remedial well field.

Proposed modifications in the pumping scheme of the remedial well field are evaluated by using the numerical model to predict the effect of such changes.

Soil Remediation for Huffy Corporation, Azusa California. Served as project manager in overseeing the installation of nested soil vapor extraction wells to remediate 400 feet of unsaturated soil impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Supervised and logged the drilling, construction, and development of SVE wells using the STRATEX air rotary drilling method. SVE included the use of a resin to remove VOCs, followed later by the use of GAC to enhance treatment system uptime and efficiency.

Rehabilitation of Groundwater Remediation Wells in Costa Mesa, California. Supervised the rehabilitation of two remedial extraction wells using Welgicide to break down bacterial slime (mostly sulfate-reducing bacteria) and mineral scale, followed by acid solution treatment, pH neutralization, and re-development.

Aquifer Testing and Simulated Well Field Capture in Orange County, California. Served as project manager in coordinating and implementing a 5-day constant-rate aquifer test of an existing remedial extraction well to estimate aquifer properties and predict the long-term sustainable extraction rate. Results from the aquifer test were incorporated into a numerical model to simulate groundwater flow and the capture zone of the remedial extraction well.

Deep Groundwater Monitoring Well Network Installation, Chico, California. Provided oversight for the drilling, construction, and development of a network of groundwater monitoring wells using mud rotary. Responsibilities included coordinating underground utilities surveys with DigAlert and local entities, logistical planning of materials and drilling activities with drilling contractors, coordinating the sampling and disposal of cuttings and drilling fluids, and coordinating the development of the wells and temporary containment of purged groundwater.
682
Item 13.

7 Groundwater Monitoring and Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Remediation Project, Costa Mesa, California. Served as project manager for the collection, compilation, and analysis of groundwater data to evaluate and report on the cleanup of a site impacted by chlorinated solvents. Cleanup included a pump-and-treat system with an extensive remediation well field and treatment using air stripping and GAC. Responsible for submitting quarterly groundwater monitoring reports to the RWQCB. Mr. Stuart also designed and implemented an in situ bioremediation pilot program to enhance cleanup efforts by introducing ethanol to increase the sequential biodegradation of chlorinated solvents.

Numerical Modeling
Numerical Modeling with MODFLOW-OWHM for Borrego Water District. Modified an existing 3-D MODFLOW -OWHM numerical model developed by USGS to incorporate recent groundwater level and pumping data for the Borrego Groundwater Basin. The updated model was used to validate calibration of the numerical model and define uncertainty in estimates of aquifer storage. The numerical model will also be used to identify data gaps in the basin and to guide additional investigative work to improve characterization of the basin. The model is being used to help develop the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the critically overdrafted Borrego Valley Groundwater Basin.

Numerical Modeling for Paradise Valley Hydrogeological and Well Construction Services for Glorious Land Company. Modified an existing 2-D MODLFOW numerical model by expanding the model domain with additional layers to better represent the geology of the groundwater basin and incorporating site-specific aquifer characteristics derived from local aquifer testing. The numerical model was used to simulate a number of scenarios to evaluate potential changes in water table elevation resulting from additional recharge from the discharge of imported water to a proposed spreading basin.

Numerical Modeling of Potential Impacts to Groundwater Quality, Ramona Municipal Water District.

Prepared a 3- D groundwater flow and transport model using the MODFLOW-SURFACT code to evaluate the potential impact of population growth on the quality of groundwater in the Kimball and Gower Hydrologic Sub-Areas near Ramona, California. The numerical model was calibrated to steady- state and transient water level conditions, and to concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) in groundwater. A series of simulations were conducted to evaluate the potential impact on groundwater quality with an increased use of imported water in the basins for various climatic conditions.

Numerical Modeling of the Fate and Transport of Pure Phase Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface. Designed, constructed and implemented a 3-D numerical model using the T2VOC code to simulate the multiphase transport of chlorinated solvents from land surface through the unsaturated zone and into groundwater. The numerical model incorporated the influence of a nearby leaking canal and septic discharges on groundwater flow in the unsaturated zone.

Investigation of Treated Wastewater Discharge to Percolation Beds in Rancho Santa Fe, California.

Served as project manager in designing and implementing an investigation of the infiltration capacity of existing percolation beds at the Ranhco Santa Fe Water Pollution Control Facility. The goal of the investigation was to evaluate whether the existing percolation beds could accommodate an increase in treated wastewater discharge to 750,000 GPD. The investigation included the construction of a percolation test bed, the installation of shallow groundwater observation wells 683
Item 13.

8 around the test bed and nested piezometers in the test bed, and the development of a 3-D numerical model to simulate the infiltration of water through the percolation beds to the water table. The numerical model was calibrated to observations collected during the infiltration test, and used to simulate the potential effects to the water table with an increase in discharge to the percolation beds. Managed the design, construction, and implementation of a surface water infiltration experiment.
684
Item 13.

1 Xiomara Rosenblatt, GIT

GEOLOGIST
Xiomara Rosenblatt is a California Registered Geologist in Training with 4 years’ experience, specializing in hydrogeology and geotechnical consulting. Ms. Rosenblatt has assisted in multiple phases of site assessments, municipal water projects and remediation projects. This work involving site walks, well construction oversight, grading and earthwork evaluations, and soil, soil vapor, and groundwater sampling. She has experience with direct push drilling, test pit sampling, hollow stem auger drilling, and hand auger sampling. Ms. Rosenblatt is skilled in subcontractor oversight, soil logging, and soil and groundwater sampling and evaluation.

Relevant Project Experience
Otay Percolation Study, San Diego County, California. Served as a staff geologist. Logged 5 percolation boreholes and observed percolation tests to assess how surface water moved through the top 5 feet of sediment on the subject property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, San Diego County, Palm Springs, Oahu within California, and Hawai’i. Served as a geologist on several Phase l ESA. Conducted site reconnaissance and report preparation for Phase I Environmental Site Evaluations. (2020–2021 ) Well 65, 66 and 209 Municipal Groundwater Production Well, Eastern Municipal Water District, Riverside County, California. Served as staff geologist. Part of a team that provided construction oversight of 3 municipal groundwater production wells. Tasks included geologic logging and oversight during well reaming, mechanical well development chemical development, well construction and aquifer testing. (2021)
Municipal Water Well Installation, Borrego Water District, Borrego Springs, California. Served as staff geologist for installation of new municipal water supply well ID5-15. Part of a team that provided lithologic logging for the pilot borehole, supervision of well construction, well development, and aquifer testing. (2021)
Maximum Benefits Monitoring Program, City of Beaumont and Yucaipa Valley Water District, Riverside County, California. Served as field geologist and conducted surface water sampling and stream flow measurements in the Beaumont and San Timoteo Groundwater Management Zones for bimonthly and semi-annual. Data was used to evaluate how each water agency and public entity is operating to maintain the “maximum benefit” of the natural water resource in the upper northeastern section of the Chino Basin that includes San Timoteo Creek. Collected ground water samples for Yucaipa Valley Water District for PFAS testing.

Education
San Diego State
University
Bachelor of Science,
Geological Sciences,
2018
San Diego State
University,
Master of Science,
Geological Sciences,
2021
Certifications
Geologist in Training,
Certification # 1071
OHSA 40-hour

HAZWOPER
APGNA Nuclear Gauge
Safety Training
Red Cross First Aid
Professional
Affiliations
San Diego Association
of Geologists
685
Item 13.

2 Mountain Avenue West Replenishment Basin Project, Eastern Municipal Water District, San Jacinto, California. Served as staff geologist. Provided construction management services including surface completions for nested monitoring wells and transducer installation. (2020–2021) Annual Monitoring Report for the Natural and Cultural Resources Management Plan of 2011, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, El Cajon, California. Served as staff geologist. Collected and reported water quality samples from Willow Lake. Water quality samples were collected by kayak at various depths and locations. Sampling results were compared to water quality objectives established in the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for that section of Sweetwater River. The annual reports provided information for the management and protection of the Sycuan Band’s natural and cultural resources. (2021) Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation Project, Former Kearney-KFP Facility, Stockton, California. Served as field geologist. Performed groundwater well redevelopment using a bailer and pump to flush water through the filter pack on two wells which had previously been producing fine sediments. (2021)
Relevant Previous Experience
Jefferson’s Makers Quarter, JPI, San Diego California. Served as staff geologist. Conducted field sampling for the remedial grading plan. Scheduled subcontractors, sampled 16 test pits, used a PID and test to classify soil, and coordinated the laboratory testing. (2019) Horton Plaza Geotechnical and Fault Investigation, Horton SPC, San Diego, California. Served as a geologist for the geotechnical and fault hazard investigation for the redevelopment of Horton Plaza.

Prepared City of San Diego right-of-way and traffic control permits and County of San Diego DEH permit. Scheduled subcontractors for traffic control, steel plates, asphalt coring, utility clearance, drilling, and backhoe services. Managed and logged a 206-foot fault trench within the City of San Diego right-of-way and logged one 130-foot boring, including suspension logging. Prepared cross sections, geotechnical maps, fault trench logs, and the final report. (2019) 729 Emerald Drive, Lennar, Vista, California. Served as a geologist for a seepage evaluation. Hand augured 10 borings to determine direction of flow and depth of groundwater migration caused by excess irrigation. Prepared cross sections based on lithology and grading plans and retaining wall and subdrain design recommendations and prepared final report. (2020) G Street Pump Station Geotechnical Investigation, City of Chula Vista, Chula Vista, California.

Served as a geologist for the Geotechnical Investigation for the G Street Pump Station for the City of National City. Organized utility location services; prepared the County of San Diego permits; scheduled subcontractors; conducted field work; scheduled geotechnical testing; prepared cross sections, boring logs, and vicinity maps for project report; and prepared final report. (2020) Wells Park Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Feasibility Evaluation, City of El Cajon, El Cajon, California. Served as a geologist for the City of El Cajon Wells Park geotechnical investigation and implementation of stormwater best management practices. Scheduled subcontractors, drilled one geotechnical boring and two infiltration test pits, and conducted the infiltration testing. Produced a geotechnical map, evaluated infiltration test results, prepared stormwater best management practices document, made recommendations for surface water infiltrations and bioswales, and prepared final report. (2020) 686
Item 13.

1 Desiree Otillio

GEOLOGIST
Desiree Otillio is a geologist with 3 years’ experience in environmental assessment, groundwater and soil remediation, groundwater sampling and surface water studies, and well construction and development. She has experience with direct push drilling, shallow stem auger drilling, soil logging, as well as soil and groundwater sampling. Ms. Otillio is a skilled field scientist who provides efficient and impactful products to meet client needs through effective communication and technical writing.

Relevant Project Experience
Annual Groundwater Monitoring, Stockton, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Served as staff geologist. Provided project support for soil and groundwater remediation projects, including organizing field operations and logistics, completing groundwater monitoring and sampling in the field. Prepare quarterly reports for state regulators and clients.

Soil Sampling Plan and Health and Safety Report Drafting, Various Client/Locations. Assisted and wrote several health and safety work plans and soil sampling work plans for soil remediation projects. Worked within relevant and applicable standards to produce cost effective and realistic solutions to meet regulatory and client needs.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, and Santa Barbara Counties, California and Yuma County, Arizona. Served as staff geologist on projects with varied commercial outcomes and provided analysis of multiple types of properties ranging in use from industrial to residential. Provided research and preparation of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. Completed reports to ASTM standards and within proj ect budgets.

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California. Served as staff geologist. Conducted relevant sampling events to determine subsurface conditions of project sites with varied commercial outcomes. Analyzed data and compared results to the applicable regulatory contaminate action limits, to determine further actions for site development. Prepare report and figures within project budgets.

Well 65, 66 and 209 Municipal Groundwater Production Well, Eastern Municipal Water District, Riverside County, California. Served as staff geologist. Part of a team that provided construction oversight of three municipal groundwater wells. Performed geologic logging during initial reaming, oversight during mechanical well development, chemical development, pump development, well construction and aquifer testing. (2021)
Education
Humboldt State
University
BS, Geology, 2018
Programs
Watershed Stewards
Program member,
2019
Certifications
40-Hour OSHA

HAZWOPER
Professional
Affiliations
Geological Society
of America
San Diego Association
of Geologists
687
Item 13.

2 Well 205 Municipal Groundwater Production Well, Eastern Municipal Water District, Riverside County, California. Served as staff geologist. Part of a team that provided construction oversight of a 1,140 -foot municipal groundwater production well. Performed geologic logging during initial reaming, oversight during mechanical well development, chemical development, pump development, well construction and aquifer testing. (2020) Municipal Well Development for the Mountain Avenue Recharge Project, Eastern Municipal Water District, San Jacinto, California. Served as staff geologist. Performed oversight of pump development of eight 200-foot monitoring wells. Over sight of development for two deep municipal groundwater production wells as part of a larger team. (2020) Figure Drafting and Creation in ArcGIS, Various Clients/Locations. Produced a wide variety of figures and graphics for various reports including groundwater sustainability plans, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, hazardous materials business plans, soil remediation plans, and annual groundwater remediation reports.

Relevant Previous Experience
Watershed Steward, Redwood National Park. Completed one year of service as part of the California Conservation Core and AmeriCorps, Watershed Stewards Program. Worked directly with Redwood National Park geologist and hydrologist to monitor the Prairie Creek, and Redwood Creek watershed. Performed hydrologic monitoring on a daily basis, to assess hydrologic conditions of sediment loading in the watershed. Performed weekly maintenance and repairs of monitoring equipment in a remote setting. Developed a stream health assessment survey, and installed channel markers for future surveyors. Managed large data sets and drafted figures in ArcGIS for various environmental reports.
688
Item 13.

1 Hugh McManus, PG

GEOLOGIST
Hugh McManus is a geologist with 7 years’ experience in the hydrogeological and environmental fields. Mr. McManus has expericence in well design and construction oversight, groundwater resource investigations and management, and groundwater compliance reporting.

Mr. McManus has prepared well design and completion
documentation, groundwater resources investigations, groundwater mitigation and monitoring plans, groundwater compliance reports, and environmental site assessments.

Mr. McManus’s field experience includes conducting lithologic logging and geophysical interpretation, aquifer testing and analysis, and surface water and groundwater monitoring. Mr. McManus has conducted environmental sampling for groundwater, surface water, and soil.

Relevant Project Experience
Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation, Glenville Property LLC, Los Angeles, California. Served as field geologist during the drilling, design, and construction of three groundwater monitoring wells. Wrote a well installation work plan and performed on-site lithologic logging to design monitoring wells in a shallow contaminated aquifer. The wells were used to perform ongoing sampling for compliance with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

National Pollution Elimination Discharge System Permit, City of Solana Beach, Solana Beach, California. Served as field geologist and conducted groundwater and surface water sampling to obtain a National Pollution Elimination Discharge System permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board for dewatering during the construction of a pump station owned by the City of Solana Beach.

Well Completion Report for Monitoring Wells MW-403 and MW-452, and Replacement Lysimeters L-242R and L-244R, Former Marley Cooling Technologies Facilities, Stockton, California. Served as staff geologist and performed lithologic logging, well and lysimeter construction oversight, and well completion reporting for two groundwater monitoring wells drilled with direct mud rotary. The purpose for the monitoring wells was to improve the definition of the distribution of chromium concentrations in the shallow and intermediate zones at the former Marley Cooling Technologies Facility in Stockton, California. Lysimeters were installed to measure chromium concentrations in soil moisture adjacent to the source of chromium contamination. A completion report was submitted and approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Education
San Diego State
University
BS, Geology
Certifications
Professional Geologist
(PG), CA No. 9935
Occupational Safety
and Health
Administration (OSHA)
40-Hour HAZWOPER
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
and U.S. Department
of Transportation
(DOT) Hazardous
Waste Handler
Training
Professional
Affiliations
California
Groundwater
Resources Association
689
Item 13.

2 Installation of Groundwater Monitoring Wells KI-20 and KS-10, Former Kearney-KPF Facility, Stockton, California. Served as staff geologist and performed lithologic logging, well construction oversight, and well completion reporting for two groundwater monitoring wells drilled with direct mud rotary. The purpose of the monitoring wells was to improve the definition of constituents of concern in the shallow and upper-intermediate zones of a site contaminated with chlorinated solvents and 1,4 Dioxane. The completion report was submitted and approved by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Delineation and Destruction of Well B-1, Former Kearney-KPF Facility, Stockton California. Served as staff geologist. Performed lithologic logging, groundwater sampling, soil sampling, well destruction oversight, and reporting for three temporary exploratory borings using a hollow stem auger to delineate the impact of soil and groundwater contamination from a release of oil in a groundwater monitoring well (B-1). Served as field geologist and collected groundwater samples from temporary wells, collected soil samples from a split spoon sampler, and recorded lithology. Additionally, ensured proper shallow zone monitoring well destruction to mitigate potential threats to the groundwater, in accordance with the San Jaquan County Well Standards, the Department of Toxic Substances Control Well Design and Construction for Monitoring Groundwater at Contaminated Sites, and California Department of Water Resources Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90. Findings of the investigation were submitted and approved by the Department of Toxic Substance Control.

Installation of Groundwater Monitoring Wells KI-20 and KS-10, Former Kearney-KPF Facility, Stockton, California. Served as staff geologist and performed lithologic logging, well construction oversight, and well completion reporting for two groundwater monitoring wells. The purpose of the monitoring wells was to improve the definition of constituents of concern in the shallow and upper- intermediate zones of a site contaminated with chlorinated solvents and 1,4 Dioxane. The completion report was submitted and approved by the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation Project, Former Kearney-KFP Facility, Stockton, California. Served as field geologist and performed groundwater monitoring and sampling for a site contaminated with chlorinated solvents and 1,4-dioxane. Presented sample results in semi-annual reports to the Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Perris North Basin Groundwater Contamination Prevention and Remediation Program, Eastern Municipal Water District, Moreno Valley, California. Served as project geologist for the design and construction of three municipal groundwater production wells. Assisted Eastern Municipal Water District with production well drilling and construction oversight, well design, water quality sampling, and aquifer testing. Provided Eastern Municipal Water District with final well design recommendation to meet the program objectives of non-point source contaminant remediation and municipal groundwater supply.

Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment for Viking Ranch, Borrego Water District, Borrego Springs, California. Served as staff geologist and conducted a Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for a 160-acre property previously used for agriculture. The Preliminary ESA included a review of historical source information, a search of regulatory agency databases, a review of available local agency records, interviews, a site reconnaissance, and soil sampling. Soil was sampled from 10 locations for herbicides, pesticides, and arsenic. The preliminary ESA was used to decide future land use for the property, which included consideration for annexing into the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.
690
Item 13.

1 Stephanie Chao

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
Stephanie Chao is a young professional in environmental engineering, specializing in hydrogeology and hazardous waste assessment.

As an environmental engineer, she has assisted in assessing potential air, soil, and groundwater contamination for public agencies and private landowners. While in this role, she has also assisted in conducting Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, sampling of soil, soil vapor, air, surface water, and groundwater, as well as data management and report writing.

Relevant Project Experience
IPS Facility Groundwater Monitoring, IPS Corporation, Gardena, California. Assisted in groundwater monitoring at an industrial manufacturing facility and report writing to assess potential groundwater contamination from historical and present-day operations at the site.

Los Angeles Facility Soil Sampling, Confidential Energy Client, Los Angeles, California. Assisted in report writing and data management of soil sampling from a storage facility in Los Angeles, California.

La Cañada Phase I Initial Site Assessment, City of La Cañada Flintridge Public Works, La Cañada Flintridge, California. Assisted in report writing of the Phase I ISA site history to assess potential historical sources of contamination.

Moss Landing, Moss Landing and Oakland Power Plants, Moss Landing, California. Assisted in data management of wastewater analysis to gauge regulatory compliance for potential discharge.

Relevant Previous Experience
Enhanced Evaluation of the Removal of Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Decentralized Water Reuse Systems by Non-Targeted Analysis, The Water Environment and Reuse Foundation and National Science Foundation, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Pilot scale study on chemicals of emerging concern in wastewater treatment and membrane bioreactors and the roles of aerobic and anaerobic processes. Optimized pre-treatment systems for parallel MBR and AnMBR systems.

Presentations
“Optimization of Pretreatment Preceding Parallel Aerobic and Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors for Use in Decentralized Wastewater Treatment”, 2018. Presented at Southern California Conferences for Undergraduate Research. Pasadena, California.

Education
San Diego State
University
B.S., Environmental
Engineering, 2020
Professional
Affiliations
APWA, Education
Committee member
AWWA
ASCE
WEF
691
Item 13.

2 Awards
Certificate of Achievement on the presentation of “San Diego State University Mission Valley West Wastewater Learning Lab” at CWEA’s Student Design Competition, California Water Environment Association, 2020.
3rd Place at the ASCE Pacific Southwest Conference for San Diego State University’s student ASCE chapter’s Environmental Competition Report, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2020.

Certificate of Merit for Co-Authorship of Poster “Concentrations and Loadings of Anthropogenic Contaminants During Storm Events in the San Diego River and its Tributary”, American Chemical Society Conference, 2019.

Certificate of Achievement on the presentation of “A Dairy Farm Wastewater Treatment System for Reducing Methane Emissions” at CWEA’s Student Design Competition, California Water Environment Association, 2019.
692
Item 13.

800.450.1818 | [email protected]
DUDEK.COM
693
Item 13.

!" #$$%&'&( ##%)$&( #**%*+&(

!
!"

#
!

$
#

!

#

%
!&&

#

!

'
(
)
694
Item 13.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Jennifer Ustation, Finance Director
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Set Time, Date and Place for Special Workshop

Background and Analysis:

City staff is requesting that the City Council establish the time, date and place for a special workshop. The workshop would be held for City Council review and direction on the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget.

Fiscal Impact:

City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $65.

Recommended Action:

Establish a time, date and place for a special workshop.

695
Item 14.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Hart, Public Works Director
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Assign and Approve a Designated City Council Member to Participate in the Review and Recommendation of Proposals for Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design Services for the Stewart Park Improvement Project

Background and Analysis:

City Manager objectives for 2022 were presented to the City Council on February 15, 2022. One of these objectives is to enhance the Request for Proposals (RFP) procedures in order to improve confidence in the procurement process and insure transparency. The new RFP procedures include the following:

1. City staff to present all RFPs to City Council for review and authorization to proceed;

2. When authorizing an RFP, City Council to designate a sitting member to participate in the review and recommendation of proposals along with the City Treasurer:
a. Determining whether submitted proposals are qualified, b. Participate in scoring each proposal, and
c. Determining qualified proposers to interview.

3. City Council, City Treasurer and City staff conduct interviews:
a. All members complete a final evaluation of each proposer after the interviews,
b. City staff to provide technical input and recommendations to the assigned City Council member and City Treasurer, and
c. City Council member and City Treasurer determine preferred proposer.

4. Full City Council to consider selection with recommendation of the assigned City Council member.

696
Item 15.

RFP for Landscape Architecture and Engineering Design Services for the Stewart Park Improvement Project

As part of the five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the City has approved the budget for the design of the Stewart Park Improvement Project. A RFP for landscape architecture and engineering services for Stewart Park was prepared by City staff and presented to City Council on January 18, 2022, for authorization to proceed with advertisement. The RFP was advertised on January 19, 2022, and eight (8) proposals were received on February 23, 2022. Proposals were received from the following consultants:

1. RHA Landscape Architects – Planners, Inc.,

2. Placeworks,

3. RJM Design Group,

4. Albert A. Webb Associates,

5. DVD Landscape Architects,

6. In-Site Landscape Architecture, Inc.,

7. KTUA, and

8. NUVIS Landscape Architecture.

In keeping with the City Manager objectives presented on February 15, 2022, City staff is requesting the assignment of a designated City Council member to participate in the review and recommendation process for the proposals received. The preliminary timeline for the review and selection process is as follows:

Event Date
Proposals Received February 23, 2022
Review and Scoring of Proposals March 2 – 11, 2022
Interviews (if required) March 14 – 18, 2022
Final Evaluation March 21-24, 2022
Final Recommendation to City Council April 5, 2022

City staff will work closely with the chosen landscape architecture and engineering design consultant to successfully complete the project design. Upon completion of the design, the City will advertise the bid documents for construction.

697
Item 15.

Fiscal Impact:

The cost to prepare this staff report is approximately $300.

Recommended Action:

Assign and approve a designated City Council Member to participate in the review and recommendation of proposals for landscape architecture and engineering design services for the Stewart Park Improvement Project.

Attachments:

None
698
Item 15.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Consider a Resolution to Oppose Initiative 21-0042A1

Background and Analysis:

The Office of the Attorney General for the State of California has received Initiative No. 21-0042A1 titled “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.” A copy of the initiative is included in Attachment B.

The League of California Cities (League) is requesting that municipalities pass resolutions of opposition to this initiative due to the fact that their analysis shows it will limit voter input, implement stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and make it more difficult to hold State and local violators accountable. A legal summary has been provided by the League (Attachment C) which summarizes the limits to voter authority and accountability, restrictions on local fee authority and the provision of services, restrictions on governmental authority to issue fines and penalties, and restrictions on local taxing authorities’ abilities to provide services.

In addition to its legal analysis, the League has sent two more documents that discuss the fiscal impacts of the Initiative (Attachment D) and tax loopholes that would be created (Attachment E).

Fiscal Impact:

City staff estimates it cost approximately $146 to prepare this report.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended that the City Council consider this resolution and take action as it deems appropriate.
699
Item 16.

Attachments:

A. Resolution – Opposition to Initiative 21-0042A1
B. Initiative 21-0042A1
C. League of California Legal Analysis – Initiative 21-0042A1 D. League of California Cities Fiscal Analysis – Initiative 21-0042A1 E. League of California Cities Tax Loophole Analysis – Initiative 21-0042A1 700
Item 16.

Resolution to Oppose Initiative 21-0042A1
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, the measure makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, and utilities.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City, opposes Initiative 21-0042A1.

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of [NAME] will join the NO on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state.

We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day _____ of _____, 2022.

701
Item 16.

For immediate release:

Feb. 2, 2022

Contact: Kayla Sherwood, (530) 844-1744, [email protected] Fera Dayani, (916) 921-9111, [email protected]
Mila Myles, (812) 240-3938, [email protected]
Kyle Packham, (916) 642-3808, [email protected]

Public safety, labor, local government, and infrastructure advocates announce strong opposition to California Business Roundtable ballot measure that would benefit wealthy corporations while decimating vital local and state services

Deceptive proposition enables large corporations to avoid paying their fair share and evade enforcement when violating environmental, public health, and safety laws

SACRAMENTO — Today, the League of California Cities, California Professional Firefighters, SEIU California, California Alliance for Jobs, AFSCME California, and the California Special Districts Association announced their strong opposition to the deceptively named “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,” a ballot measure sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (CBRT), an organization that advocates on behalf of the largest and wealthiest corporations in California.

The coalition of public safety, labor, local gove rnment, and infrastructure groups are vocalizing their opposition as the California Attorney General is set to issue an official Title and Summary for the measure tomorrow, February 3. Once Title and Summary is released, proponents can begin signature gathering. They must submit 997,139 valid signatures in order to qualify for the November 2022 ballot. The Secretary of State’s recommended date to turn in signatures is April 29, 2022.

“This far-reaching measure would significantly jeopardize cities’ ability to provide services and critical infrastructure to local residents,” said Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director and CEO, League of California Cities. “It would impose undemocratic restrictions on local voters and local governments that could force significant cuts to vital services like fire and emergency response, infrastructure, libraries, parks, sanitation, and more.”

702
Item 16.

“This irresponsible measure would significantly reduce state and local funding available for fire prevention and response, including emergency services,” said Brian K. Rice, President, California Professional Firefighters. “At a time when our state and local communities are reeling from the impacts of intense and prolonged wildfires, this proposition interferes with the ability of firefighters and first responders to do our jobs and keep the public safe.”

The CBRT measure would create major new loopholes that allow wealthy corporations to avoid paying their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities; while also allowing corporations to evade enforcement when they violate environmental, health, safety , and other state and local laws. It would also significantly restrict the ability of local voters, local governments, and state elected officials to fund critical services like public schools, fire and emergency response, public health, parks, libraries, a ffordable housing, homeless and mental health services, and public infrastructure.

“This initiative is a deceptive scheme written and paid for by wealthy corporations for their sole benefit,” said Tia Orr, Interim Executive Director, SEIU California. “These rich corporations are trying to create constitutional loopholes to avoid paying their fair share, while shifting the burden onto hardworking Californians.”

“This measure would make it much more difficult to fund critical infrastructure that’s needed i n California,” said Michael Quigley, Executive Director, California Alliance for Jobs. “It would undercut our ability to invest in virtually every form of infrastructure, including safe bridges, local streets and roads, public transportation, drinking wate r quality, new schools, and utilities.”

“This proposition would make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods,” said Alia Griffing, Political and Legislative Director, AFSCME California. “It’s a get out of jail free card for wealthy corporations that will hurt our efforts to provide critical public services necessary to keep our communities healthy a nd safe.”

“This measure exposes taxpayers to a new wave of costly litigation, limits the discretion of locally elected officials to respond to the needs of their communities, and injects uncertainty into financing critical infrastructure,” said Neil McCormick, CEO, California Special Districts Association. “We are in strong opposition to this dangerous measure that jeopardizes the health and safety of communities and prevents critical investments in climate adaptation and community resilience to address drought, flooding, and wildfire as well as reduce emissions and harmful pollutants.”

Background:

A broad and growing coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses opposes this measure. The measure:

Gives Wealthy Corporations a Major Loophole to Avoid Paying their Fair Share — Forcing Local Residents and Taxpayers to Pay More
703
Item 16.

• The measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources — shifting the burden and making individual taxpayers pay more.

Allows Corporations to Dodge Enforcement When They Violate Environmental, Health, Public Safety and Other Laws
• It creates new loopholes that makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.

Jeopardizes Vital Local and State Services
• This far-reaching measure puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services.
• It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more.
• It would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, utilities, and more.

Opens the Door for Frivolous Lawsuits, Bureaucracy and Red Tape that Will Cost Taxpayers and Hurt Our Communities
• The measure will encourage frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy, and red tape that will cost local taxpayers millions — while significantly delaying and stopping investments in infrastructure and vital services.

Undermines Voter Rights, Transparency, and Accountability • It would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent. • It would change our constitution to make it more difficult for local and state voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and local infrastructure. • It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures that were passed by local voters — effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.

Established in 1898, the League of California Cities is a nonprofit statewide association that advocates for cities with the state and federal governments and provides education and training services to elected and appointed city officials.

###

704
Item 16.

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative No. 21-0042A1
January 21, 2022

Summary: The measure limits the voters’ input, adopts new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and makes it more difficult to hold state and local law violators accountable.

Limiting Voter Authority and Accountability

• Limits voter input. Prohibits local voters from providing direction on how local tax dollars should be spent by prohibiting local advisory measures.

• Invalidates Upland decision that allows majority of local voters to pass special taxes. Taxes proposed by the Initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. All measures passed between January 2022 and November 2022 would be invalidated unless reenacted within 12 months.

Restricting Local Fee Authority to Provide Local Services

• Franchise fees. Sets new standard for fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property. The standard may significantly restrict the amount oil companies, utilities, gas companies, railroads, garbage companies, cable companies, and other corporations pay for the use of local public property. Rental and sale of local government property must be “reasonable” which must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.”

• Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence.

Restricting Authority of State and Local Governments to Issue Fines and Penalties for Violations of Law.

• Requires voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.

705
Item 16.

Restricting Local Tax Authority to Provide Local Services

• Expanding existing taxes (e.g., UUT, use tax, TOT) to new territory (e.g., annexation) or expanding the base (e.g., new utility service) requires voter approval.
• City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee. • New taxes can be imposed only for a specific time period. • Taxes adopted after January 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted.
• All state taxes require majority voter approval.
• Prohibits any surcharge on property tax rate and allocation of property tax to state.

Other Changes

• No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy .

706
Item 16.

CaliforniaCityFinance.Com
Fiscal and Program Effects of
Initiative 21-0042A1 on Local Governments

If Initiative 21-0042A1 is placed on the ballot and passed by voters, it will result in:
 Billions of local government fee and charge revenues placed at heightened legal peril. Related public service reductions across virtually every aspect of city, county, special district, and school services especially for transportation, and public facility use.  Hundreds of millions of dollars of annual revenues from dozens of tax and bond measures approved by voters between January 1, 2022 and November 9, 2022 subject to additional voter approval if not in compliance with the initiative.
 Indeterminable legal and administrative burdens and costs on local government from new and more empowered legal challenges, and bureaucratic cost tracking requirements.  The delay and deterrence of municipal annexations and associated impacts on housing and commercial development.
 Service and infrastructure impacts including in fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention and mental health services.

1. Local Government Taxes and Services Threatened
With regard to taxes, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Prohibits advisory, non-binding measures as to use of tax proceeds on the same ballot. o Voters may be less informed and more likely to vote against measures.  Eliminates the ability of special tax measures proposed by citizen initiative to be enacted by majority voter approval (Upland).
o Because the case law regarding citizen initiative special taxes approved by majority vote (Upland) is so recent, it is unknown how common these sorts of measures might be in the future. This initiative would prohibit such measures after the effective date of the initiative. Any such measures adopted after January 1, 2022 through November 8, 2022 would be void after November 9, 2023.
 Requires that tax measures include a specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed. This seems to require that all tax increases or extensions contain a sunset (end date). o This would require additional tax measures to extend previously approved taxes at additional cost to taxpayers.
 Requires that a tax or bond measure adopted after January 1, 2022 and before the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2022) that was not adopted in accordance with the measure be readopted in compliance with the measure or will be void twelve months after the effective date of the initiative (November 9, 2023).
o If past election patterns are an indication, dozens of tax and bond measures approving hundreds of millions of annual revenues may not be in compliance and would be subject to reenactment.

Most will be taxes without a specific end date. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, measures not in compliance would need to be placed on a special election ballot for approval before November 9, 2023 or the tax will be void after that date. General tax measures would require declaration of emergency and unanimous vote of the governing board.
2217 Isle Royale Lane • Davis, CA • 95616-6616
Phone: 530.758.3952 • Fax: 530.758.3952
Rev. January 7, 2022
707
Item 16.

– 2 – rev January 7, 2022

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
 Requires voter approval to expand an existing tax to new territory (annexations). This would require additional tax measures and would deter annexations and land development in cities. o If a tax is "extended" to an annexed area without a vote after January 1, 2022, it will be void 12 months later until brought into compliance. Because there is no regularly scheduled election within the 12 months following the effective date of the initiative, such extensions for general taxes would, under current law, each require unanimous vote of the agency board to be placed on a special election ballot or would be void after November 9, 2023.

1.a. Number of Measures and Value of Local Taxes at Risk1 In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond measures for cities, counties, special districts and schools (95 in March and 198 in November). The approved measures enacted $3.85 billion in new annual taxes including $1.3 billion for cities, $302 million for counties, $208 million for special districts (fire, wastewater, open space and transit districts), and $2.037 billion for schools (including for school bonds).

Most tax measures go to the ballot during a presidential or gubernatorial primary or general election in an even year. However, some tax measures are decided at other times. During 2019, there were 45 approved tax and bond measures (24 city, 14 special district, 7 school) adopting $154.0 million in new annual taxes ($124.0 million city, $10.5 million special district and $19.2 million school).

Most tax and bond measures comply with the new rules in Initiative 21-0042Amdt#1 except:
 Dozens of taxes would require end dates. This would require additional measures in future years to extend the taxes further. Very few extensions of existing local taxes fail.  Majority vote general tax measures could not be accompanied on the same ballot with an advisory, non-binding measure as to use of tax proceeds.  Special taxes placed on the ballot via citizen initiative would require two-thirds voter approval.

Bond measures have fixed terms. Historically, about 20 percent of other tax measures have included specific durations (i.e. sunsets). Advisory measures as to use of revenues are uncommon. I do not expect the provisions of 21-0042A1 to have any substantial effect on passage rates. However, some 2022 approved measures would likely have to put back on the ballot.

Based on history, a reasonable estimate of the annualized tax revenues estimated to be approved by

1 Source: Compilation and summary of data from County elections offices. 708
Item 16.

– 3 – rev January 7, 2022

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
voters in 2022 and placed at risk by this initiative is at least $1.5 billion, including $1.0 billion from cities and $500 million from counties and special districts.2

1.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Tax Provisions In addition to service delays and disruption due to new tax revenues placed at greater legal risk, there will be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The deterrence of taxes for annexations will delay and deter municipal annexations.

2. “Exempt Charges” (fees and charges that are not taxes) and Services Threatened With regard to fees and charges adopted after January 1, 2022, Initiative 21-0042A1:
 Subjects new fees and charges for a product or service to a new "actual cost” test defined as “(i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service to the payor, and (ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In addition, subjects these same charges to a new, undefined, “reasonable” standard.
 Subjects fees and charges for entrance to local government property; and rental and sale of local government property to a new, undefined, “reasonable” test.  Subjects a challenged fee or charge to new, higher burdens of proof if legally challenged.  Prohibits a levy, charge or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled, imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy.

2.a. Value on New Local Government Fees and Charges at Risk3 Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is about $1 billion per year including those adopted since January 1, 2022. Of this $1 billion, about $570 million is for special districts, $450 million is cities, and $260 million is counties.4
Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

1. Nuisance abatement charges - such as for weed, rubbish and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.

2. Commercial franchise fees.

3. Emergency response fees - such as in connection with DUI.

4. Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.

5. Document processing and duplication fees.

6. Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, public airport and harbor use fees.

7. Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.

In addition to fees and charges, the measure puts fines and penalties assessed for the violation of state and

2 This does not include citizen initiative special tax approved by majority but not two-thirds. Because this approach is new, the number of these measures and amount of revenue involved cannot be estimated. 3 Source: California State Controller Annual Reports of Financial Transactions concerning cities, counties and special districts, summarized with an assumed growth due to fee rate increases (not population) of 2 percent annually. 4 School fees are also affected but the amount is negligible by comparison. 709
Item 16.

– 4 – rev January 7, 2022

CaliforniaCityFinance.com
local law at risk, making them taxes subject to voter approval under certain circumstances.

2.b. Additional Costs and Public Service Effects of the Fee/Charge Provisions In addition to service delays and disruptions due to fee and charge revenues placed at greater legal risk, there would be substantial additional costs for legal defense. The risk to fees and charges will make infrastructure financing more difficult and will deter new residential and commercial development.

***********
mc
710
Item 16.

Stop the Corporate Loopholes Scheme
Deceptive Proposition Allows Major Corporations to Avoid Paying their Fair Share and Evade Enforcement when they Violate Environmental, Health & Safety Laws An association representing California’s wealthiest corporations — including oil, insurance, banks and drug companies — is behind a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot. Their measure would create major new loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities; while also allowing corporations to evade enforcement when they violate environmental, health, safety and other state and local laws. Here’s why a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses oppose the Corporate Loophole Scheme:

Gives Wealthy Corporations a Major Loophole to Avoid Paying their Fair Share - Forcing Local Residents and Taxpayers to Pay More • The measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources – shifting the burden and making individual taxpayers pay more.

Allows Corporations to Dodge Enforcement When They Violate Environmental, Health, Public Safety and Other Laws
• The deceptive scheme creates new loopholes that makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.

Jeopardizes Vital Local and State Services
• This far-reaching measure puts at risk billions of dollars currently dedicated to critical state and local services.
• It could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services and more. • It would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, utilities and more.

Opens the Door for Frivolous Lawsuits, Bureaucracy and Red Tape that Will Cost Taxpayers and Hurt Our Communities
• The measure will encourage frivolous lawsuits, bureaucracy and red tape that will cost local taxpayers millions — while significantly delaying and stopping investments in infrastructure and vital services.
711
Item 16.

Undermines Voter Rights, Transparency, and Accountability • This misleading measure changes our constitution to make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and local infrastructure.
• It also includes a hidden provision that would retroactively cancel measures that were passed by local voters — effectively undermining the rights of voters to decide for themselves what their communities need.
• It would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures, where voters provide direction to politicians on how they want their local tax dollars spent.

712
Item 16.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Discussion of Assembly Bill 571 and Campaign Contribution Limits

Background and Analysis:

On October 8, 2019, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 571 with an effective date of January 1, 2021, setting campaign limits for elective city offices commensurate with State limits. Assembly Bill 571 also authorized cities to set their own campaign contribution limits to be different than the State limit. Cities may set a limit that is more restrictive or less restrictive than the current State limitation or choose no limit. If a City limit is established, enforcement standards for violations should also be adopted and can include civil or criminal penalties.

Prior to the enactment of the assembly bill, the City of Beaumont had no campaign contribution limits established within the Beaumont Municipal Code. Assembly Bill 571 is now in effect and by default, the City’s campaign contribution limit is $4,900 per contributor, per election. In the event that City Council adopts a limit or defaults to the State limit, the City Clerk’s office would be tasked with monitoring contributions and compliance with the adopted limits.

City Council has the option to establish the following:

No adoption of City campaign contribution limits, thus imposing the State limitations, which is currently $4,900; or

Establish City campaign contribution limits that differs f rom the State limitation, which could be drafted to establish no campaign contribution limits and direct City staff to prepare an ordinance for adoption.

Fiscal Impact:

City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $210. 713
Item 17.

Recommended Action:

Discussion and direction to City staff.

Attachments:

A. AB571
714
Item 17.

Assembly Bill No. 571
CHAPTER 556

An act to amend and repeal Sections 10003 and 10202 of the Elections Code, and to amend Section 85301 of, to amend, repeal, and add Sections 85305, 85306, 85307, 85315, 85316, 85317, and 85318 of, and to add Section 85702.5 to, the Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

[ Approved by Governor October 08, 2019. Filed with Secretary of State October 08, 2019. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 571, Mullin. Political Reform Act of 1974: contribution limits.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, from making to a candidate for elective state office, for statewide elective office, or for the office of Governor, and prohibits those candidates from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than a specified amount per election. For a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, the limitation on contributions is $3,000 per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Fair Political Practices Commission in January of every odd-numbered year.

Existing law authorizes a county, city, or district to limit campaign contributions in local elections. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or of a community college district to limit campaign expenditures or contributions in elections to district offices. The act specifies that it does not prevent the Legislature or any other state or local agency from imposing additional requirements on a person if the requirements do not prevent the person from complying with the act, and that the act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions by any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, as specified.

This bill, commencing January 1, 2021, instead would prohibit a person from making to a candidate for elective county or city office, and would prohibit a candidate for elective county or city office from accepting from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth in the act for limitations on contributions to a candidate for elective state office. This bill would also authorize a county or city to impose a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill. This bill would make specified provisions of the act relating to contribution limitations applicable to a candidate for a elective county or city office, except as specified.

The act makes a violation of its provisions punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties.

This bill would add the contribution limitation imposed by the bill to the act’s provisions, thereby making a violation of the limitation punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. However, the bill would specify that a violation of a limitation imposed by a local government is not subject to the act’s enforcement provisions. The bill would authorize a local government that imposes a limitation that is different from the limitation imposed by this bill to adopt enforcement standards for a violation of the limitation imposed by the local government agency, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties. 715
Item 17.

By expanding the scope of an existing crime with regard to a violation of a contribution limitation imposed by the bill, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act’s purposes upon a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements.

This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

DIGEST KEY
Vote: 2/3 Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Most states impose limitations on contributions to candidates for elective county and city offices.

California is among the minority of states without these contribution limitations. (b) Most counties and cities in this state have not independently imposed limitations on contributions to candidates for elective offices in those jurisdictions. (c) In counties and cities in this state that have not imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for elective offices in those jurisdictions often receive contributions that would exceed the limitations for a state Senate campaign, even though most counties and cities contain far fewer people than the average state Senate district.
(d) In counties and cities in this state that have not imposed limitations on contributions, candidates for elective office in those jurisdictions sometimes raise 40 percent or more of their total campaign funds from a single contributor.
(e) A system allowing unlimited contributions to a candidate for elective county or city office creates the risk and the perception that elected officials in those j urisdictions are beholden to their contributors and will act in the best interest of those contributors at the expense of the people. (f) This state has a statewide interest in preventing actual corruption and the appearance of corruption at all levels of government.
(g) This act establishes a limitation on contributions to a candidate for elective office in a city or county in which the local government has not established a limitation. However, a local government may establish a different limitation that is more precisely tailored to the needs of its communities.

SEC. 2.

Section 10003 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
716
Item 17.

10003.
(a) A county may by ordinance or resolution limit campaign contributions in county elections. (b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 3.

Section 10202 of the Elections Code is amended to read:
10202.
(a) A city may, by ordinance or resolution, limit campaign contributions in municipal elections. (b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 4.

Section 85301 of the Government Code is amended to read:
85301.
(a) A person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, shall not make to a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office, and a candidate for elective state office other than a candidate for statewide elective office shall not accept from a person, a contribution totaling more than three thousand dollars ($3,000) per election. (b) Except to a candidate for Governor, a person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, shall not make to a candidate for statewide elective office, and except a candidate for Governor, a candidate for statewide elective office shall not accept from a person other than a small contributor committee or a political party committee, a contribution totaling more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) per election.
(c) A person, other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, shall not make to a candidate for Governor, and a candidate for Governor shall not accept from any person other than a small contributor committee or political party committee, a contribution totaling more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per election.
(d) (1) A person shall not make to a candidate for elective county or city office, and a candidate for elective county or city office shall not accept from a person, a contribution totaling more than the amount set forth in subdivision (a) per election, as that amount is adjusted by the Commission pursuant to Section 83124.

This subdivision does not apply in a jurisdiction in which the county or city imposes a limit on contributions pursuant to Section 85702.5.
(2) This subdivision shall become operative on January 1, 2021. (e) The provisions of this section do not apply to a candidate’s contributions of the candidate’s personal funds to the candidates own campaign.

SEC. 5.

Section 85305 of the Government Code is amended to read:
85305.
(a) A candidate for elective state office or committee controlled by that candidate shall not make any contribution to any other candidate for elective state office in excess of the limits set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 85301.
717
Item 17.

(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 6.

Section 85305 is added to the Government Code, to read:
85305.
(a) A candidate for elective state, county, or city office or committee controlled by that candidate shall not make a contribution to any other candidate for elective state, county, or city office in excess of the limits set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 85301. This section does not apply in a jurisdiction in which the county or city imposes a limit on contributions pursuant to Section 85702.5. (b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2021.

SEC. 7.

Section 85306 of the Government Code is amended to read:
85306.
(a) A candidate may transfer campaign funds from one controlled committee to a controlled committee for elective state office of the same candidate. Contributions transferred shall be attributed to specific contributors using a “last in, first out” or “first in, first out” accounting method, and these attributed contributions when aggregated with all other contributions from the same contributor may not exceed the limits set forth in Section 85301 or 85302.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a candidate for elective state office, other than a candidate for statewide elective office, who possesses campaign funds on January 1, 2001, may use those funds to seek elective office without attributing the funds to specific contributors. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a candidate for statewide elective office who possesses campaign funds on November 6, 2002, may use those funds to seek elective office without attributing the funds to specific contributors.
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 8.

Section 85306 is added to the Government Code, to read:
85306.
(a) A candidate may transfer campaign funds from one controlled committee to a controlled committee for elective state, county, or city office of the same candidate. Contributions transferred shall be attributed to specific contributors using a “last in, first out” or “first in, first out” accounting method, and these attributed contributions when aggregated with all other contributions from the same contributor shall not exceed the limits set forth in Section 85301 or 85302.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a candidate for elective state office, other than a candidate for statewide elective office, who possesses campaign funds on January 1, 2001, may use those funds to seek elective office without attributing the funds to specific contributors. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a candidate for statewide elective office who possesses campaign funds on November 6, 2002, may use those funds to seek elective office without attributing the funds to specific contributors.
(d) This section does not apply in a jurisdiction in which the county or city imposes a limit on contributions pursuant to Section 85702.5.
718
Item 17.

(e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2021.

85702.5. (a) A county or city may, by ordinance or resolution, impose a limit on contributions to a candidate for elective county or city office that is different from the limit set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 85301. The limitation may also be imposed by means of a county or city initiative measure. (b) A county or city that establishes a contribution limit pursuant to subdivision (a) may adopt enforcement standards for a violation of that limit, which may include administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.
(c) The Commission is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a contribution limit adopted pursuant to subdivision (a).
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2021. A county or city’s limit on contributions to a candidate for elective county or city office that is in effect on the operative date of this section shall be deemed to be a limit imposed pursuant to subdivision (a). 719
Item 17.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Nicole Wheelwright, Deputy City Clerk
DATE March 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Economic Development Committee Vacancy of Community Member Seat

Background and Analysis:

The City is in receipt of a resignation letter from Member David Getka of the Economic Development Committee effective immediately. This vacates the “Non-Business, Community Member” seat. In addition, the member appointed to the “Alternate” seat has exceeded the unexcused absence limit per adopted policy (Attachment A). City Council has the authority to ask a member to resign or remove a member after two unexcused absences.

The City Clerk’s office is seeking direction to advertise vacancies in the local newspaper and the City’s social media platforms. Applications with be due on March 29, 2022, for consideration of appointment by the City Council on April 5, 2022.

Fiscal Impact:

City staff estimates the cost to prepare this report to be $95.

Recommended Action:

Direct City staff to notice the partial-term vacancy on the Economic Development Committee for the “Non-Business Community Member” and “Alternate” seats.

Attachments:

A. Economic Development Committee Policy.
720
Item 18.

721
Item 18.

Beaumont City CouncilMarch 1, 2022

Beaumont City Council
March 1, 2022