Scan this QR
Code for an
electronic copy of
the
City Council
Agenda
Insert QR
Graphic Here
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JANUARY 13, 2026
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 505 FOREST AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 CLOSED SESSION – 3:30 P.M.
REGULAR MEETING 5:00 P.M.
ALEX ROUNAGHI, Mayor
MARK ORGILL, Mayor Pro Tem
HALLIE JONES, Councilmember
SUE KEMPF, Councilmember
BOB WHALEN, Councilmember
DAVE KIFF, City Manager
MEGAN GARIBALDI, City Attorney
LAURA PARISI, City Treasurer
ANN MARIE McKAY, City Clerk
LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the City Council is required to disclose on the record any campaign contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $250 through December 31, 2024, and $500 commencing on January 1, 2025, made by the party or the party’s agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official. Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well. The disclosure should be made when the agenda item is called and must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution, the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made. Council Members are also required to make such disclosures and recuse themselves.
Public Participation: You may submit comments in person on any agenda item or any item not on the agenda. You may also submit written comments on any agenda item or on any item not on the agenda via mail to the City Clerk at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 or by email to [email protected]. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your written comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public meeting is scheduled. Written comments WILL NOT be read aloud during the City Council Meeting. Please note that written comments are posted on the City’s website, so do not include any personal information you 1 of 78
Public Participation: You may submit comments in person on any agenda item or any item not on the agenda. You may also submit written comments on any agenda item or on any item not on the agenda via mail to the City Clerk at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 or by email to [email protected]. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your written comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public meeting is scheduled. Written comments WILL NOT be read aloud during the City Council Meeting. Please note that written comments are posted on the City’s website, so do not include any personal information you do not want posted on the web. Any comments received after the deadline for submittal may not become part of the public record for that meeting. For comments submitted on a topic not on the agenda, please indicate that you would like your comments included in the official record for this meeting.
Courtesy Virtual Broadcast: Please take notice that the City also plans to broadcast the meeting via the below listed mediums. These virtual broadcast mediums are also provided as a courtesy only and are not guaranteed to be technically feasible or uninterrupted. Thus, in order to guarantee livetime viewing, members of the public are encouraged to attend in person.
1. Online on the City of Laguna website: www.lagunabeachcity.net/meetings
2. Cox cable channel 852
3. Online on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQsj8cEM7IvTH6p4uf3NUzQ 3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION CLASS AND COMPENSATION
************************************************
A. ROLL CALL 3:00 p.m.
B. STUDY SESSION.
1. CITYWIDE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY
Recommendations:
1. Receive a presentation on the completed Citywide Classification and Compensation Study, prepared by Baker Tilly US, LLP.
2. PACIFIC MARINE MAMMAL CENTER FIELD HOSPITAL REQUEST FOR PERMANENCY Recommendations: Receive the presentation from the Pacific Marine Mammal Center, and provide input regarding whether staff should conduct further analysis of the request, including evaluation of legal, policy, and procedural requirements.
C. ADJOURNMENT. The Laguna Beach City Council will adjourn to its 5:00 p.m. regular meeting.
ADA ACCOMMODATIONS
*************************
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disabilityrelated modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (949) 4970705 (telephone) or (949) 4970771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.
2 of 78
*************************
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disabilityrelated modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (949) 4970705 (telephone) or (949) 4970771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.
COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.5
********************************************************* Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California, during normal business hours. 3 of 78
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
January 13, 2026
STUDY SESSION
1 SUBJECT: CITYWIDE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive a presentation on the completed Citywide Classification and Compensation Study, prepared by Baker Tilly US, LLP.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
This Final Presentation PowerPoint (Attachment 1) summarizes the results of the Citywide Classification and Compensation Study prepared by Baker Tilly US, LLP. The study was initiated in September 2024 pursuant to City Council action, and is the first comprehensive update of the City’s classification and compensation system in over two decades.
The study reviewed 137 classifications across 10 departments and six employee groups. It evaluated internal equity, market competitiveness, FLSA compliance, and pay grade structure. The Presentation includes Baker Tilly’s observations and findings regarding revised job descriptions, salary range adjustments, job title changes, benefits comparisons, findings, and recommendations.
Attachment 2 includes an informational Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document intended to support employee understanding of the study’s purpose, process, and anticipated next steps. The FAQ was provided to help City employees understand the process and not implement or approve any classification or compensation changes.
There is no immediate fiscal impact from the receipt of the study, and no action is being proposed to be taken at this study session. Any implementation actions with budgetary implications will be addressed in a future agenda item, through the normal budget cycle and, where required, as part of meet-and-confer processes or negotiations with the City’s bargaining units.
DISCUSSION
Background
In September 2024, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a consulting services agreement with Baker Tilly US, LLP (Baker Tilly) to conduct a comprehensive review and update of the City’s classification and compensation structure. This is the first update in over two decades.
The study was undertaken to:
• Modernize job classifications to reflect current duties and organizational needs; • Evaluate internal equity and market competitiveness;
1 of 52
CITYWIDE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY
January 13, 2026
• Support workforce recruitment and retention; and
• Provide a consistent framework for future compensation decisions.
Baker Tilly conducted a comprehensive assessment of the City’s classification and compensation systems, including job documentation, internal equity, external market alignment, pay structure design, and benefits comparison. The Final Presentation highlights Baker Tilly’s methodology, key findings, and recommended updates to the City’s classification structure, compensation plan, job descriptions, and pay grade alignments.
Study Scope and Methodology
Baker Tilly followed a structured five-phase methodology that reflects best practices in classification and compensation evaluation and aligns with the scope approved by the City Council:
Phase 1 - Data Collection
Baker Tilly met with the City’s project team to confirm the study scope, timelines, and data needs.
Baker Tilly conducted kickoff meetings, issued data requests, held employee and leadership communication sessions, and collected Position Analysis Questionnaires (PAQs). Information gathered during this phase established the foundation for the classification and compensation analysis.
Phase 2 - Position Review
Baker Tilly reviewed job titles, duties, and organizational alignment based on PAQs, existing job descriptions, and department feedback. Using the SAFE® job evaluation system, Baker Tilly assessed internal equity and established position hierarchy. A Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) review was also conducted to confirm exempt or non-exempt status recommendations.
Phase 3 - Market Assessment
Baker Tilly collaborated with staff to identify comparable agencies and distributed a custom market survey to benchmark classifications. Market matching was conducted using public sector data and published sources. Baker Tilly evaluated the City’s competitive position, prepared market comparisons, and completed a benefits analysis to assess alignment with regional standards.
Phase 4- Pay Plan Design
Using internal equity and market findings, Baker Tilly developed a proposed salary structure, assigned classifications to pay grades, and validated results using regression analysis. Baker Tilly prepared three cost scenarios for potential implementation strategies and reviewed potential impacts on existing pay policies.
Phase 5 – Final Report and Deliverables
Baker Tilly is working to complete the Final Report summarizing methodology, findings, and recommendations highlighted in the presentation. Deliverables in that report will include updated draft job descriptions, the proposed pay structure, and implementation tools. Baker Tilly will provide training to Human Resources staff and conduct Final Presentations.
Key Components of the Classification Study
The Classification Study served as the foundation for defining and organizing job roles across the organization and included:
2 of 52
CITYWIDE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY
January 13, 2026
1. Job Descriptions: Updated to accurately reflect current duties, responsibilities, minimum qualifications, and working conditions, while ensuring accurate classification and legal compliance.
2. Job Classifications: Reviewed and grouped positions based on functional similarities and levels of responsibilities and required qualifications, promoting fairness and consistency.
3. Job Levels: Defined career progression by identifying levels of responsibility within the organization, ranging from entry-level roles to senior management, to clarify career paths and promotional opportunities.
4. Pay Grade: Assessed to ensure salary ranges are appropriately aligned with classification levels and remain competitive with market benchmarks.
5. Compensation Structure: Evaluated to ensure overall alignment between the City's compensation approach (e.g., salary, benefits, incentives) and organizational goals.
6. FLSA: Reviewed exempt/non-exempt designations for each position based on guidelines within the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Key Components of the Compensation Study
The Compensation Study assessed both the City’s external market position and internal compensation relationships. Components included:
1. Market Analysis: Evaluated salary and benefits data from peer comparable agencies to ensure the City remains competitive.
2. Internal Equity: Assessed the internal alignment of compensation across different job roles. This ensures that pay differentials between roles are justified by responsibilities, skills, and experience.
3. Job Evaluation: Reviewed and updated job descriptions to accurately reflect the duties, responsibilities, and requirements of each role. This process ensured that job clarifications and pay grades are appropriately aligned with current job roles.
4. Pay Structure Design: Revised salary ranges and pay grades to support equitable and competitive compensation practices. This established guidelines for salary increases, promotions, and other compensation-related policies and decisions.
5. Benefits Assessment: Evaluated the City's benefits offerings to determine its market competitiveness and effectiveness. This assessment helped identify opportunities for enhancing employee benefits and improving overall compensation packages.
6. Pay Policy Review: Evaluated existing City policies using data collected from the benefits study and best practice and provided recommendations for revision to policies describing how pay is administered.
Employee Groups Represented in the Study
The study evaluated 137 classifications across 10 departments and the following six employee groups:
• Laguna Beach Police Employees’ Association
• Laguna Beach Municipal Employees’ Association
• Laguna Beach Fire Association, Local 3684
3 of 52
CITYWIDE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY
January 13, 2026
• Laguna Beach Police & Fire Management - Police Unit
• Laguna Beach Police & Fire Management – Fire Unit
• Unrepresented Executive and Management Employees
Peer Agencies Used for Market Comparison
To evaluate compensation competitiveness, Baker Tilly surveyed the following peer agencies.
1. City of Anaheim
2. City of Brea
3. City of Costa Mesa
4. City of Huntington Beach
5. Irvine Ranch Water District
6. City of Irvine
7. City of Malibu
8. City of Manhattan Beach
9. City of Newport Beach
10. Orange County Fire Authority
11. County of Orange
12. City of Orange
13. City of Santa Ana
14. City of Tustin
Data was additionally sourced from the following peer agencies to ensure adequate matches for Marine Safety positions:
15. City of Long Beach
16. Los Angeles County
17. City of San Diego
To represent ‘the private sector,’ Baker Tilly included matches, as appropriate, from the following sources:
18. Bureau of Labor Statistics
19. Comp Analyst
20. Economic Research Institute
Summary of Findings and Proposed Modification
Baker Tilly’s findings provide a comprehensive analysis of the City’s classification and compensation systems. Their observations are based on internal equity principles, market competitiveness, legal compliance, and public sector best practices.
The table below summarizes the key findings from both the Classification and Compensation components of the study:
4 of 52
CITYWIDE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY
January 13, 2026
Table: Summary of Baker Tilly Findings
Classification
Area of Focus Summary of Baker Tilly Observations
Job Titles Recommended updates to position titles to reflect current duties and align with industry standards.
Job Descriptions Updated based on employee PAQs and supervisor review to ensure legal compliance and role clarity.
Job Evaluation Scores Used the SAFE® system to establish and maintain internal equity across classifications.
FLSA Designation Reviewed exempt/non-exempt status for compliance with federal labor guidelines.
Market Definition Defined peer comparison agencies and benchmarked base pay and benefits across similar roles.
Benefits Comparison Assessed public safety and non-public safety benefits to evaluate overall market competitiveness.
Pay Plan Structure
Developed five new pay plans (Police, Fire, Marine Safety, General Employees, Management) and aligned classifications to appropriate pay grades based on internal equity and external market data.
Implementation
Scenarios
Developed three scenarios: (1) Nearest Step (no decrease), (2) Years-in-Position Step, (3) Same Step.
The recommendations in the Final Presentation support the City Council’s goals to improve organizational effectiveness, strengthen recruitment and retention, and ensure compensation policies are consistent, transparent, and sustainable.
What the City Council Is Being Asked to Do and Next Steps? At this time, staff is requesting that the City Council receive the Presentation of the Classification and Compensation Study prepared by Baker Tilly. No formal action regarding implementation is requested or proposed at this meeting.
Following this presentation, staff will be taking the following steps:
• Review the draft report to verify findings, clarify technical details with Baker Tilly, and ensure updated job descriptions reflect City roles accurately. • Collaborate with Baker Tilly to finalize the report, incorporating any City Council direction, refining recommendations as needed, and confirming cost implications for each implementation scenario.
• Return to the City Council with the finalized report and staff analysis to request formal direction on which recommendations to pursue.
• Begin the meet-and-confer process with employee associations based on Council direction and incorporate any approved changes into the City’s annual budget. 5 of 52
CITYWIDE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY
January 13, 2026
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving and filing this report. The Baker Tilly contract was previously approved and funded. Any financial implications resulting from the study’s findings, such as adjustments to salary ranges, classifications, or benefits, will be addressed through upcoming labor negotiations, future staff reports, and the City’s annual budget process, as directed by the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, as it involves the receipt of a Baker Tilly report and does not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment. Accordingly, no environmental review is required.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Classification and Compensation Study Final Presentation - Baker Tilly US, LLP (Pgs. 7-46)
2. Frequently Asked Questions provided to employees (Pgs. 47-52) Submitted By: Gavin Curran Approved: .
Gavin Curran, Assistant City
Manager
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Robina Arora, Senior Human Resources
Analyst
Brittany Fernandez, Human Resources Analyst
Baker Tilly US, LLP
6 of 52
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms.
City of Laguna Beach, CA
Classification and
Compensation Study
Attachment 1
7 7 of 52
2 2
• Project Overview
• SAFE (internal equity)
• Market (external equity)
• Proposed Pay Plans
• Benefits Comparison Results
• Pay Policy Recommendations
• Implementation and Next Steps
Agenda
8 8 of 52
3 Project
Initiation
Position
Review
Market
Assessment
Pay Plan
Development
Project
Completion
• Project Initiation. Planning meeting with City’s project team to understand goals of the study, collect necessary documentation, and setup the project. Included collection of PAQs and onsite communication meetings. • Position Review. Review of each position to ensure appropriate titling as well as an evaluation using our SAFE process to establish a relative-worth hierarchy. • Market Assessment. Distribution of a custom survey to identified public sector peers to collect base pay data for comparison against the City’s base pay. • Pay Plan Development. Development of a new pay plan with consideration to internal and external results, verified through a regression analysis, to establish a fair, equitable, and defensible pay structure. Cost analysis calculation for the City to consider in its adoption of the proposed pay plan. • Any changes to the pay plan and grade assignments must be bargained with each impacted group, as necessary. • Project Completion. Executive summary outlining the project methodology, the results of the study, and our recommendations based on those results. Training with HR staff to maintain and administer the pay plan going forward.
Project Overview
ME TH O D O L O G Y
We are
Here
9 9 of 52
4 Project Overview - Detailed
ME TH O D O L O G Y
1. Project
Initiation Project Planning Data Collection Communication Meetings PAQs
2. Position
Review Title Review Job Evaluation Quality Control
Quality Control
3. Market
Assessment Peers Selected Benchmarks
Selected Market Survey
4. Pay Plan
Development
Pay Plans
Drafted
Grade
Assignments
Implementation
Calculations Quality Control
5. Project
Completion
Final
Presentations Final Report Training for HR Staff
6. Additional
Deliverables FLSA Review Benefits
Assessment
Pay Policy
Review Job Descriptions
Baker Tilly worked closely with HR and
Department Leadership who have been
involved in reviewing preliminary results
and providing feedback – including the
review and selection of peer
organizations for the market survey.
Outstanding Items: • Finalizing implementation calculations • Finalizing the final report
documentation
• Training for HR to use SAFE going
forward
• Reviewing full pay policies report with
the City
• Updated job descriptions for all
positions
10 10 of 52
5 Job Evaluation
P h a s e 2
COMPENSABLE FACTOR WEIGHT DESCRIPTIONS / MEASUREMENT
Education 16% Minimum formal education level required by the position Experience 12% Minimum years of experience required by the position Level of Work 14% Degree of difficulty of work performed by the position Human Relations 8% Type and level of human interactions Physical Demands 5% Physical exertion performed by the position Working Conditions 7% Environmental conditions experienced by the positions Independence to Act 12% Degree of independence to make decisions and act on them Impact of Actions 14% Severity of consequences as a result of decisions Supervision Exercised 14% Type and level of supervision exercised 100% TOTAL
Baker Tilly has a point-factor job evaluation system known as SAFE® (Systematic Analysis and Factor Evaluation), which was developed specifically for the evaluation of public sector positions. • PAQs were used to evaluate every position. • The end results is a total score for every job based on 9 compensable factors. • This is an evaluation of the position, not the person in the position. 11 11 of 52
6 Market Peers
P H AS E 3
• 14 public peers were identified to receive the custom market survey. • Additional peers were included for Marine Safety comparison only. • Data from published survey sources was additionally included representing “all industries”.
1. City of Anaheim
2. City of Brea
3. City of Costa Mesa
4. City of Huntington Beach
5. City of Irvine
6. Irvine Ranch Water District
7. City of Malibu
8. City of Manhattan Beach
9. City of Newport Beach
10. City of Orange
11. Orange County
12. Orange County Fire Authority
13. City of Santa Ana
14. City of Tustin
15. City of Long Beach
16. Los Angeles County
17. City of San Diego
18. Bureau of Labor Statistics
19. Comp Analyst
20. Economic Research Institute
12 12 of 52
7 Published Sources
P H AS E 3
Data Sources Survey Parameters Survey Information
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey is a semiannual survey measuring wage rates by industry and is displayed nationally, by state, and/or metropolitan area. BLS data used in this survey was pulled at the 10th and 90th percentile to represent the minimum and maximum thresholds of a salary range.
California State Average;
2024 May, aged by 3%
(based on WorldatWork Salary
Budget Survey)
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Comp Analyst is a salary data resource from Salary.com that is comprised of HR-reported pay data comprised of 800 million market data points from more than 25,000 organizations resulting in data across 15,000 unique job title, 225 industry breakouts, 27,000+ compensable factors, in 42,000+ geographies.
California State Average;
All Industry
Comp Analyst
Economic Research Institute (ERI) is a salary data resource reporting market data for more than 11,000 jobs in more than 9,000 different locations across more than 1,100 industry sectors. ERI data is updated quarterly. ERI data used in this survey was pulled at the 10th and 90th percentile to represent the minimum and maximum thresholds of a salary range.
California State Average;
All Industry
Economic Research Institute
13 13 of 52
8 Market Review
P H AS E 3
Quality
• Baker Tilly requires a 75% overlap in duties and responsibilities to be considered a ‘good match.’
• Job descriptions/summaries were reviewed (neo gov) for each position to determine appropriate overlap of job duties.
Quantity
• Baker Tilly required a minimum of 3 matches per benchmark to calculate a market value.
• If a benchmark position had less than 3 matches, it will be noted as “insufficient data” in the report.
14 14 of 52
9 Market Results
P H AS E 3
• Data was compiled from all 14 (to 17) public sector peers with additional matches, as appropriate, from 3 published sources. • 137 positions were benchmarked
• All positions had sufficient data (more than 3 matches) • On average, benchmarks had ~9 matches
Min
102%
Mid
100% Max
104%
85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115%
Lag "At Market" Lead
Overall, the City’s pay is “at market”
on average across minimums,
midpoints, and maximums.
15 15 of 52
10 Market Results
P H AS E 3
36 positions
5% - 26% ahead
of market
64 positions
-5% to 5% ahead
of market
34 positions
-32.4% to -5.1%
of market
Benchmark positions were evenly distributed with 36 positions leading by more than 5% and 34 positions lagging by more than 5%. 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115%
Lag "At Market" Lead
16 16 of 52
Proposed
Pay Plans
17 17 of 52
12 Current Pay Plan
P H AS E 4 Pay Grade Min Mid Max Spread Mid Diff
64 61,340 50,956 71,723 40.8%
66 62,526 51,951 73,101 40.7% 1.9%
71 63,586 52,765 74,406 41.0% 1.7%
71 66,186 54,922 77,449 41.0% 4.1%
77 68,135 56,584 79,685 40.8% 2.9%
77 70,920 58,901 82,939 40.8% 4.1%
83 73,401 60,977 85,825 40.7% 3.5%
84 75,186 62,462 87,909 40.7% 2.4%
83 76,403 63,473 89,333 40.7% 1.6%
88 77,564 64,447 90,680 40.7% 1.5%
88 80,730 67,077 94,383 40.7% 4.1%
95 84,134 69,975 98,292 40.5% 4.2%
96 87,577 72,841 102,312 40.5% 4.1%
96 88,577 73,677 103,476 40.4% 1.1%
98 90,786 75,434 106,137 40.7% 2.5%
2000 90,915 72,735 109,095 50.0% 0.1%
100 91,666 76,240 107,091 40.5% 0.8%
104 97,477 81,001 113,952 40.7% 6.3%
106 98,753 82,064 115,441 40.7% 1.3%
106 99,879 83,003 116,755 40.7% 1.1%
114 109,767 91,193 128,341 40.7% 9.9%
122 120,779 100,325 141,232 40.8% 10.0%
128 130,008 108,023 151,992 40.7% 7.6%
133 137,364 114,146 160,582 40.7% 5.7%
133 138,367 114,975 161,759 40.7% 0.7%
134 140,697 116,910 164,483 40.7% 1.7%
2010 128,884 143,202 157,520 22.2% 1.8%
2020 127,411 159,238 191,065 50.0% 11.2%
3000 160,008 128,027 191,988 50.0% 0.5%
140 163,426 135,786 191,065 40.7% 2.1%
2030 135,174 171,658 208,141 54.0% 5.0%
3030 174,162 137,151 211,172 54.0% 1.5%
3010 187,978 167,089 208,867 25.0% 7.9%
2040 157,017 198,990 240,963 53.5% 5.9%
3020 204,792 182,032 227,552 25.0% 2.9%
2050 177,658 221,188 264,717 49.0% 8.0%
2060 183,876 242,626 301,375 63.9% 9.7%
• Consolidating “grades” from PEA, MEA, MGMT, and
Police/Fire Mgmt shows extreme overlap. • Midpoint differential’s range from 0.1% to 11.2%. • Meaning, many “grades” are essentially the same • Range Spreads are close among PEA and MEA positions with
40.4% to 41% spreads, despite a consistent 8 steps. • Management ranges have more inconsistencies with 22% to
63.9%.
18 18 of 52
13 Current Pay Ranges
P H AS E 4
37 grades for ~148 positions
Current Grades Pay Range Amounts
19 19 of 52
14 Municipal Employee’s Association
P H AS E 4
Current Grades Pay Range Amounts
20 20 of 52
15 Proposed Pay Plans
P H AS E 4
• We have developed 5 new pay plans:
• Police - 8 Step Plan
• Fire - 8 Step Plan
• Marine Safety - 8 Step Plan
• General – 8 Step Plan
• Management – Open Range Plan
The purpose of this new framework
is to promote equity by ensuring fair
and transparent compensation
practices across all groups, reduce
unnecessary overlap between
ranges, and simplify administration.
Changes to union positions/ranges must be bargained
21 21 of 52
16 Police
P H AS E 4
Project Title Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Park Ranger I 50 64,294.00 67,508.70 70,884.14 74,428.34 78,149.76 82,057.25 86,160.11 90,468.11 Park Ranger II 51 74,428.34 78,149.76 82,057.24 86,160.11 90,468.11 94,991.52 99,741.09 104,728.15 Senior Park Ranger 52 86,160.11 90,468.12 94,991.52 99,741.10 104,728.15 109,964.56 115,462.79 121,235.93 Police Recruit 53 93,612.00 98,292.60 103,207.23 108,367.59 113,785.97 119,475.27 125,449.03 131,721.48 Police Officer 53 93,612.00 98,292.60 103,207.23 108,367.59 113,785.97 119,475.27 125,449.03 131,721.48 Police Corporal 54 110,024.00 115,525.20 121,301.46 127,366.53 133,734.86 140,421.60 147,442.68 154,814.82 Police Sergeant 55 122,720.50 128,856.53 135,299.35 142,064.32 149,167.53 156,625.91 164,457.21 172,680.07 Police Lieutenant 56 170,905.90 176,033.08 181,314.07 186,753.49 192,356.10 198,126.78 204,070.58 210,192.70 Police Captain 57 195,165.00 201,019.95 207,050.55 213,262.06 219,659.93 226,249.72 233,037.22 240,028.33 8 Step Plan for 9
positions coving ~63
employees
Each “grade” is for a
designated classification
and was tailored for that
position specifically.
Grades 50 – 55 have a
5% step differential for a
40.7% range spread.
Grades 56 – 57 have a
3% step differential for a
23% range spread.
Proposed Grades Pay Range Amounts
22 22 of 52
17 Fire
P H AS E 4
Project Title Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Firefighter Recruit 61 84,184.00 88,393.20 92,812.86 97,453.50 102,326.18 107,442.49 112,814.61 118,455.34 Firefighter 61 84,184.00 88,393.20 92,812.86 97,453.50 102,326.18 107,442.49 112,814.61 118,455.34 Fire Engineer 62 98,511.00 103,436.55 108,608.38 114,038.80 119,740.74 125,727.77 132,014.16 138,614.87 Fire Captain 63 119,214.00 125,174.70 131,433.44 138,005.11 144,905.36 152,150.63 159,758.16 167,746.07 Battalion Chief 64 152,712.00 160,347.60 168,364.98 176,783.23 185,622.39 194,903.51 204,648.69 214,881.12 8 Step Plan for 5
positions coving ~42
employees
Each “grade” is for a
designated classification
and was tailored for that
position specifically.
Grades 61 – 64 have a
5% step differential for a
40.7% range spread. Pay Range Amounts
Proposed Grades
23 23 of 52
18 Marine Safety
P H AS E 4
Market Minimum Maximum
Project Title Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Marine Safety Officer 70 85,700.00 89,985.00 94,484.25 99,208.46 104,168.89 109,377.33 114,846.20 120,588.51 Marine Safety Lieutenant 71 110,269.00 115,782.45 121,571.57 127,650.15 134,032.66 140,734.29 147,771.01 155,159.56 Midpoint 8 Step Plan for 2
positions coving ~14
employees
Each “grade” is for a
designated classification
and was tailored for that
position specifically.
Grades 70 – 71 have a
5% step differential for a
40.7% range spread. Pay Range Amounts
Proposed Grades
24 24 of 52
19 General
P H AS E 4
Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5 $45,115 $47,371 $49,739 $52,226 $54,838 $57,579 $60,458 $63,481 6 $47,822 $50,213 $52,724 $55,360 $58,128 $61,034 $64,086 $67,290 7 $50,692 $53,226 $55,888 $58,682 $61,616 $64,697 $67,932 $71,328 8 $53,734 $56,420 $59,241 $62,203 $65,313 $68,579 $72,008 $75,608 9 $56,957 $59,805 $62,795 $65,935 $69,232 $72,694 $76,328 $80,145 10 $60,373 $63,392 $66,562 $69,891 $73,386 $77,055 $80,908 $84,953 11 $63,995 $67,195 $70,555 $74,084 $77,789 $81,678 $85,762 $90,050 12 $67,835 $71,227 $74,789 $78,529 $82,456 $86,579 $90,908 $95,453 13 $71,907 $75,502 $79,277 $83,241 $87,403 $91,773 $96,362 $101,180 14 $76,220 $80,031 $84,033 $88,235 $92,647 $97,279 $102,143 $107,250 15 $80,793 $84,833 $89,075 $93,529 $98,206 $103,116 $108,272 $113,686 16 $85,642 $89,924 $94,420 $99,141 $104,098 $109,303 $114,768 $120,506 17 $90,778 $95,318 $100,084 $105,089 $110,344 $115,861 $121,654 $127,737 18 $96,223 $101,035 $106,088 $111,394 $116,965 $122,813 $128,954 $135,402 19 $101,998 $107,098 $112,454 $118,078 $123,983 $130,182 $136,691 $143,526 20 $108,118 $113,525 $119,202 $125,163 $131,422 $137,993 $144,893 $152,137 21 $114,607 $120,338 $126,355 $132,673 $139,307 $146,272 $153,586 $161,265 22 $121,483 $127,558 $133,936 $140,633 $147,665 $155,048 $162,801 $170,941 23 $128,772 $135,211 $141,972 $149,071 $156,525 $164,351 $172,569 $181,197 24 $136,496 $143,322 $150,489 $158,015 $165,917 $174,213 $182,923 $192,070 25 $144,686 $151,922 $159,519 $167,496 $175,872 $184,666 $193,899 $203,594 8 Step Plan for 115 positions
coving ~163 employees.
5% step differential for a 40.7%
range spread.
21 grades, numbered 5 – 25
with 6% between each grade.
Aligned “at market” at the
midpoint. The midpoint falls
between step 4 and 5,
mathematically.
25 25 of 52
20 General
P H AS E 4 Pay Range Amounts
Proposed Grades
26 26 of 52
21 General
P H AS E 4
Maximum
Midpoint
Minimum
Regression
Position
27 27 of 52
22 Management
P H AS E 4
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum
109 $75,324 $90,389 $105,454
110 $79,843 $95,812 $111,780
111 $84,634 $101,561 $118,488
112 $89,713 $107,655 $125,598
113 $95,095 $114,114 $133,133
114 $100,801 $120,961 $141,121
115 $106,849 $128,219 $149,589
116 $113,260 $135,912 $158,564
117 $120,056 $144,067 $168,078
118 $127,259 $152,711 $178,163
119 $134,895 $161,874 $188,853
120 $142,988 $171,586 $200,183
121 $151,568 $181,881 $212,195
122 $160,662 $192,794 $224,927
123 $170,302 $204,362 $238,423
124 $180,520 $216,624 $252,728
125 $191,351 $229,621 $267,891
126 $198,692 $243,398 $288,103
127 $215,002 $258,002 $301,003
• Open range plan for 32 positions coving ~25 employees. • 19 grades, numbered 109 to 127 with 6% between grades and 40% range spreads. • Aligned “at market” at the midpoint. • Continuation of general plan. 28 28 of 52
23 Grade Assignments
P H AS E 4
Positions were assigned based on the following: Internal equity (job evaluation scores) External equity (market midpoints) Existing equity (current midpoints and grade groupings) Career progressions
Supervisor / Subordinate separation
The following information is NOT considered: The person in the position Performance
Length of service
Existing employee salary
29 29 of 52
Benefits
Comparison
Results
30 30 of 52
25 Supplemental Pay
BE NE F I TS C O MPAR I S O N– NO N- P U BL I C S AF E TY • Laguna Beach offers $1,000 per year in tuition
reimbursement, the lowest among peers.
• Laguna Beach does not offer shift differential for
non-public safety employees, unlike 13 peers
who do.
• Laguna Beach does not offer education pay for
non-public safety employees, while 31% of
peers provide degree-based incentives.
• 12 peers offer bilingual pay, ranging from $50 -
$260 per month. Laguna Beach’s $75/month
sits below the market.
6 6
1 Peers Offering Shift Differential Pay to NonPublic Safety Roles Percentage of base pay
only
Flat hourly rate only
Both flat rate and
percentage
4 9
Peers Offering Educational Pay to NonPublic Safety Roles Provides educational pay
Does not provide
educational pay
31 31 of 52
26 Leave Benefits
BE NE F I TS C O MPAR I S O N– NO N- P U BL I C S AF E TY • Laguna Beach offers 11 paid holidays,
for MEA employees which is
comparable to the peer average of
12.59. • Management accruals start higher but
plateau sooner than those at peer
agencies.
• Core statutory leave benefits (sick,
vacation/PTO, jury duty, military duty)
are generally in line with market norms.
Least Most Average Laguna Beach
Number of
Responses
12 10 days 16 days 12.59 days 11 days
32 32 of 52
27 Health & Life Insurance
BE NE F I TS C O MPAR I S O N– NO N- P U BL I C S AF E TY • On average, employers cover 88% of the cost for
single coverage plans and 90.5% of the cost for
family plans.
• Laguna Beach covers 100% of the cost for single
coverage plans and 80-90% of the cost for family
plans depending on bargaining group.
• The City offers a medical cash-out option of $569.39/month, exceeding the peer median of $400 - $450/month. • Most peer provide a flat amount for term life insurance (ranging from $10k - $250k) or a salary-based multiple (ranging from 1x-3x). Laguna Beach provides $50k to all full-time employees. • Long-term disability is generally structured around replacing 60 –
66.67% of an employee's salary with monthly maximums ranging from $10k to 15k. Laguna Beach provides up to $5,000 to all full-time employees. • Only 5 peer reported to providing short term disability benefits, similarly, structured around 60% salary replacement with monthly limits. Laguna Beach provides STD, as a voluntary, employee-paid benefit.
Least Most Median Range Laguna Beach Number of
Responses
City Contribution - EE Only 9 $769.16 $2,440 ≈ $1,000
% paid by employer 4 75% 100% 88% 100%
City Contribution - EE + 1 8 $1,492.28 $2,149.79 ≈ $1,670-$1,900 % paid by employer 3 70% 100% 90.5% 80% for MEA and 90% for MGMT City Contribution - EE + Family 8 $1,785.68 $2,794.00 ≈ $2,050-$2,700 % paid by employer 3 70% 100% 90.5% 80% for MEA and 90% for MGMT Medical Cash-Out 8 $125/month $929.52/ month ≈ $400-$450/month $569.39/ month 33 33 of 52
28 Pay Practices
BE NE F I TS C O MPAR I S O N– NO N- P U BL I C S AF E TY • Laguna Beach and peer organizations follow
FLSA overtime rules; non-exempt employees
earn 1.5x pay after 40 hours worked.
• Most peers guarantee a minimum of 2 - 3 hours
pay for call-backs, typically at 1.5x pay.
• On-call situations are typically compensated
with a $350 - $550 weekly stipend or 2 – 4
hours of pay per day, with higher rates on
weekends/holidays.
Peer Organization Call Back Minimum
Laguna Beach
1.5x pay; 3 hour minimum Marine Safety
1.5x pay; 2.5 hour minimum Sewer
1.5x pay; 2 hour minimum all others
Anaheim 1.5x pay; 3 hour minimum
Brea 1.5x pay; 2 hour minimum
Costa Mesa 2 hour minimum
Huntington Beach 1.5x pay; 2 hour minimum
Irvine No Response
Irvine Ranch Water District 1.5x pay; 2 hour minimum
Long Beach Greater of 1.5x pay with 3 hour minimum
or actual hours.
Manhattan Beach 2 hour minimum
Newport Beach
2 hour minimum, 3 hour minimum, or
actual hours worked depending on
employee group or CBA.
Orange
Regular pay or 1.5x pay, 2 hour minimum
or 3 hour minimum depending on
employee group or CBA.
Orange County 1.5x pay; 4 hour minimum
Santa Ana
Greater of regular pay at 3 hour minimum
or 1.5-2x pay for actual time depending on
employee group or CBA.
Tustin 1.5x pay; 2 hour minimum
34 34 of 52
29 Supplemental Pay
BE NE F I TS C O MPAR I S O N– P U BL I C S AF E TY
• Laguna Beach provides a 2.5% shift
differential for police and 0% for
firefighters.
• Tuition reimbursement is $1,000/year,
below peer average.
• Education, certification, and bilingual pay
are offered but generally at lower rates
than peers.
• Acting pay is competitive.
Laguna Beach
Least Most Average
Number of
Responses
$250 per year for
equipment 12 $230 per year $1,519 per year ≈ $650 per year 35 35 of 52
30 Leave Benefits
BE NE F I TS C O MPAR I S O N– P U BL I C S AF E TY
• Vacation accrual for PEA employees
starts and stays below market; accrual
rates for PFMA employees starts
above market but plateaus early.
• Paid holidays are in line with peers.
• Core statutory leave (sick, vacation,
jury duty, military, bereavement) aligns
with market norms.
• No longevity pay, while most peers
offer it.
Least Most Average Laguna Beach
Number of
Responses
12 9 days 14.75 days 11.47 days 11 days
3%
4%
5%
7% 8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
5 10 15 20 25+
Average Percentage of Base Salary for Longevity, by Years of Service
134.2
168.9
195.7
213.5
231.1 238.9
50.0 100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
1 5 10 15 20 25+ Hours per Year
Years of Service
PTO/Vacation Accrual (Hours per Year)
Market Average Market Min Market Max
Laguna Beach (PFMA-Fire) Laguna Beach (PFMA-Police) Laguna Beach (Fire) Laguna Beach (PEA)
36 36 of 52
31 Health Insurance
BE NE F I TS C O MPAR I S O N– P U BL I C S AF E TY
• Medical premium contributions among peers
are competitive for both employees and
families.
• The City’s medical cash-out option
($569.39/month) closely matches the peer
median of $594/month.
Least Most Median Range Laguna Beach Number of
Responses
City Contribution - EE Only 8 $800.00 $2,419 ≈ $1,405.06 100% City Contribution - EE + 1 6 $1,175 $1,900 ≈ $1,685.22 80/90% City Contribution - EE + Family 6 $1,550 $2,712.86 ≈ $2,085.29 80/90% Medical Cash-Out 8 $325/month $1,060/ month ≈ $594/month $569.39/ month 37 37 of 52
32 Pay Practices
BE NE F I TS C O MPAR I S O N– P U BL I C S AF E TY
• Laguna Beach pay overtime at 1.5x,
consistent with peers.
• Most peers guarantee at least 2 hours
OT pay for call-backs.
• Most peers allow comp time accrual at
1.5x, typically capped at 80–120 hours
with cash-out options.
Least Most Average Laguna Beach
Number of
Responses
100 (Police);
96 (Lifeguards) 11 40 hrs 240 hrs 80-120 hrs
38 38 of 52
Pay Policy
Recommendations
39 39 of 52
34 Pay Policy Review
AD MI N I S TR AT I O N AN D MAI N TE N AN C E
To help improve documentation and communication about the City’s pay program we recommend the following:
• Adopt a formal compensation philosophy.
• This is a statement about what the City believes about how work is valued, and employees are compensated. It would help articulate the City’s commitment to attracting and retaining necessary talent to provide uninterrupted and high-quality services to the community. • Revise language to align with current/proposed process. • For example, Rule 9.3 states management employees are evaluated for “salary step increase” which contradicts the open range plan currently in use and proposed for future use.
• Create unified salary placement policy.
• To address decisions about hiring, promotion, demotion, transfer, reinstatement, reclassification, etc. with consistency, fairness, and transparency. • For example, “shall receive a step at least 5% over the step in the lower range” may not be achievable in the new pay plans. This language may be too restrictive to be met. 40 40 of 52
35 Pay Policy Review
AD MI N I S TR AT I O N AN D MAI N TE N AN C E
• Strengthen pay progression policy.
• Current policy sounds like step increases may be discretionary as long as 1 year in previous step and approval by City Manager is achieved. If increases are tied to anniversary date, budget process, performance, etc. the policy should state this. • For the open range management plan, define parameters for % increases to advance through the range.
• Consider adjustments to supplemental pay policies. • Acting Pay – a better definition of eligibility (minimum qualification, duties to be performed, and minimum duration of ‘acting out of classification’). Recommend whichever pay is greater between a 10% increase to base of step 1 of the higher classification. • Exceptional Performance Pay – current policy outlines a process that sounds more like a discretionary bonus. Any pay tied to performance needs to be very clearly defined regarding how performance will be measured, when, and how results are applied (lump sump, rolled into base pay, once a year, etc.) • Y Rated Pay – its common organizations will provide a lump sum bonus payment (not to be rolled into base pay) to employees at the maximum of their pay range who are no longer eligible for merit/step increases. This can be equivalent to a typical step increase (5%) or a reduced amount. This policy may be a better alternative to EPP. • In practice, this is not very different than longevity pay, however, longevity pay does roll into base salary. 41 41 of 52
Implementation
42 42 of 52
37 Implementation Cost Analysis
P H AS E 4
• 3 scenarios have been prepared for the City to consider in its adoption of the new classification and compensation plan. • Figures represent base pay only and do not include OT or other differentials. • No employee will receive a reduction in pay.
308 employees were included in the implementation calculations.* 12 (3.9%) have a salary that falls BELOW their new minimum. 246 (79.9%) have a salary that falls WITHIN their new range. 50 (16.2%) have a salary that falls ABOVE their new maximum.
Employees above their new maximum are excluded from implementation calculations. We recommend those employee salaries are Y-rated or ‘frozen’ until the pay structure catches up and they fall back within their range. Therefore, employees retain their existing salary without reduction. * Cost calculations are
a work in progress
43 43 of 52
38 P H AS E 4
Implementation Options (Step Plans)
• Option 1 would place employees on the step nearest their existing salary without a decrease. • Option 2 would place employees on the step corresponding with the number of years in position, without a decrease.
For example, 3 years = Step 3. If the employee’s salary is already greater than Step 3, they would go to the step establishing in option 1 which corresponds with their existing salary. • Option 3 would place employees on the step they are on currently in their range, without a decrease. For example, Step 3 = Step 3. If for some reason the employee’s salary is already greater than the new Step 3, they would go to the step established in option 1 which corresponds with their existing salary.
Implementation Options (Management Only)
• Option 1 would move employees to the minimum of their new range if their current salary is below the minimum. • Option 2 would provide a 2% increase to eligible employees (those below the minimum or within the range). • Option 3 would provide a 3% increase for every year in position from the minimum of the new range. If the employee's existing salary is greater, they would retain that amount. 44 44 of 52
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms.
We urge the City of Laguna Beach to: Approve the use of Baker Tilly’s SAFE® methodology to maintain internal equity in compliance with the federal Equal Pay Act. This job evaluation tool can also be used to maintain the integrity of the new classification and compensation plan in the future. Approve the 5 new pay plans that will provide the City with internally equitable and externally competitive pay for all positions. Approve the position grade assignments that have been established with consideration of internal and external data results as well as input from the City’s project team and department leadership. Work with administration to select an implementation scenario that addresses the City’s compensation philosophy and business goals, and that is fiscally attainable and sustainable. Continue efforts to maintain the classification and compensation system: Routinely review positions, job descriptions, and market conditions with appropriate peer comparators. Adjust the pay structure and salaries, as needed, to keep pace with market conditions. Commit to advancing employees through their assigned pay ranges based on Laguna Beach’s policies.
Recommendations
45 45 of 52
40 Next Steps
Ba k e r Ti l l y + L a g u n a B ea c h
• LB to finalize employee allocations;
• BT to finalize costing calculations.
• Work together to prepare an
implementation plan.
• BT to review and finalize pay policy
report and final report with LB.
• BT to complete updates to job
descriptions.
• BT to provide training to LB HR
• Council to consider Baker Tilly
Recommendations
+
46 46 of 52
CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION STUDY - FAQS
These FAQs are intended to help employees understand the City’s classification and compensation study, the process used, and what to expect moving forward. While the study includes recommendations, no changes to pay or classifications occur unless reviewed through the labor negotiation process and approved by the City Council.
UNDERSTANDING THE CLASS & COMPENSATION STUDY
1. What information does Baker Tilly provide back to the City when this study is completed? Baker Tilly will provide a final report documenting the methodology used to conduct the study, along with its key findings and recommendations. Baker Tilly will also present the results to City Leadership, employees, and the City Council.
2. Are you now completely done with the classification and compensation study? Almost. The following components are left:
• Finalize implementation scenarios and employee allocations. • Complete pay policy analysis and job description updates. • Prepare the final report as well as a council presentation. • Baker Tilly to train HR staff on how to administer and maintain the new classification and compensation system, which includes the SAFE job evaluation process, following meeting with labor groups and City Council
3. Why is this study important beyond salary changes?
The study is about more than salary. It helps modernize job classifications, promote internal equity, support succession planning, and strengthen career paths and progressions across the organization. The study also provides a structured framework to help the City maintain consistency and transparency in how positions are evaluated over time.
4. How was employee input considered in the study?
Employee input played an important role in the study. Information collected through employee surveys and Position Analysis Questionnaires (PAQs) provided critical input into the work performed. This feedback helped ensure that the study’s recommendations accurately reflect job duties and responsibilities across the organization.
5. What parts of the study can the City share now, and what must wait? The City can share information about the study’s purpose, methodology, timeline, and general findings. However, specific recommendations related to pay or classification cannot be finalized or discussed in detail until they are reviewed through the labor negotiation process, as applicable. The City will continue to communicate when appropriate and to the extent possible.
METHODOLOGY & HOW JOBS WERE EVALUATED
6. Is Baker Tilly going to give an exact salary recommendation for any given position? No: Baker Tilly will recommend a salary range for each classification based on market data and internal alignment. The City will review these recommendations through the labor negotiation process. After negotiations are complete, placement of employees within an approved salary range will follow a consistent Citywide methodology.
7. What are salary recommendations based on, and what did that process include? Attachment 2
47 47 of 52
Baker Tilly recommendations are based on a combination of internal job evaluation and external market data. Internally, positions were evaluated using the SAFE factor scoring methodology to assess relative job value and promote internal equity.
Externally, Baker Tilly analyzed comparable market data to the City’s pay ranges remain competitive.
Initial grade placements were established based on existing midpoints to crosswalk positions into the new pay plan and then further refined to promote internal equity via job evaluation scores, reflect market results, career progressions, supervisorsubordinate separation, and to address grade compression.
These recommendations were reviewed with the City’s project team and department heads. Final grade assignments will be confirmed following the labor negotiation process, as applicable, and will ultimately require City Council approval.
The following information was not considered when assigning positions to a pay grade: the individual employee in the position, individual performance, length of service, or an employee’s existing salary.
8. Did this study also look at benefits in addition to salary? Yes. Baker Tilly collected and analyzed benefit information from the peer organizations, including pay plans and compensation practices, paid time off, health benefits, supplemental benefits, and retirement. This information was used to provide context for other compensation practices, but did not result in direct recommendations to change individual employee benefits.
9. What are the nine compensable SAFE factors that Baker Tilly used? Baker Tilly evaluates positions using nine compensable SAFE factors, each assigned a specific weight based on its importance and relevance to the job’s responsibilities. The use of structured weighting allows for a consistent and objective evaluation of the relative complexity and demands of each position across the organization. To ensure compliance with ADA guidelines, the factors related to “Physical Demands” and “Working Conditions” are given lower weights to ensure physical requirements of positions are not overemphasized.
# Compensable Factors Descriptions / Measurements
1 Education Minimum education level required by the position 2 Experience Minimum years of experience required by the position 3 Level of Work Degree of difficulty of work performed by the position 4 Human Relations Type and level of human interactions
5 Working Conditions Environmental conditions experienced by the position 6 Physical Demands Physical exertion regularly performed by the position 7 Independence to Act Degree of independence to make decisions and act 8 Impact of Actions Severity of consequences as a result of decisions 9 Supervision Exercised Type and level of supervision exercised
10. How did you handle employees that have the same job title but do different work based on where they are located (different departments)?
When employees with the same job title work in different departments or areas of the organization, each position was reviewed using the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ) completed by the employees. The PAQ provided detailed information about the specific job duties performed, required skills, level of responsibility, and working conditions for each position, allowing Baker Tilly to evaluate roles based on the actual work performed rather than the job title alone. 48 48 of 52
Based on the results from these PAQs, if positions with different titles were found to be performing substantially similar duties across different locations, Baker Tilly may recommend consolidating the classifications. Where meaningful differences were identified in positions with the same title, those distinctions were considered in the evaluation and a new title or classification may be recommended. This approach ensures that our classification and compensation recommendations accurately reflect the work performed and support a fair and equitable pay structure Citywide.
11. At the start of the project, it was emphasized that the study focuses on the positions, not the person. How is pay determined under that approach?
Baker Tilly collected extensive information and documents from the City at the start of the study, including pay structures, pay policies, job descriptions, organization charts, and salary and pay range data. Recommendations regarding classification structure and pay ranges were based on information provided through Position Analysis Questionnaires (PAQs) and the external market assessment. Individual factors such as employee performance, tenure, or current salary were not considered when evaluating positions.
At the implementation stage, after pay ranges are established, the City will review individual employee placement within any approved ranges to address factors such as range placement and potential compression, using a consistent Citywide methodology. Final placement decisions are subject to labor negotiations, as applicable, and City Council approval.
12. Will job descriptions change as part of this study? Possibly. As part of the study, Baker Tilly reviewed job descriptions to ensure they accurately reflect current job duties and responsibilities. Any updates will be reviewed with Human Resources and the labor associations through the labor negotiation process, as applicable. Once finalized, updated job descriptions will help clarify job expectations and support future career development.
13. If my job title changes, does that mean my job is changing? Not necessarily. Job titles may be recommended to improve consistency across the organization or better reflect the work performed. Any proposed title changes will be reviewed through the negotiation process, as applicable, before they are finalized. If implemented, Human Resources will communicate whether any changes affect job duties or reporting relationships.
SALARY, BENEFITS & MARKET FINDINGS
14. Will my salary be lowered?
No. No employee's salary will be lowered as a result of this study. Any future adjustments will not result in a decrease in anyone’s current pay.
15. If my position is below market, will I get a salary increase? Possibly. The purpose of this study was to ensure the City’s classification and compensation system is fair, internally equitable, and competitive with the market. Any recommendations related to salary will be reviewed through the formal labor negotiation process, as applicable, once the study is complete. No changes will be finalized until that process concludes.
16. How did the City’s salaries compare with peer organizations? Baker Tilly benchmarked 137 job classifications against comparable public-sector organizations. On average, the City’s current minimums are about 102% of market; midpoints are at 100% of market; and maximums are 104% of market.
17. Was cost-of-living considered when reviewing information from other peer organizations? 49 49 of 52
Yes. Economic factors, including cost of living, were considered when identifying and selecting comparable peer organizations.
Cost-of-living data was used to help ensure reasonable market comparisons, but it was not applied as a separate adjustment or formula to individual salary recommendations.
18. How will the City ensure fairness in how employees are placed within new ranges? If new salary ranges are adopted, employee placement will follow a consistent methodology applied Citywide. Factors such as individual performance, tenure, or an employee’s existing salary are not used to determine the pay range or grade assignment.
Any final placement decisions will be addressed through the labor negotiation process, as applicable.
19. Should I expect major changes from this study?
Not necessarily. Early findings suggest that many positions are already generally aligned with the market. The study’s biggest value may be updating job descriptions, strengthening internal equity, and clarifying career progressions. Any changes that are considered will be reviewed through the labor negotiation process, as applicable.
PEER ORGANIZATIONS & COMPARISONS
20. Which peer organizations were used, and how were they selected? Baker Tilly received input from the City’s department heads, labor associations, and worked with HR to establish the list of peer organizations. The final list was reviewed and approved by the City Council. • City of Anaheim
• City of Brea
• City of Costa Mesa
• City of Huntington Beach
• City of Irvine
• Irvine Ranch Water District
• City of Malibu
• City of Manhattan Beach
• City of Newport Beach
• City of Orange
• Orange County
• Orange County Fire Authority
• City of Santa Ana
• City of Tustin
Data was additionally sourced from the following peers to ensure adequate matches for Marine Safety positions:
• City of Long Beach
• Los Angeles County
• City of San Diego
To represent ‘the private sector,’ Baker Tilly included matches, as appropriate, from the following sources:
• Bureau of Labor Statistics
• Comp Analyst
• Economic Research Institute
50 50 of 52
21. Was cost-of-living considered when reviewing information from other peer organizations? Yes. Economic factors, including cost of living, were considered when identifying and selecting comparable peer organizations.
Cost-of-living data was used to help ensure reasonable market comparisons, but it was not applied as a separate adjustment or formula to individual salary recommendations.
PAY PLANS & CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
22. Coming into the study, the City had several pay plans/groups. Did those change? As part of the study, Baker Tilly led discussions with the City’s project team to review the number, type, and overall design of the City’s pay plans. Based on that review, Baker Tilly recommended the following separate pay structures for the following groups:
• Police
• Fire
• Marine Safety
• “General”
• Management
These recommended pay structures reflect differences in labor markets, job requirements, and career progressions across the respective groups. Final pay plan design and implementation are subject to the labor negotiation process, as applicable, and City Council approval.
23. Why five pay plans, and how do they differ?
Public safety positions tend to be more sensitive to the market conditions than other classifications. Establishing a separate pay structure for Police, Fire, and Marine Safety allows the City to better respond to market competitiveness, recruitment, and retention needs specific to those roles.
Management positions already operate under an open-range pay plan, and the study recommended maintaining that structure.
The “General” pay plan includes the remaining professional (non-sworn) and general classifications and reflects more common career progression and market patterns.
Having multiple pay plans allows the City to maintain internal equity while also recognizing differences in labor markets, job requirements, and career structures across employee groups.
24. Will this structure be reviewed regularly?
Baker Tilly recommended that the City conduct periodic market assessments to help ensure the classification and compensation structure remain competitive and aligned with industry standards. Any future reviews would be subject to City priorities, available resources, and applicable labor agreements.
25. Was my supervisor involved in the new pay plan that affects my department? Supervisors were asked to review and provide feedback on employees' completed Position Analysis Questionnaires (PAQs) early in the process to help ensure the accuracy of the information. Department directors provided input on grade assignments.
Final pay plan design and implementation are subject to the labor negotiations process, as applicable, and City Council approval.
51 51 of 52
TIMELINE, NEXT STEPS & NEGOTIATIONS
26. When will the implementation take effect?
The classification and compensation study is expected to be presented to the City Council on January 13, 2026, as an informational item. Any recommended changes resulting from the study will be addressed through the labor negotiation process, as applicable. Additional information regarding the timing and implementation of any approved changes will be provided after those discussions are complete. Updates will be shared with employees through email communications and the City’s intranet, as appropriate.
27. What happens after the final report is presented to the City Council? After the informational presentation to the City Council on January 13, 2026, the City will make the study available to help inform future discussions with the labor associations. Recommendations from the study will be reviewed during these discussions, as appropriate. No changes to pay, titles, or classifications will occur unless and until they are addressed through the labor negotiation process, as applicable, and approved by the City Council.
28. Why does implementation take so long?
Implementing classification and compensation changes requires City Council direction and review through the labor negotiations process, which may take several months. This deliberate approach helps ensure that recommendations are evaluated thoroughly, consistently, and fairly with employee associations before decisions are finalized.
29. Will all recommendations in the study be implemented immediately? Not necessarily. Recommendations in the study, including potential pay or classification adjustments, will be carefully reviewed during labor negotiations. Any changes will only be implemented after negotiations are complete.
30. How will the City keep employees informed during negotiations? While some information must remain confidential during labor negotiations, the City will share updates when appropriate and to the extent possible. Employees will receive updates via email and/or updates on SharePoint as milestones in the process are reached.
31. How often will the City share updates?
Updates will be shared at key milestones. Additional information and resources will be available through email communications and on SharePoint, as appropriate.
EMPLOYEE QUESTIONS, CONCERNS & SUPPORT
32. What if I have concerns about my classification or salary adjustment? Employees are encouraged to bring questions or concerns to their manager or to Human Resources. The City is committed to providing information and assistance to help employees understand the classification and compensation study and how it may affect them.
52 52 of 52
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
January 13, 2026
STUDY SESSION
2 SUBJECT: PACIFIC MARINE MAMMAL CENTER FIELD HOSPITAL REQUEST FOR
PERMANENCY
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive the presentation from the Pacific Marine Mammal Center, and provide input regarding whether staff should conduct further analysis of the request, including evaluation of legal, policy, and procedural requirements.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The City issued a Temporary Use Permit to the Pacific Marine Mammal Center (PMMC) to allow continued animal care operations during renovation of its primary campus. The temporary field hospital has proven to be a valuable resource for marine mammal rescue and rehabilitation. The PMMC has submitted a formal request for City Council consideration of a permanent field hospital at the current location. This study session provides background, summarizes the request, and outlines the issues for City Council discussion.
No action is requested.
Purpose of Study Session
The purpose of this study session is to:
• Present background and context regarding the Temporary Use Permit and field hospital operations • Receive PMMC’s presentation regarding service improvements and operational benefits • Allow City Council to discuss potential policy direction • Identify issues requiring further analysis before any future action
DISCUSSION
Background
The City issued a Temporary Use Permit to the PMMC for the construction and operation of a field hospital to allow continued animal care and rehabilitation services during renovation of its main campus. The field hospital is located at the northern end of the Laguna Beach Dog Park.
The overall dog park parcel is approximately 110,000 square feet. The field hospital site encompasses approximately fifteen thousand square feet, and the remaining area of park available for dog use is approximately ninety-five thousand square feet.
The campus renovation project is scheduled for completion in 2026. During the temporary period, the field hospital has functioned as a critical facility supporting marine mammal rescue, stabilization, and rehabilitation services serving Laguna Beach and the surrounding coastal region. 1 of 75
PACIFIC MARINE MAMMAL CENTER FIELD HOSPITAL REQUEST FOR PERMANENCY January 13, 2026
PMMC Request
In late 2025, the City received a letter from the PMMC requesting City Council consideration of making the field hospital a permanent fixture. The letter is included as Attachment 1.
As part of the study session, PMMC will provide a presentation describing operational experience with the field hospital and the service improvements achieved through its use.
The specific request from PMMC is for the City to amend the existing long-term lease already in place with PMMC to include the following:
• The field hospital site
• An additional building located between the PMMC barn and the Animal Shelter to be used as a shared use facility
If the request is granted, PMMC indicates that upon completion of the main campus renovation, it would remove the temporary trailers, restrooms, and storage units around the field hospital. PMMC proposes converting that area into approximately ten parking spaces for PMMC volunteers and staff who otherwise park along Laguna Canyon Road.
Dog Park Considerations
PMMC acknowledges that a permanent field hospital would affect the Friends of Laguna Beach Dog Park and overall dog park operations. As part of its request, PMMC proposes returning a portion of land located in the northeastern section of the site back to use by the dog park to partially offset the permanent footprint of the field hospital.
Staff Considerations
The City has not conducted an analysis of the specific legal, policy, or procedural requirements associated with amending the existing lease or any potential conveyance of City property related to this request. Any consideration of a permanent field hospital would require evaluation for consistency with City policies and applicable state law.
Next Steps
If the City Council wishes to continue consideration of this request, the following questions are intended to guide study session discussion and potential direction if helpful:
1. Does the City Council wish to direct staff to further evaluate the PMMC request to make the field hospital a permanent facility at the current location?
2. Should staff conduct a formal analysis of the request for consistency with City policies and applicable state law, including evaluation of whether the proposal would trigger requirements under the Surplus Land Act?
3. Does the City Council wish to direct staff to obtain an appraisal of the subject land to establish an objective valuation to inform any future lease amendment or property related decision?
4. How should staff evaluate potential impacts to the Laguna Beach Dog Park and the Friends of Laguna Beach Dog Park, including the proposed return of a portion of land in the northeastern area of the site to dog park use?
2 of 75
PACIFIC MARINE MAMMAL CENTER FIELD HOSPITAL REQUEST FOR PERMANENCY January 13, 2026
5. Does the City Council wish to form an ad hoc committee to further develop a concept City Council consideration at a later date?
6. What additional information or alternatives does the City Council wish staff to evaluate before returning with potential options or recommendations?
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from the Pacific Marine Mammal Center requesting consideration of a permanent field hospital facility (Pgs. 4-17)
Submitted By:
.
Approved: .David A Kiff
Jeremy Frimond, Assistant City
Manager
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Jeremy Frimond, Assistant City Manager
3 of 75
Attachment 1
4 4 of 75
5 5 of 75
6 6 of 75
7 7 of 75
8 8 of 75
9 9 of 75
10 10 of 75
11 11 of 75
12 12 of 75
13 13 of 75
14 14 of 75
15 15 of 75
16 16 of 75
17 17 of 75
18 of 75
19 of 75
20 of 75
21 of 75
22 of 75
23 of 75