Yreka City Council
March 1, 2022

YREKA CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
March 1, 2022 – 6:30 P.M.

Yreka City Council Chamber, 701 Fourth Street, Yreka, CA Regular Meetings of the Yreka City Council are held the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of every month.

The full agenda packet can be found on the City’s website: www.ci.yreka.ca.us/AgendaCenter

1. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Citizen participation is welcomed and invited at all City Council meetings. Time is reserved at each regular meeting for those in the audience who wish to address the City Council. The City requests that persons addressing the City Council refrain from making personal, slanderous, profane, or disruptive remarks.

Public comments period is not intended to be a “Question and Answer” period or conversations with the Council or City staff.

Councilmembers, when recognized by the Mayor, may ask questions of presenter but no action may be taken by the City Council during the public comment section of the meeting. Under the Brown Act, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. • Please speak from the podium.
• Please state your name for the record prior to providing your comments. • Please address the Council as a whole.
• If you have documents to present, please provide a minimum of seven (7) copies. • Please limit your remarks to five (5) minutes. Council retains the option to limit public comment to two (2) minutes per person if necessary.

Join this meeting via Zoom:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6194957056
Meeting ID# 619-495-7056
Members of the public may also remotely listen to and participate in the meeting via teleconference. If you wish to listen or participate in this meeting through teleconference, simply dial into the conference number below, and enter the meeting ID#.

Conference call in Number: 669-900-6833 (Toll-Free 888 788 0099) “RAISE YOUR HAND” to provide public comment for your desired item. Speakers will be asked to identify themselves.
• Online: If you are online, click on “raise hand” on the bottom of your screen. • Mobile App: In the mobile app, you can raise your hand by tapping the "Raise Hand" option in the "More" tab.
• Telephone: If you are calling in via telephone, to raise your hand, dial *9 (star-nine). Speakers will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number. To unmute yourself dial *6 (star-six).

3. PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP:

This is the time for City Council or the City Manager to respond to public comments and may direct staff to prepare a report or place an item on a future agenda.

4. CONSENT AGENDA:

All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine and non-controversial and will be enacted by one motion unless any member of the Council wishes to remove an item for discussion, a. Approval/ratification of payments issued from December 22, 2021, through February 20, 2022.
b. Cash and Fiscal Reports:
i. Cash Balances Report – December 2021
ii. Quarterly Treasurer’s Investment Report – 2nd Quarter Fiscal Year 2021/2022 iii. Budget of Revenue and Expenditures with Year-to-Date Actuals through December 31, 2021
iv. Fiscal Performance Report as of December 31, 2021
c. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting held February 15, 2022. d. Continuation of Urgency Ordinance #864: Fireworks
e. Continuation of Urgency Resolution #2021-51: Remote Public Meetings f. Waive Full Text Reading of All Ordinances on the Agenda. Ordinances shall be introduced and adopted by title only.

5. OLD BUSINESS:
a. Discussion and Possible Action – Public Works:

S. Foothill Drive Brownfield Site Cleanup
b. Discussion and Possible Action – Public Works:

Redirection of Current Park Budget Line Items to Offset Rental Costs of Portable Toilet Units

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Public Hearing Protocol:
i. Mayor will describe the purpose of the Public Hearing. ii. City Staff will provide the Staff Report.
iii. City Staff will respond to questions from the City Council. iv. Mayor will open the Public Hearing.
v. Citizens wanting to comment will come to the podium, provide the City Clerk with their name and address, and provide their comments.
vi. Mayor will close the Public Hearing.
vii. City Council will deliberate and act on the item.
a. Discussion and Possible Action – City Manager:

Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider the Sale of Two (2) City-Owned Parcels Located on Campus Drive in Yreka, CA

b. Discussion and Possible Action – City Manager:

Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Purchase Contract for Real Property Located on Campus Drive and Taking Related Actions

7. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Discussion and Possible Action – Human Resources:

Adopt a Resolution by the City Council of the City of Yreka Approving Agreement for Services Between the City of Yreka and Regional Government Services and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Necessary Agreements for the Compensation Study.

8. CITY MANAGER/STAFF REPORTS:

City Manager and Staff may make brief announcements or reports at this time.

9. COUNCILMEMBER STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS:

Members of the Council may make brief announcements, reports, or request staff to report to Council on any matter at a subsequent meeting.

10. ADJOURNMENT.

In compliance with the requirements of the Brown Act, notice of this meeting has been posted in a publicly accessible place, 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

All documents produced by the City which are related to an open session agenda item and distributed to the City Council are made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office during normal business hours.

Public Hearings: If, in the future, you wish to challenge in court any of the matters on an agenda for which a public hearing is to be conducted, you may be limited to raising only those issues which you (or someone else) raised orally at the public hearing or in written correspondence received by the City at or before the hearing. Any person seeking to challenge a City Council decision made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and the discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the City Council, shall be required to commence that action 90 days following the date on which the decision becomes final as provided in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Please refer to Code of Civil Procedure 1094.6 to determine how to calculate when a decision becomes “final.”
"CHALLENGING DECISIONS OF CITY ENTITIES The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City of Yreka is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Government Code section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing. If a person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Yreka, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies." The City of Yreka does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any other legally protected classes in employment or provision of services. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those requiring accommodations for this meeting should notify the City Clerk 48 hours prior to the meeting at (530) 841-2336 or by notifying the Clerk at [email protected].

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YREKA HELD IN SAID CITY ON FEBRUARY 15, 2022
On the 15th Day of February 2022, the City Council of the City of Yreka met in regular session, and upon roll call, the following were present: Deborah Baird, Joan Smith Freeman, Duane Kegg, Corey Middleton, and Paul McCoy.

At the start of the meeting, Mayor Kegg recommended that Public Comments be moved to item #2 and Special Presentations be moved to item #3. Council consented to this change. The numbering of items has not been changed in the minutes, in order to maintain consistency with the published agenda.

2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS:

This time slot is for informational presentations, appointments, or awards to be presented by the City Council or to the City Council.
a. Presentation – Yreka Volunteer Fire Department
Introduction of Karyn Williams-Stanshaw as Applicant to the Yreka Volunteer Fire Department.

Fire Chief Jerry Lemos presented information on this item. b. Presentation – Siskiyou County Health and Human Services Agency:

Siskiyou Crossroads Housing Development.

Dr. Sarah Collard, Director of Siskiyou Health and Human Services presented information on this item.

5. CONSENT AGENDA:

Mayor Kegg announced that all matters listed under the consent calendar are considered routine and would be enacted by one motion unless any member of the Council wished to remove an item for discussion, or a member of the audience wished to comment on an item.

City Manager Jason Ledbetter recommended approval of the following consent items:
a. Approval/ratification of payments issued from January 24, 2022, through February 6, 2022.
b. Approval of Minutes of the regular meeting held February 1, 2022. c. Continuation of Urgency Ordinance #864: Fireworks
d. Continuation of Urgency Resolution #2021-51: Remote Public Meetings e. Approve the Appointment of Karyn Williams-Stanshaw to the Yreka Volunteer Fire Department.

f. Adopt a Resolution Approving Vendors and Other Requests Associated with the Special Event Being Held by the Kiwanis Club to Be Known as “Kiwanis Club Easter Egg Hunt 2022.”
g. Adopt a Resolution to Oppose Initiative 21-0042A1
h. Waive Full Text Reading of All Ordinances on the Agenda. Ordinances shall be introduced and adopted by title only.

Following Council discussion, Mayor Kegg recused himself from item #5a due to a perceived conflict of interest in regards to his cousin receiving payment in exchange for repairing the automatic gate at Yreka Police Station.

Councilmember Freeman moved to approve items #5b through #5h. Councilmember McCoy seconded the motion, and upon roll call, the following voted AYE: Baird, Freeman, McCoy, Middleton, and Kegg. Mayor Kegg thereupon declared the motion carried.

Councilmember Baird moved to approve item #5a. Councilmember Middleton seconded the motion, and upon roll call, the following voted AYE: Baird, Freeman, McCoy, and Middleton. Mayor Kegg thereupon declared the motion carried.

6. OLD BUSINESS:
a. Discussion and Possible Action – City Manager:

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program.

City Manager Jason Ledbetter presented information on this item to the Council. Following Council discussion, no action was taken at this time.
b. Discussion and Possible Action – City Manager:

Emergency Warming Shelter.

City Manager Jason Ledbetter presented information on this item to the Council. Following Council discussion, no action was taken at this time.

7. City Manager/Staff Reports:

City Manager and Staff made brief announcements or reports at this time.

8. Council Statements and Requests:

Councilmembers reported on various community events and meetings attended.

9. CLOSED SESSION:

The City Council recessed to Closed Session to discuss the following item(s):
a. Conference with Real Property Negotiations (§ 54956.8) Property: Assessor Parcel Nos. 062-161-120, 062-161-150, and 062-031-250 Third Party Negotiation: California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 2 City Negotiation: City Manager and City Attorney
Negotiating Parties: City of Yreka and Caltrans

Under Negotiation: Possible purchases and encroachment agreement including price, terms of payment, or both.

10. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION:

Upon return to Open Session, Mayor Kegg reported that no action was taken by the City Council in Closed Session. (Government Code Section 54950 et. seq.).

11. ADJOURNMENT.

There being no further business before the Council the meeting was adjourned.

Attest:
_________________________
Duane Kegg, Mayor
___________________________ Minutes approved by Council, Arthur Boyd, City Clerk Motion March 1, 2022

CITY OF YREKA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
To:

Prepared By:

Agenda Title:

Meeting date:

Yreka City Council
Arthur Boyd, City Clerk
Discussion/Possible Action: Continuation of Urgency Ordinance 864.

March 1, 2022
Discussion:

The drought, prevailing climatic temperatures, and the allocation of Yreka Fire Resources to mutual aid to suppress wildfires was found to constitute an immediate threat to the public safety.

Ordinance 864 delays the sale of fireworks and the use of fireworks and public displays of pyrotechnics until the threat to public safety is abated.

Recommendation:

That the Council continue Urgency Ordinance 864.

SUMMARY OF ADOPTED URGENCY ORDINANCE No. 864
Please take notice that the Yreka City Council adopted, at an emergency meeting held on July 29, 2021, a temporary urgency ordinance, number 864, entitled: “AN UNCODIFIED URGENCY

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF YREKA DECLARING A LOCAL EMERGENCY, AND AUTHORIZING THE

DELAY OF THE SALE AND USE OF FIREWORKS WHICH MAY CREATE A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY

DEEMED TO BE ARISING FROM THE INCIDENCE OF THE LAVA FIRE AND SETTING FORTH THE FACTS CONSTITUTING SUCH URGENCY AND FINDING THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW” This urgency ordinance generally provides:

1. The factual background of the Lava Fire, the drought, the prevailing climatic temperatures and the fact that Yreka’s Fire Resources are engaged in mutual aid to suppress the Lava Fire as well as the allocation of law enforcement resources in traffic control and the fact that without Yreka’s normally available police and fire resources, the use of fireworks and pyrotechnics fire may not be able to be suppressed which was found to constitute the basis for the urgency nature of the ordinance and the City Council determined that there existed an immediate threat to the public health, safety and/or welfare and a need for immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety that warrants the adopted urgency measures.

2. The ordinance delays the sale of fireworks and the use of fireworks and public displays of pyrotechnics until the threat to public safety is abated and the urgency ordinance is terminated.

3. The city council determined that a local emergency now exists and shall continue to exist until its termination is ordained by the City Council. The need for continuance of the urgency measures will be regularly reviewed by City Council until it is terminated. The ordinance will be terminated at the earliest possible time.

4. The ordinance vests in the City Manager, Chief of Police and the Fire Chief with the discretion to take such acts as may be necessary to effectuate the intent of the ordinance.

5. The Council determined that the ordinance complies with a categorical exemption from CEQA review.

By roll call vote the following councilmembers voted in favor of the ordinance: Duane Kegg, Deborah Baird, Paul McCoy and Corey Middleton.

This summary is not intended to be a comprehensive statement of all of the provisions of the Ordinance, but constitutes only a fair summary of the Ordinance. The complete text of the Ordinance and the minutes of the emergency session is available for review online in Yreka’s City Council Agenda section or through a public records request as an in-person review of it is not available because City Hall is not currently open to the public.

ARTHUR BOYD
City Clerk

BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YREKA

AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: March 1, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dohn Henion, Yreka City Attorney
TITLE: RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE HOLDING PUBLIC MEETINGS REMOTELY (AB 361) RECOMMENDATION:

In accordance with Assembly Bill 361, adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s Council, Commission, and Committee meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns to the public due to COVID-19.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

BACKGROUND:

On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for a broader spread of COVID-19.

Thereafter, on March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-2920, which suspended certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to conduct meetings telephonically or by other means. Additionally, the State implemented a shelter-in-place order, requiring all non-essential personnel to work from home.

Staff quickly worked to set up remote meetings via Zoom for all City Council and Planning Commission meetings. The Zoom meetings have allowed the Council, Commissions, and Committees to continue to conduct City business from the safety of members’ homes. The City has been utilizing Zoom for the past 18 months to conduct nearly all public meetings. The usage of Zoom for public meetings has allowed the City to ensure the public’s continued access to government meetings while also ensuring the public’s safety.

On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-08-21, which extended the ability of agencies to hold remote meetings through September 30, 2021, after which agencies anticipated transitioning back to public meetings held in full compliance with the Brown Act. In preparation for the return to in-person meetings, staff has been working on acquiring audio and visual upgrades for City facilities to conduct hybrid meetings. Although hybrid meetings would help to keep the public safe by allowing them to continue accessing the meetings from their own home, Councilmembers, Commissioners, Committee members, and staff would need to meet in person.

Since the Governor issued Executive Order N-08-21, the Delta variant has emerged, causing a spike in cases throughout the state.

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newson signed Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361), which allows cities to continue to meet remotely during proclaimed states of emergency under modified Brown Act requirements that are similar but not identical to the rules and procedures established by the previous Executive Orders.

AB 361 authorizes local agencies to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act during a declared state of emergency, when state or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing during the proclaimed state of emergency, or when there is an imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees.

DISCUSSION:

AB 361 will allow local legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely after the September 30, 2021 expiration of the Governor’s executive orders. A local agency will be allowed to continue to meet remotely when:
• The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency • State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing
• Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees
The City meets the requirements to continue holding meetings remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public due to the following:
• The City is still under a local state of emergency;
• County health orders require that all individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks;
• The City can’t maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, Commissioners, and Committee Members in their meeting spaces; The City cannot ensure social distancing requirements are met inside City facilities where the City Council, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Redistricting Advisory Committee, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and Main Street Bridge Advisory Committee meet.

Moreover, the indoor mask order is still in effect, making it difficult to hear what Councilmembers, Commissioners, Committee Members, staff, and public speakers are saying.

Furthermore, while speaking through masks may be understandable in person, picking up speech on microphones for those attending remotely and those watching any livestreams would be difficult.

Per AB 361, the City Council would need to declare every 30 days that the City’s legislative bodies must continue to meet remotely to ensure the health and safety of the public. Staff recommends that the City Council declare these findings are true so these bodies can continue to meet remotely. Staff will return with this resolution for re-ratification at the Council’s 1st Tuesday meeting each month, at which time the Council can reassess as various health orders and COVID-19 parameters change.

RESOLUTION NO. 2021- 51
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 A RESOLUTION OF THE YREKA CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

YREKA PROCLAIMING A LOCAL EMERGENCY, RATIFYING THE

PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY BY GOVERNOR
NEWSOM ON MARCH 4, 2020, AND AUTHORIZING REMOTE

TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF
CITY OF YREKA FOR THE PERIOD SUCCESSIVE 30-DAY PERIODS
PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361
9 WHEREAS, the City of Yreka is committed to preserving and nurturing IO public access and participation in meetings of the Yreka City Council; and 11 WHEREAS, all meetings of City of Yreka's legislative bodies are open and 12 public, as required by t.he Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code§ 54950 13 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the 14 City's legislative bodies conduct their business; and 15 16 WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e), makes 17 provisions for remote teleconferencing paiiicipation in meetings by members of 18 a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government 19 Code section 54953(b )(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and 20 WHEREAS, a required condition is that a state of emergency is declared by the 21 Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence 22 of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property 23 within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 24 8558;and
25 WHEREAS, a proclamation is made when there is an actual incident, threat of 26 disaster, or extreme peril to the safety of persons and prope1iy within the 27 jurisdictions that are within the City's boundaries, caused by natural, 28 technological, or human-caused disasters; and
29 WHEREAS, it is further required that state or local officials have imposed or 30 recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, the legislative body 31 meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of 32 attendees; and
33 WHEREAS, such conditions now exist in the City, specifically, in Executive Order 34 N-29-20 the Governor of the State of California declared a state of emergency to 35 exist as a result of the threat of COVID-19; and
36 WHEREAS, said order suspended provisions of celiain provisions of the Brown 37 Act relating to teleconference meetings and creating the ability for viliual meetings 38 to keep the public and our public officials safer from exposure to the pandemic; and 39 WHEREAS, that suspension of the Brown Act requires expired on September 30, 40 2021; and
41 WHEREAS, On September 16,2021 Assembly Bill 361 was passed into law 42 permitting the extension of virtual meetings so long as the state of emergency 43 exists and is reviewed every thirty days by the Yreka City Council; and 44 WHEREAS, the delta variant of COVID-19 has resulted in Siskiyou County 45 having experienced 4,382 confirmed COVID-19 amongst the local population 46 cases, 54 deaths, 56 new cases reported in the last 24 hours with 271 active cases 47 and 23 persons presently hospitalized and, accordingly, social distancing and 48 masking is required for attendees' health and safety to mitigate the imminent risk 49 of COVID-19 being transmissible during public, in-person meetings of the City of 50 Yreka; and
51 WHEREAS, virtual meetings further mitigate the public's health and safety while 52 still providing the opportunity for public input on the people's business; and 53 WHEREAS, the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of 54 emergency; and
55 WHEREAS, the state of local emergency continues to directly impact the ability of 56 the City Council, Commissions, and Committees, as well as staff and members of 57 the public, from meeting safely in person; and
58 WHEREAS, the Yreka City Council does hereby find that prevalence of COVID-19 59 amongst the local population and, accordingly, social distancing and masking is 2 60 required for attendees health and safety to mitigate the imminent risk of COVID-19 61 being transmissible during public, in-person meetings of the City of Yreka, its 62 commissions and committees may cause, and may continue to cause, conditions of 63 peril to the safety of persons within the City that are likely to be beyond the control of 64 services, persOlmel, equipment, and facilities of the City, healthcare providers and 65 local hospitals, and desires to proclaim a local emergency and ratify the 66 proclamation of state of emergency by the Governor of the State of California; and 67 68 WHEREAS, as a consequence of the local emergency, the Yreka City Council 69 does hereby find that the City of Yreka's governing body, its commissions and 70 committees shall conduct their meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of 71 subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953, as authorized by subdivision 72 (e) of section 54953, and that such legislative bodies shall comply with the 73 requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in 74 paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of section 54953; and 75 WHEREAS, meetings are posted on the City's website providing the necessary 76 information for the public to virtually provide input to the governing body on the 77 people's business.
78 NOW, THEREFORE, THE YREKA CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 79 YREKA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
80 Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are 81 incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. 82 Section 2. Proclamation of Local Emergency. The City Council hereby proclaims 83 that a local emergency now exists throughout the City, and prevalence of COVID84 19 amongst the local population and, accordingly, social distancing and masking is 85 required for attendees health and safety to mitigate the imminent risk of COVID-19 86 being transmissible during public, in-person meetings of the City of Yreka has 87 caused, and will continue to cause, conditions of peril to the safety of persons within 88 the City that are likely to be beyond the control of services, personnel, equipment, and 89 facilities of the City, healthcare providers and local hospitals. 3 90 Section 3. Ratification of Governor's Proclamation ofa State of Emergency. The 91 City Council hereby ratifies the Governor of the State of California's Proclamation 92 of State of Emergency, effective as of its issuance date of March 4, 2021. 93 Section 4. Remote Teleconference Meetings. The staff and legislative bodies of 94 City of Yreka are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to 95 cany out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and 96 public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other 97 applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
98 Section 5. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect 99 immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) 30 days 100 from adoption of resolution, and 30 days from each successive affirmation that the 101 state of emergency continues to exist or such time the Yreka City Council adopts a 102 subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953( e)(3) to 103 extend the time during which the governing body of the City of Yreka may continue 104 to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of 105 section 54953.
106 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Yreka City Council of the City of Yreka, this 5th 107 day of October, 2021, by the following vote:
108 AYES: FREEMAN, MIDDLETON, BAIRD, KEGG
109 NOES:
110 ABSENT: MCCOY
111 ABSTAIN:
112
113 DuaneK
114 Attest:
115
116
4 CITY OF YREKA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM
To: Yreka City Council
From: Matthew K. Bray, Director of Public Works
Agenda title: DISCUSSION/ POSSIBLE ACTION:

REDIRECTION OF CURRENT PARK BUDGET LINE ITEMS TO OFFSET RENTAL COSTS OF

PORTABLE TOILET UNITS
Meeting date: 3/1/2022
Discussion:

The Public Works Department began renting portable toilet units from Siskiyou Sanitary this past year. On September 7
th
, 2021 Council approved a supplemental appropriation of $10,000 for FY21-22. A decision to continue this program requires a funding source not included in the budget as an annual budget line. At the current rate of$466.82 per month the City has expended $2800.92 for six months of this service.

Should Council choose to continue this rental agreement, Staff has located three budget lines which could be redirected.

1. Playground Equipment/Fall Protection - $10,000 budgeted This line item is utilized for replacement of play equipment such as slides, swings, and the fall protection bark in the playgrounds.

2. Top Soil - $6000 budgeted
This line provides Public Works with funding to topdress lawns, primarily Greenhorn Park.

This task provides valuable nutrients and depth to the lawns. Coupled with annual dethatching, aerating, and grasscycling, Public Works has been able to drastically reduce the amount of fertilizer required and improve the health of turf citywide.

3. Fertilizer - $2000 budgeted
This line is typically used in applications targeting dandelion outbreaks in the Park System.

Fiscal Impact:

Rounding the $466.82 in the case of price increases Staff anticipates a budgetary need for FY 21/22 of $2,000 and FY 22/23 of $6,000.

Recommendation and Requested Action:

That the City Council determine if portable toilet units are to remain in place, and which budgetary line itern/s to redirect from the existing Parks budget.

Resolution No. 2022-8 Caltrans – Real Property Purchase Pg. 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-8

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YREKA

AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE CONTRACT

FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON CAMPUS DRIVE

AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Yreka, California (“City”) is the owner in fee simple of two parcels of real property located on the east side of Campus Drive in Yreka, California and identified with Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (“APNs”) 062‐161‐120 and 062‐161‐150 (“the Parcels”); and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) desires to acquire said real property on the terms and conditions set forth in an Agreement which is under negotiation; and
WHEREAS, per the Surplus Land Act (“SLA”), Government Code Section 54220 et seq., in a regular public meeting held on November 2, 2021 the City Council of the City of Yreka declared the Parcels surplus land because they are not necessary for the City’s use, and as exempt surplus land under GC §54221(f)(1)(D) because they are desired for acquisition by the California Department of Transportation for that agency’s use; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the procedures set forth in GC §37420 et seq., notice of the City’s intent to sell real property and the time for public hearing set for March 1, 2022 at 6:30 PM has been duly published as required by law in the Siskiyou Daily News on February 16 and February 23, 2022; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), the City Council finds that this action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is not a Project which has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are a substantive part of this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Manager or designee is authorized to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement in conformance with state law and to do all things which are deemed necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, and any such actions previously taken are hereby ratified and confirmed.

SECTION 3. This resolution has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.,“CEQA”). City staff has determined that this property sale is categorically exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §15312 (Surplus Government Property Sales).

Resolution No. 2022-8 Caltrans – Real Property Purchase Pg. 2 of 2 SECTION 4. It is further resolved that if any section, subsection, part, clause, sentence or phrase of this Resolution or the application thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution, the application thereof, shall not be affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect, it being the intention of the City Council to adopt each and every section, subsection, part, clause, sentence or phrase or the application thereof is held to be invalid or unconstitutional.
.

SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

Passed and adopted this 1st day of March, 2022 in a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Yreka by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:
_________________________________
Duane Kegg, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
Arthur Boyd, City Clerk

APN: 062-161-012, 062-161-015 Space above this line for Recorder’s Use Grant_Deed_Corp_FullAcq_15435rev 03/2020
GRANT DEED District County Route Postmile Number
02 SIS 3 47.3 15435-1

THE TOWN OF YREKA CITY,
a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California,
hereinafter called GRANTOR, hereby grants to the State of California, Department of Transportation, hereinafter called STATE, all that real property in the City of Yreka , County of Siskiyou, State of California, described as follows:

See Exhibit A, attached.

Number
15435
Grant_Deed_Corp_FullAcq_15435rev 03/2020
Dated: TOWN OF YREKA CITY

Authorized Representative, Title

This is to certify that the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (according to Section 27281 of the Government Code), accepts for public purposes the real property described in this deed and consents to its recordation.

Dated By Toks Omishakin
Director of Transportation

By
Attorney in Fact

EA:02-1H520 A-1 Parcel 15435
SIS 3 PM 47.3
Exhibit A
Parcel 4 and Parcel 5 per the Parcel Map filed June 12, 1992 in Book 11 of Parcels Maps at page 71.

Containing 1.94 acre, more or less.
12-31-2021
Ed Gorge Jr.
7541
This real property description has been prepared by me, or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act.

Signature _______________________________________________ Professional Land Surveyor
Date _________________________________________
1 Parcel No 15435
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT - STATE HIGHWAY (Cont.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT

STATE HIGHWAY

APN: 062-161-15, 12
District County Route PM EA Project ID Program Fed. Ref. Name Parcel(S) 02 SIS 3 47.3 1H520 0217000009 Shopp The Town of Yreka City 15435-1, Yreka, California
March 1, 2022
As vested
Grantor: The Town of Yreka City

RIGHT OF WAY/PURCHASE CONTRACT -- STATE HIGHWAY
Document No. 15435-1(APN 062-161-12 & 062-161-15), in the form of a Grant Deed, covering the property particularly described in the above instrument, has been executed and delivered to Debbie Petersen, Right of Way Agent for the State of California.

In consideration of which, and the other considerations hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows:

1. (A) The parties have herein set forth the whole of their agreement. The performance of this agreement constitutes the entire consideration for said document and shall relieve the parties of all further obligation or claims except as further provided in this agreement. (B) Grantee desires to purchase said property described in Document Nos. 15435-1 for State purposes. (C) The parties to this contract shall, pursuant to Section 21.7 (a) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations comply with all elements of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This requirement under Title VI and the Code of Federal Regulations is to complete the USDOT- NonDiscrimination Assurance requiring compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 49 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 28 C.F.R. Section 50.3
(D) Further, no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that is the subject of this contract.

2. The State shall:
(A) Pay the undersigned Grantors the sum of $234,300.00 ($213,000.00 the agreed Fair Market Value for the Property plus a $21,300.00 Incentive Payment, the “purchase price”) for the property rights conveyed by above documents when title to said property vests in the State free of all liens except:
a. Taxes for the tax year in which this escrow closes shall be cleared and paid in the manner required by Section 5086 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, if unpaid at the close of escrow.
2 Parcel No 15435
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT - STATE HIGHWAY (Cont.)
b. Covenants, conditions, restrictions, and reservations of record, or contained in the abovereferenced document. c. Easements or rights of way over said land for public or quasi-public utility or public street purposes, if any.
d. Matters, rights or boundary discrepancies that may exist or be disclosed by a Tract Map filed in Book 11, Page 71, in office of the County Recorder of said County.

In addition to the Fair Market Value, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the amount in Clause 2 above includes the sum of $21,300.00 as incentive to the Grantor for the timely signing of this Right of Way Contract. This incentive payment offer expires in sixty (60) days from the Initiation of Negotiations, which occurred on January 22, 2022.
(B) Pay all escrow and recording fees incurred in this transaction, and if title insurance is desired by the State, the premium charged, therefore. Said escrow and recording charges shall not, however, include documentary transfer tax. This transaction will be handled through an external escrow with Orange Coast Title Company, W3536 Concourse, Suite 120, Ontario, CA. 91764, Order No. # 1402265684-32.
(C) The lien of future supplemental taxes, if any assessed pursuant to the provisions of section 75, et seq of the revenue and taxation code of the State of California

3. Title to the property described in Document Nos. 15435-1 shall be conveyed to State upon the Close of Escrow.

4. Condition of Title.
(A) Title to the property described in Document Nos. 15435-1 shall be conveyed to State by Grant Deed, free and clear of all liens except for: (i) liens securing real property taxes and assessments (which constitute liens not yet due and payable); and (ii) such other exceptions and reservations shown on an updated Preliminary Title Report (“Preliminary Report”) issued by Orange Coast Title Company (“Title Company”) which are approved by State. (All exceptions to title permitted pursuant to this Paragraph are referred to in this Agreement as “Permitted Exceptions”)

5. It is agreed and confirmed by the parties hereto that notwithstanding other provisions in this contract, the right of possession and use of the Parcel No(s). 15435-1, by the State, including the right to remove and dispose of improvements, shall commence on the date the amount of funds as specified in Clause 2(A) herein are deposited into the escrow controlling this transaction. The amount shown in Clause 2(A) herein includes, but is not limited to, full payment for such possession and use, including damages, if any, from said date

6. Property Taken “As-Is.

In consideration of the purchase price and State's opportunity to fully inspect the herein described property, State acknowledges that State is purchasing the Property and any improvements thereon, solely in reliance of State's own thorough investigation of the Property, and that no representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever, express, or implied, have been made by Grantor, Grantor’s agents, or brokers, if any. State further acknowledges that as of the close of escrow State will be aware of all governmental requirements, site and 3 Parcel No 15435
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT - STATE HIGHWAY (Cont.)
physical conditions, and other matters affecting the use and condition of the Property and agrees to purchase the Property in the condition that it is in at close of escrow.

State further agrees to hold Grantor free and harmless from any latent or patent defects now existing, or hereafter discovered, respecting the Property and its improvements, if any.

In this respect, to the extent lawful, State waives any requirement for Grantor to provide State with the following disclosures:
(A) The State of California Seismic Safety Commission pamphlet entitled: Homeowner guide to earthquake safety;
(B) The California Energy Commission pamphlet entitled: HERS – what is your home energy rating; (C) The advisability of title Insurance warning required by California Civil Code §1057.6. (D) The Airport in Vicinity report as required by California Civil Code §1103.4(c)(1); (E) The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as required by California Gov’t Code §§ 8589.4, 8589.5; and California Civil Code §1103 (including the Earthquake Fault Zone information, Area of Potential Flooding);
(F) The carbon monoxide and detector disclosure statement and all compliance thereto California Civil Code §1102.6;
(G) The Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety as required by Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code § 10147, Cal. Gov’t Code §§8875.6, 8875.9, 8893.2, 8893.3 and Cal. Civ. Code §2079.9. (H) Any disclosures of a death on the premises within the last three years as required by California Civil Code §1710.2;
(I) Energy Use Report as required by California Public Resources Code §25402.10 and C.C.R. §§1680, 1684;
(J) The Farm or Ranch Proximity report and Del Norte County’s Right to Farm Ordinance; (K) The Industrial Use Zone Location disclosures California Civil Code §1102.17 and California Code of Civil Procedure §731(a);
(L) The lead-based Paint Pamphlet and Form;
(M) Any disclosure of known material facts relating to the Premises; (N) The Megan’s Law Disclosure relating to the location of sex offenders; (O) Mello-Roos, 1915 Bond Assessments, and voluntary contractual assessments; (P) The disclosure of any Meth Lab Clean-Up Orders;
(Q) Any compliance to install smoke alarms and its written statement of compliance; (R) Any notices regarding possibility of the levy of Supplemental Property Taxes after transfer; (S) All notices and disclosures regarding Subdivided Lands Laws and the Subdivision Map Act; (T) Any compliance with the replacement of noncompliance (not water conserving fixtures) plumbing fixtures and the disclosures relating thereto.

7. Survival of Close of Escrow.

All representations, warranties, covenants, conditions, agreements and obligations contained in or relating to this Agreement shall survive the Close of Escrow and the recordation of the Grant Deed and shall not merge therein unless specifically stated otherwise in this Agreement. 4 Parcel No 15435
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT - STATE HIGHWAY (Cont.)

8. Entire Agreement.

This Agreement, represents the entire Agreement between the parties in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the subject matter hereof and this Agreement supersedes and replaces any and all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, and communications between the parties, whether oral or written, with regard to the subject matter hereof. There are no oral or written agreements, representations or inducements of any kind existing between the parties relating to this transaction which are not expressly set forth herein. This Agreement may not be modified except by a written agreement signed by both State and Grantor. Without limiting the foregoing, State and Grantor expressly acknowledge and agree that they have not relied on any written or oral statements made by the other party’s representatives in entering into this Agreement.

9. Binding Effect.

This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective heirs, legal representatives, administrators, successors in interest and assigns.

10. Counterparts.

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signatures delivered by email scan shall be as valid and binding on the parties hereto as original wet signatures.

11. Governing Law.

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement or for the breach thereof shall be brought and tried in the County of Siskiyou.

12. Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence with respect to all matters contained in this Agreement.

13. Construction of Agreement; Severability.

To the extent allowed by law, the provisions in this Agreement shall be construed and given effect in a manner that avoids any violation of statute, regulation, or law. The parties agree that in the event any provision in this Agreement is held to be invalid or void by any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of any such provision shall in no way affect any other provision in this Agreement.

The parties acknowledge that they have each contributed to the making of this Agreement and that, in the event of a dispute over the interpretation of this Agreement, the language of the Agreement will not be construed against one party in favor of the other. The parties further acknowledge that they have each had an adequate opportunity to consult with counsel in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement.

14. No Third-Party Beneficiary Rights.

This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of State and Grantor and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement.

15. Joint and Several Liability.

If either the State or the Grantor (separately) is comprised of more than one party, a provision should be added to state that each party constituting the Grantor or State, respectively, is jointly and severally liable. Nothing in this agreement shall create the exercise of joint powers between the parties. 5 Parcel No 15435
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT - STATE HIGHWAY (Cont.)

16. No Joint Venture, Partnership or Other Relationship Created.

The relationship between State and Grantor is that solely of a Grantor and State and no joint venture, partnership or other relationship is created or implied by this Agreement.

17. Exhibits.

All Exhibits and attachments, if any, are hereby incorporated herein by reference thereto.

18. Authority.
(A) State’s Authority. State is a body corporate and politic. State, through those executing this Agreement has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform this Agreement.

The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by State have been duly and validly authorized by all necessary action on the part of State and all required consents and approvals have been duly obtained. This Agreement is a legal, valid, and binding obligation of State, enforceable against State in accordance with its terms, subject to the effect of applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, arrangement, moratorium, or other similar laws affecting the rights of creditors generally.
(B) Grantor's Authority. Grantor is a body corporate and politic created under the laws of the State of California. Grantor has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform this Agreement.

The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Grantor have been duly and validly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Grantor and all required consents and approvals have been duly obtained.

This Agreement is a legal, valid and binding obligation of Grantor, enforceable against Grantor in accordance with its terms, subject to the effect of applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, arrangement, moratorium or other similar laws affecting the rights of creditors generally.

In Witness Whereof, the Parties vested have executed this agreement the day and year first above written.

Grantor
City of Yreka
Jason Ledbetter
City Manager
City of Yreka
Attest:

Arthur Boyd
City Clerk
6 Parcel No 15435
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT OF WAY CONTRACT - STATE HIGHWAY (Cont.)
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:

ACCEPTED:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

By By
DEBBIE PETERSEN Date TADJ A. RATAJCZAK Date
Associate Right of Way Agent
North Region, Redding
Assistant Chief
North Region Right of Way
Eureka/Redding

By
CAROL DETWILER Date
Senior Right of Way Agent
Project Delivery
Redding
No Obligation Other Than Those Set Forth Herein Will Be Recognized ___________________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-_________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YREKA

APPROVING THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF

YREKA AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS FOR THE

COMPENSATION STUDY
WHEREAS, the City of Yreka desires to conduct a compensation study for all exempt and non-exempt job classifications for full-time City employees by a professional consulting firm;
WHEREAS, the City conducted a Request for Proposal (RFP) and received responses from qualified firms;
WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the proposals and recommends the firm of Regional Government Services to perform the total compensation review; WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an agreement with Regional Government Services to complete the Compensation Study in the amount up to $25,800.00; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Yreka does hereby resolve, determine and order as follows:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Yreka does hereby find that the proposed compensation study described herein is in the best interest of the City of Yreka. The City Manager or designee is hereby further authorized to execute such other agreements, and documents, and to perform such other acts and deeds, as may be necessary or convenient to achieve the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions herein authorized, and the City Clerk or such Clerk's designee is hereby authorized and directed to affix the City's seal to said documents and to attest thereto.

Section 2. It is further resolved, if any section, subsection, part, clause, sentence or phrase of this Resolution or the application thereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution, the application thereof, shall not be effected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect, it being the intention of the City Council to adopt each and every section, subsection, part, clause, sentence phrase regardless of whether any other section, subsection, part, clause, sentence or phrase or the application thereof is held to be invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

Passed and adopted this 1st day of March 2022, by the following vote.

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:
_____________________
Duane Kegg
Mayor
Attest:________________
Arthur Boyd, City Clerk
Date: February 24, 2022
Subject: RFP Scoring for Compensation Study
Reviewed by: John Elsnab, Human Resources Director
RFP Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Score
Methodology
Points Available Koff &
Associates
Regional
Government
Services
Comments
Background,
experience, and
qualifications of the
firm
20 20 17
K&A has
more
experience
and
qualifications
Thoroughness of the
scope of work,
milestones, schedule,
cost analysis, and
approach to
completing the
project
20 10 18
RGS Is
estimated at
$12,200 less
that K&A,
K&A is 52%
more than
estimated
cost
Ability of the firm to
provide the services
requested
20 19 18
RGS is virtual
vs. K&A is
hybrid
Demonstrated ability
to perform
tasks/projects in a
timely and efficient
manner
20 19 19
Both firms
have
demonstrated
ability
Quality of references,
credentials, and
recommendations
from past clients
20 14 18
RGS received
better
feedback
than K&A for
references
Total Points 82 90
PROPOSAL TO:

The City of Yreka for
Compensation Study
P.O. BOX 1350 | CARMEL VALLEY, CA 93924 | 844.587.7300 | WWW.RGS.CA.GOV February 11, 2022
City of Yreka
Attn: John Elsnab, Human Resources Director
701 Fourth Street
Yreka, CA 96097
RE: PROPOSAL TO THE CITY OF YREKA TO PROVIDE A COMPENSATION STUDY
Dear Mr. Elsnab,
Regional Government Services Authority (RGS) is pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Yreka (City) in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide a Compensation Study.

RGS is a unique, fee-supported, joint powers authority specializing in public-sector administration and consulting services. Since 2002, RGS has exclusively served over 200 public agencies across the western United States and employs experienced public-sector professionals.

I am confident that you will find RGS’ approach is responsive to each of the City’s objectives and needs. The plan provides for tools and support to meet or exceed the goals listed in the City’s scope of services. RGS has a solid and respected reputation with the public agencies we serve for timely, cost efficient delivery and effective implementation. As a public agency, we fully understand the needs and requirements of public agencies. This proposal will remain valid for a 60-day period from the date this proposal is opened.

The RGS team appreciates the opportunity to be of service to the City of Yreka! Sincerely,
Patty Howard
Lead Advisor

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
Description of Project Staff....................................................................................................... 1-1 Description of Firm.................................................................................................................... 2-1 Sample of Work.......................................................................................................................... 3-1 Planned Project Approach........................................................................................................ 4-1 Firm Experience......................................................................................................................... 5-1 Fee Schedule ............................................................................................................................... 6-1

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Resumes
Appendix B – Sample of Work

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT STAFF

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT STAFF
1-1
RGS is a virtual government agency that has developed a unique network of geographically distributed Advisors who work through various remote access technologies and onsite at partner agency offices to deliver services. This model allows us to reduce overhead and expands our ability to provide high-quality services throughout the state.

The team we have assembled to assist the City has outstanding relevant experiences, talents, and accomplishments in a range of public-sector operations. In addition to their prior public sector experience, the team assigned to this project has worked an average of six years as RGS team members collaborating on various Human Resources projects. The primary project staff resourced for this team are available and prepared to begin immediately, will be available to the extent proposed for the duration of the contract, and have extensive experience in staffing projections, classification projects, and developing compensation structures and strategies. RGS does not utilize sub-consultants.

Summary resumes for the identified key RGS project team may be found in Appendix A. The following organizational chart lists key team members, their job titles, and roles and responsibilities. In addition, RGS may add other available and qualified Advisors to the team at the Lead Advisor’s discretion as project requirements and priorities require.

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT STAFF
1-2
Bobbi Bennett
Human Resources Services Director
Provide general oversight of the project.

Patty Howard, Lead Advisor
Provide day-to-day oversight of the project; RGS point of contact for the City; ensure the timeline is met; draft and finalize all documents, worksheets, and study reports;
present study data and recommendation to City staff.

Alicia Hicks, H.R. Project Advisor
Collect compensation data, prepare draft
salary and benefits worksheets assist with
the development of study recommendations.

Karen Blakely, H.R. Project Advisor
Analyze and establish the list of comparable
agencies; collect compensation data; prepare
draft salary and benefits worksheets to assist
with developing study recommendations.

Jo Miller, Technical Specialist
Provide technical support to RGS advisors,
format final report, worksheets, and
additional documents.

DESCRIPTION OF FIRM

DESCRIPTION OF FIRM
2-1
Regional Government Services (RGS) was formed in 2001 by a city and a regional planning and services agency to help local governments meet three challenges: decreasing revenues, increasing demands (and costs) for services, and loss of experienced staff. Government leaders knew that these challenges were likely to continue, so agencies would have to work together – uniting not only their voices but their resources to advocate and become more efficient. The idea behind the creation of RGS was to form an agency, which would help local governments share expertise and improve efficiencies. A need was emerging for some way to help agencies get the expertise and experience needed, without each agency having to hire full-time staff when the need might be less than full-time. Agencies could, in effect, share expertise through a third party.

Today, RGS is a solvent organization governed by several member agencies, all with the common goal expressed in the JPA’s mission statement: To provide quality, innovative, cost-effective services exclusively to public agencies. RGS has now served over 298 cities, special districts, joint powers authorities, and other local governments and non-profits that support local governments.

RGS currently has 130 professional Advisors and 14 RGS Administrative staff.

RGS developed a highly flexible platform of administrative support and programs that could serve the diverse needs of cities, special districts, counties, and other joint powers authorities. Flexibility was vital because the needs of partner agencies varied and because RGS services were 100 percent fee based. Thus, RGS costs needed to be able to ramp up or down quickly as demand changed.

The highest value RGS can bring is to share our experiences with our clients, constantly refining Best Practices to provide quality expertise to the benefit of all our partner clients. The RGS staff prides itself on its ability to deliver accurate, professional products and services within reasonable timelines. We meet deadlines and provide clear, honest, and effective communications, all of which help to promote good relations with stakeholders at all phases of a project.

Since 2015, RGS advisor teams have completed several hundred classification and compensation and multiple staffing projection studies for agencies throughout the State of California, including municipalities, county organizations, water and wastewater districts, special districts, a municipal insurance agency, transportation agencies, waste management agencies, and joint powers authorities. These studies have ranged from organization-wide comprehensive classification and compensation studies and staffing projections as part of an organizational development assessment or redesign. Most of our partner agencies have intended to design and implement traditional organizational hierarchies, and we respect the policy of each agency in offering classification and compensation services while offering creative and effective solutions to enhance staff attraction, retention, growth, and the delivery of excellent public service.

In addition to our specific classification and compensation studies, RGS regularly provides organizational assessment studies in which alternative models of staffing, structure, and service delivery are explored.

DESCRIPTION OF FIRM
2-2
Regional Government Services (RGS) takes a holistic approach to a classification and compensation study since each agency is unique in its work culture, services, and community.

RGS will take these factors into consideration when analyzing and making recommendations. The methods of how the study will be approached and analyzed are addressed fully in Section V.

Planned Project Approach.

SAMPLE OF WORK

SAMPLE OF WORK
3-1
A sample of a related/comparable past project that serves as an example of the experience necessary for this work can be found in Appendix B.

PLANNED PROJECT APPROACH

PLANNED PROJECT APPROACH
4-1
The City is interested in retaining and attracting highly skilled employees. A compensation study can be one way to evaluate if the City is competitive in the job market.

The goals of the total compensation study are to:
• Determine the compensation for similar classifications in the City’s identified comparable agencies.
• Determine the level of benefits provided by comparable agencies to similar classifications. • Evaluate whether the City’s compensation and benefits package is competitive to attract and retain a quality workforce.
• Evaluate whether the design of the City’s compensation and benefits structure is appropriate and efficient for current and future operational demands.

Regional Government Services (RGS) will take the following steps to complete the compensation study. The RGS Lead Advisor and Project Advisors will be available for phone and e-mail consultation and video conference/phone meetings throughout the project.

REQUEST AND REVIEW KEY ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND MATERIAL Once the contract is executed, RGS will request and review key background material and documents from the City to understand the City’s current classification and organizational structure, policies, and procedures. Typical materials requested include:
• Organizational Charts.
• Existing classification specifications.
• Current salary schedules.
• Agreements for terms and conditions of employment, employee contracts. • Applicable policies and procedures.
• Previous compensation studies, both agency-wide and for single classifications.

ESTABLISH COMPENSATION STUDY COMPONENTS
Comparable Agencies
Establishing the list of comparable agencies is critical to the accuracy and validity of the data collected during the study. RGS will evaluate agencies included in any previous study as well as other agencies using the following factors:
• Organizational Type and Services Provided: Entities on the list will be reviewed as to the type of organization, types of services provided, and how closely they align with the City.

PLANNED PROJECT APPROACH
4-2
• Population Served, Demographics: This will provide insight into the level and types of services required and the staffing levels and funding that may be needed to provide those services.
• Agencies Employing Citizens and the Labor Market Climate: RGS will review this in combination with the information gained above to obtain an indication of applicant pools, the proximity of applicants to potential employers, and the likelihood of attracting sufficient qualified applicants from within the immediate market. • Personnel, Operational, and Capital Plan Budgets: RGS will review the size of a potential comparator’s budgets and current staffing allocations to gain insight into the current resources available to provide services.
• Cost of Living: This factor, which includes the cost of housing, goods, and services, helps to further analyze the available labor market, such as mean housing prices and median household incomes.

Compensation Elements
The compensation elements utilized in the study should assist the City in determining the total cost of the classifications within the agency and how those costs compare with the agencies surveyed.

The compensation elements that may be considered include:
• Base rate of hourly pay
• Contributions by BOTH employee and employer to the following programs:
− Pension system, including Social Security
− Health insurance premium, family coverage level
− Dental insurance premium, family coverage level
− Vision insurance premium, family coverage level
• Vacation leave
• Sick Leave
• Holiday Leave (including floating holidays)
• Management/Administrative leave
• Longevity pay
• Certification pay
• Education incentive
• Employer contribution to a deferred compensation plan • Other forms of cash compensation

PLANNED PROJECT APPROACH
4-3
Benchmark Classifications
RGS will analyze the City’s current classification plan and recommend benchmark classifications to be used to create the updated compensation plan. Benchmark classifications are usually those that are found throughout the comparator agencies. They are most often journey-level classifications either within a specific classification series or those that are single classifications.

RGS will recommend the internal alignment of the remaining City classifications from the data obtained for the benchmark classifications.

WORK PLAN
RGS will take the following steps to complete the compensation study.

1. VIRTUAL KICK-OFF MEETING WITH THE CITY MANAGEMENT
RGS will virtually meet with the City’s points of contact(s) to explain the methodology, objectives, deliverables, and data collection methods to be used during the study. In addition, RGS will present a list of comparator agencies, compensation elements, and benchmark classifications to the meeting participants.

2. COMPENSATION STUDY
Using the comparator agencies and the compensation elements identified, RGS will identify comparable classifications within each comparator agency and collect and compile the compensation data. Comparable classifications will be identified on a “whole job” basis, taking duties, reporting structure, and requirements into consideration, and not by title alone.

3. COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
RGS will compile and incorporate information gathered in the collaborative review process and finalize the report. The final report will include, at a minimum, the following:
• Executive summary – including process followed and methodology used. • Compensation Study
− A list of comparator agencies surveyed as part of the compensation study. − A list of classifications surveyed.
− Statistics for each benchmark classification’s base rate of pay identifying the percentage above or below the average and median of market comparators. − Statistics for each classification’s total compensation identifying the percentage above or below the average and median of market comparators. − Assessment of compensation data (salary and benefits).

PLANNED PROJECT APPROACH
4-4
− Prioritized list of recommendations, including any additional funding required to implement and any short- and long-term savings that may be realized. − Written internal salary alignment guidelines.
− Recommend a process to maintain the classification plan along with tools. − Complete compensation survey data.

WORK SCHEDULE
The following is a tentative project timeline that may be modified with mutual agreement between the City and RGS. Due to the ambitious completion date the City has proposed, staff availability and responsiveness will be critical in meeting the study timeline as presented. In addition, the success of the data collection process will be dependent on how forthcoming the comparators are with the requested information. Meetings with the City’s points of contact can be scheduled as required. Periodic progress reports will be submitted throughout the study process.

COMPENSATION STUDY

FOR UWUA CLASSES ONLY

TENTATIVE DATES RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

1. Kick Off Meetings with the City’s point(s) of
contact to discuss project. Week of March 7, 2022 City/RGS

2. Review of all City compensation-related
documents.

Week of March 7-March 14,
2022 RGS

3. Develop and finalize the list of comparator
agencies, benefit components, and benchmark
classes
Weeks of March 21-March
28, 2022 City/RGS

4. Collection of specific salary and benefit data
for benchmark classes.

Weeks of April 4-April 18,
2022 RGS

5. Review and analysis of compensation survey
data.

Weeks of April 25-May 2,
2022 RGS

6. Develop recommendations for internal salary
alignment, benefits, and other compensation
issues.

Weeks of May 9, 2022 City/RGS

7. Develop a compensation maintenance plan. Week of May 16, 2022 RGS

8. Draft compensation report and submit to the
City for review. Week of May 23, 2022 RGS

9. Feedback from the City regarding draft report. Week of May 30, 2022 City

10. Finalize compensation report and submit to
the City. June 3, 2022 RGS

11. Present study findings and recommendations,
as needed. TBD RGS

FIRM EXPERIENCE

FIRM EXPERIENCE
5-1
RGS teams regularly provide services beyond contract requirements and partner agency expectations. The intent is not only to address the services identified in the contract but also to take a holistic approach to ensure our partner agencies have considered all avenues, risks, and implementation options. RGS always strives to provide exceptional service without exceeding the contract’s financial constraints.

Our advisors have worked on multiple comprehensive classification and compensation studies for public entities at the state, county, and local levels. We are skilled at crafting, reviewing, and analyzing a wide array of public sector organizational classification and compensation structures.

We are familiar with and have helped many organizations successfully navigate the challenges and opportunities that surface in studies.

Additional references can be provided upon request.

CENTRAL COAST COMMUNITY ENERGY (CCCE)
An agency-wide total compensation study of 34 classifications. RGS collected base pay and benefit data from the six designated comparator agencies, which included 29 benchmark classifications. RGS surveyed the six comparator agencies, collected base pay and benefit data for all comparable classes, and recommended salary ranges based on the external market data collected as well as the internal compensation alignment analysis conducted. Recommendations were made utilizing generally accepted compensation standards to ensure equity within class series and families as well as across the various workgroups.

Mi Ra Park
Human Resources Manager
[email protected]
Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE)
70 Garden Court, Suite 300
Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 901-3674

FIRM EXPERIENCE
5-2

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
RGS conducted a classification and compensation study of the 19 classifications (42 employees) for the Convention Center, a division of the Convention Center and Cultural Services Department.

RGS conducted job analysis on each position in the Division, identified essential duties, aligned positions into job families within classification series and across the classification plan, recommended new classification titles, and created new classification specifications for positions at various levels of the organization. RGS then conducted an internal compensation alignment analysis based on the updated classification plan. Salary recommendations were made utilizing generally accepted compensation standards to ensure equity within class series and families as well as across the various workgroups.

In addition, RGS has completed multiple classification and compensation studies for various City departments since 2019. RGS has partnered with the City’s points of contact, ensured deadlines were met, and the projects were completed within budget.

Sally Ly
Human Resources Manager
[email protected]
Employment, Classification, and Development
City of Sacramento
915 ‘I’ Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 808-8907

DELTA DIABLO SANITATION DISTRICT
RGS conducted a 68 classifications study for the City. RGS conducted job analysis on each position in the City, identified essential duties, aligned positions into job families within classification series and across the classification plan, recommended new classification titles, and created new classification specifications for positions at all levels of the organization.

Carol Margetich
Business Services Director
[email protected]
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
2500 Pittsburg-Antioch Highway
Antioch, CA 94509
(925) 756-1935

FEE SCHEDULE

FEE PROPOSAL
6-1
At RGS, we bill only actual hours attributable to the project at the rate of the actual Advisor or technician. Work will commence upon notification by the City of the project award. Work is performed as agreed and subsequently billed each month based on hours actually worked. RGS Advisors are skilled at prioritizing projects and working within the budget of partner agencies.

Mileage, if applicable, will be calculated/invoiced using the current IRS rate.

The total project for the compensation study would not exceed $25,800. Estimated project costs include:

COMPENSATION STUDY PHASES ESTIMATED
COST

1. Meetings/e-mails/progress reports with the City; review all City contracts, resolutions, salary tables, benefits information, and previous studies.
$2,100

2. Establish list of benchmark classes, comparable agencies, and benefit elements. $4,900

3. Collect salary and benefit data from comparable agencies. $7,500

4. Analyze data and create recommendations for internal salary alignment, benefits, and compensation issues. 3,000

5. Develop a compensation maintenance plan. 1,400

6. Prepare the compensation study report. 4,700

7. Present compensation study results and recommendations, as required. 2,200 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED: $25,800
The hourly rate for work performed will be billed at the following hourly rates based on the Advisor(s) assigned to the project.

TITLE HOURLY RATE
Chief Operating Officer $140 to $230
Deputy Chief Operating Officer $135 to $205
Senior/Lead Advisor $130 to $200
Advisor $120 to $170
Project Advisor $110 to $130
Project Coordinator $90 to $125
Technical Specialist $80 to $120

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – RESUMES
Bobbi Bennett, M.A., PHR, IPMA-CP
Human Resources Services Director
Since 2000, Ms. Bennett has worked in both city and county government, specifically in human resources. During her career, she has overseen centralized full service Human Resources departments that addressed recruitments, classification and compensation, benefits, worker’s compensation, performance management, discipline, employee relations, labor relations, labor negotiations, and training. Ms. Bennett’s key skill is assisting all levels of an organization evaluate and address complex employee and organizational matters to facilitate effective resolutions.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES, JPA, HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES

DIRECTOR
Leads the human resources services teams in providing expert human resource consulting services to small municipalities, special districts, and government entities on leave and disability management, performance management, policy development, staffing, classification and compensation, employee relations, strategic planning, payroll and FLSA compliance, and a broad range of other human resource topics and services.

COUNTY OF ELDORADO, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES

MANAGER
Approximately 1900 employees. Oversaw and managed daily operations of all areas of Human Resources.

CITY OF POWAY, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES

MANAGER
Approximately 360 employees. Oversaw and managed daily operations of all areas of Human Resources.

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SENIOR HUMAN

RESOURCES ANALYST
Approximately 1600 employees. As a Senior Human Resources Analyst, handled politically sensitive requirements, classification reviews, salary surveys in preparation for negotiations, served as scribe on the management negotiation team, monitored criminal background checks, and served as a trainer. Performed discipline investigations. Served as chair of City’s PRIDE and Work program.

Bobbi Bennett, M.A., PHR, IPMA-CP
Human Resources Services Director

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, HUMAN RESOURCES

ANALYST
Official job title changed from Citywide Volunteer Coordinator since the majority of the position included human resources tasks and assignments. Ms. Bennett handled more complex recruitments, salary surveys and classification reviews. Monitored criminal background checks and served as a trainer on various topics. Served as chair of the City’s PRIDE and Work program.

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, CITYWIDE

VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR
Volunteer program and Human Resources responsibilities included, but were not limited to:
recruitments, on-boarding, salary surveys and training development. Monitored criminal background checks.

NATIONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER, MEDIATOR
Volunteer mediator on various court mandated mediations and voluntary mediations.

EDUCATION
MA, Counseling Psychology, National University
MA, Home Economics, San Diego State University

CERTIFICATIONS
• Professional in Human Resources
(PHR), 1998
• IPMA Professional certification, 2008
• IPMA Certification Trainer, 2009 –
Current
• CalPelra Labor Academies
• IPMA National Committee to revise
IPMA Certification training
presentation, 2009
• Certified Mediator, 2005
• Certificate in Internal Investigations,
2006

MEMBERSHIPS
• IPMA, local chapter and national
• CalPELRA
• MMANC
• SHRM
• CCPA (County and Cities Personnel Association), San Diego. Past chairperson Patricia J. Howard, M.A.

Lead Advisor
Ms. Howard joined Regional Government Services as an Advisor in the Human Resources service group in 2016. She provides a broad range of human resources services to municipalities and special districts throughout northern California as well as serving as the Lead Advisor on the Classification and Compensation team.

Prior to joining RGS, Ms. Howard had over twenty-eight years of management-level human resources experience in local government agencies. Ms. Howard has served in the public sector in all areas of human resources management including: Recruitment and selection, classification and compensation, employee relations, labor negotiations, and EEO investigations. She is also a seasoned trainer, having developed and presented supervisory and lead worker training, harassment and discrimination prevention, and new employee orientations.

Ms. Howard has a master’s degree in public administration with an emphasis in human resources.

She holds certificates as a Senior Human Resources Professional from IPMA, a Masters in Labor Relations from CALPELRA, and in Mediation Skills and Instruction Techniques for Trainers.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Human Resources Lead Advisor
As a Lead Advisor, Ms. Howard has been assigned to over twelve different partner agencies. She has provided human resources services such as:
• Conducted classification and compensation studies.
• Reviewed employee’s position description questionnaires. • Created draft job specifications.
• Conducted research regarding comparable classifications within study agencies and/or outside agencies.
• Developed recommendations for setting salaries of new and existing classifications based on data gathered.

KOFF & ASSOCIATES
Senior Associate
Ms. Howard served as a human resources consultant with a full-service HR consulting firm specializing in public sector management. Her assignments included:
• Assisted with classification and compensation studies. • Conducted research related to compensation and benefit data of comparable agencies. • Analyzed data to ensure reliability and accuracy.
• Provided data for review by executive staff.

Patricia J. Howard
Lead Advisor

CITY OF ROCKLIN
Principal Human Resources Analyst
Ms. Howard served as the Supervisor of all human resources activities for the city. Some of her duties included:
• Organized, directed, and oversaw the activities of the human resources division. • Served as city training coordinator.
• Supervised professional, technical, and administrative human resources staff. • Developed and administered division budget.
• Participated in labor negotiations as a member of the management negotiating team. • Conducted investigations related to allegations of misconduct, harassment, discrimination, and violence in the workplace in compliance with local, State and Federal laws and guidelines.
• Conducted classification and compensation studies.

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
Principal Personnel Analyst
Ms. Howard was responsible for supervising and overseeing personnel staff and operations such as:
• Supervised professional, technical, and administrative personnel staff in the areas of recruitment and selection, classification and compensation, training and orientation, operations support.
• Coordinated countywide training programs.
• Prepared and implemented departmental budget.
• Conducted investigations related to allegations of misconduct, harassment, discrimination, and violence in the workplace.
• Provided HR assistance including contract interpretation. • Served as member of management team for contract negotiations with various bargaining units.
• Conducted classification and compensation studies.
• Analyzed all data to ensure reliability and accuracy. • Provided data for review by management staff.

Karen Blakely
H.R. Project Advisor
Ms. Blakely joined Regional Government Services in 2017. She has over twenty-seven years of experience providing professional Human Resources services as a generalist to public agencies.

She has a depth of knowledge of Human Resources, including, but not limited to budgeting, data analysis, negotiations costing, legislative analysis, classification and compensation, and recruitment and selection. She is well versed in State and Federal employment laws and regulations, legal opinions, and court rulings as they apply to implementing best practices.

Ms. Blakely achieved the Human Resources Certification from the International Public Management Association (IPMA), and certificates in Recruitment and Selection, Classification and Compensation, Labor and Employee Relations, Ethics, Prevention of Harassment and Violence in the Workplace.

Ms. Blakely served as an elected Board Member of the Sacramento-Mother Lode IPMA Chapter for eight years.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
H.R. Project Advisor
As an Advisor, Ms. Blakely has led organizational development projects for partner agencies.

Specific assignments have included:
• Performed and coordinated complex classification and compensation studies • Developed and updated job specifications
• Created detailed reports from data analysis
• Performed complex Human Resources services

CITY OF ROCKLIN
Principal Management Analyst
Ms. Blakely performed professional and analytical functions for the City, Finance, and Human Resources departments. Her responsibilities included:
• Oversight of payroll, benefits, classification and compensation, employee relations, and policy interpretation
• Created and maintained the City’s Ten-Year Personnel Budget • Provided ten-year costing data in labor negotiations
• Reviewed new legislation for impacts on Human Resources practices • Analyzed CalPERS actuarial reports and presented impacts in annual Council presentations Karen Blakely
H.R. Project Advisor

COUNTY OF EL DORADO
Senior Personnel Analyst
Ms. Blakely supported all aspects of Human Resources and served all thirty-three departments.

Some specific areas of responsibility included:
• Policy development and implementation
• Labor relations including negotiations working closely with County Counsel • Analysis of legislation for impact on Human Resources practices • Classification
• Compensation and benefit studies
• Recruitment and selection
• Reorganization and reductions in force
• Employee relations
• Interface with Payroll in Finance Department
Alicia Hicks
H.R. Project Advisor
Alicia Hicks joined Regional Government Services (RGS) as a member of the Human Resources service group in 2021.

Prior to joining RGS, Ms. Hicks had over twenty-two years of human resources management experience. As an HR generalist, she has expertise in a broad range of professional-level HR functions.

Ms. Hicks has a bachelor’s degree in human resources management.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
H.R. Project Advisor
Ms. Hicks provides professional HR services for RGS partner agencies such as human resources best practices and compliance, recruitment and selection, classification and compensation, workplace investigations, performance management, and policy development and implementation.

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Interim Human Resources/ Risk Manager
Ms. Hicks provides executive leadership to a staff of four human resources professionals and oversees all H.R. functions. She manages all COVID-19 matters, and return-to-work and disability cases. She also works closely with public safety leadership.

HICKS CONSULTING
Human Resources Consultant
As an HR Best Practices and Compliance Advisor, Ms. Hicks advises clients on a broad range of human resources topics such as:
• Full cycle recruitment and selection
• Classification and compensation studies
• Workplace investigations
• Discipline and discharge arbitration
• Policy development and administration

COUNTY OF ORANGE
Human Resources Manager II
Ms. Hicks managed all human resources functions and labor and employee relations for the Treasurer Tax Collector Department. She led development of a performance management measures, introduced employee engagement and retention strategies, and focused on organizational change. She was responsible for monitoring compliance with local, state, and federal laws as well as CDC COVID-19 regulations.

Alicia Hicks
H.R. Project Advisor

CITY OF HEMET
Human Resources Director
Reporting to the City Manager, Ms. Hicks managed the Human Resources Department, oversaw all HR functions including leading labor relations with police and fire personnel. She advised the city manager on all personnel matters and participated in closed sessions with the city council.

CITY OF LEMON GROVE
Human Resource Manager
Ms. Hicks had oversight of all HR functions including risk management. She advised the city manager on all personnel matters, attended council meetings and closed sessions, and represented the city in contract negotiations with the fire bargaining unit. In addition, she developed and implemented the city’s first administrative procedures and policies manual.

CITY OF OCEANSIDE
Human Resource Analyst II
Ms. Hicks worked closely with the Human Resources director in providing HR services for a fullservice city with over 1,000 employees. She assisted in all aspects of HR such as conducting recruitments and investigations, updating personnel policies, participating in labor negotiations, developing staff reports, and supervising clerical staff and volunteers.

Jolene Miller
Technical Specialist
Ms. Miller joined Regional Government Services (RGS) as a Project Technical Specialist in 2015.

She has been providing expert technical services within RGS, primarily in Training and Development and Outreach and Communication, as well as for partner agencies.

Prior to joining RGS, Ms. Miller had over sixteen years of professional experience in both executive assistance and information technology services.

During her duty in the Navy, Ms. Miller was awarded the Human Sea Service Award for meritorious direct participation in operations to help the citizens of East Timor.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Project Technical Specialist
Ms. Miller has provided professional technical services for the Training and Development Team for several years. Recently, in 2020, the RGS training program had to pivot to online training exclusively. Ms. Miller spearheaded the technical and logistical initiatives to make the interactive trainings successful. Throughout her time with RGS, she has prepared training materials, assisted with marketing, maintained databases, administered enrollments and payments, and provided technical support to trainers. In addition, Ms. Miller provides technical services to many teams in RGS by coordinating and formatting materials to be sent to the public and to partner agencies.

Ms. Miller’s service to partner agencies has focused on compiling data and records, producing documents, coordinating communication, and facilitating groups to implement project plans.

PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS
Executive Assistant/ Office Manager
For over twelve years, Ms. Miller was the Executive Assistant and Office Manager for Pacific Municipal Consultants, a firm with 140 employees that served public-sector clients with planning, environmental, and municipal services throughout California. Ms. Miller provided professionallevel administrative support for executives of all seven offices. In addition, she managed and maintained two corporate digital mailboxes, handling over 200 messages daily as well as the marketing mailboxes. She coordinated and managed the workload of a six-member Internal Service Provider (ISP) team. Ms. Miller served as the liaison between management and vendors for all final document publishing.

Jolene Miller
Technical Specialist

UNITED STATES NAVY
Information Systems Technician
Ms. Miller operated and maintained the Navy’s global satellite telecommunications system, mainframe computers, local and wide area networks, and microcomputer systems used in the fleet.

She managed, planned, and coordinated unit-level security of information systems and integration across the fleet, ensuring proper security and control of Communications Security (COMSEC) materials, systems, and equipment. She researched and recommended network and data communications hardware and software solutions.

As Help Desk Shift Supervisor, Ms. Miller provided technical assistance for a crew of 3,500 Sailors and Marines. She also assisted the Information Systems Security Officer in access control security.

APPENDIX B – SAMPLE OF WORK
SAMPLE

CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF

GOVERNMENTS

COMPENSATION STUDY
2020
Prepared for:

P. O. Box 280
444 E. Saint Charles Street/Highway 49
San Andreas, CA 95249
Prepared By:

P.O. Box 1350
Carmel Valley, CA 93924
SAMPLE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Organizational Data .................................................................................................................................. 1 Survey Classifications............................................................................................................................... 1 Market Comparators ................................................................................................................................. 1 Survey of Salary and Benefits ................................................................................................................... 2 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS ............................................................................................................... 4 MARKET COMPENSATION FINDINGS.................................................................................................. 5 Labor Market Data.................................................................................................................................... 6 Benefit Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Salary Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 10 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 11 Classifications Below the Market ........................................................................................................... 11 Classifications in a Class Series .............................................................................................................. 11 Salary Adjustments ................................................................................................................................. 11 Compensation Policy .............................................................................................................................. 12

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Base Pay Summary Data
Attachment B – Total Compensation Summary Data
Attachment C – Compensation Data Detail
Attachment D – Benefit Comparison Chart
SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Calaveras Council of Governments (CCOG) engaged Regional Government Services (RGS) to conduct a classification and total compensation study in December 2019. The goals and objectives of the compensation portion of the study were to:
• Gather information to examine how the City’s compensation compares to external market data; • To identify special compensation issues; and
• To provide principles for data analysis, formulation of conclusion, and consistent practices to apply when making adjustments to base pay.

METHODOLOGY
The study objectives were to determine CCOG’s position in the regional labor market and assess the CCOG’s current compensation and compensation policy, and whether positions were compensated fairly and equitably. Recommendations are made based on the median of comparators surveyed at the top step of the salary range for each classification.

ORGANIZATIONAL DATA
RGS requested and reviewed key organizational materials and information to begin to understand CCOG’s current structure, policy, procedures, challenges, and practices related to compensation systems and administration. Those materials included:
• Organizational Charts
• Existing classification specifications
• Benefit summaries and employer/employee cost data
• Salary schedules and employment agreements
• Applicable policies, procedures, and ordinances

SURVEY CLASSIFICATIONS
It was determined the following classifications would be included in the compensation study:
•Executive Director •Associate Transportation Planner
•Administrative Services Officer •Administrative Assistant

MARKET COMPARATORS
CCOG agreed that RGS would use nine (9) comparator agencies from which compensation data would be collected. The agencies were selected due to their shared labor market and similarities in agency size, city population, or annual budget. These comparator agencies are:

SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
2 • Amador County Transportation
Commission (ACTC)
• El Dorado County Transportation
Commission (EDCTC)
• Humboldt County Association of
Governments (HCAOG)
• Madera County Transportation Commission
(MCTC)
• Merced County Association of Government
(MCAG)
• Nevada County Transportation
Commission (NCTC)
• Shasta Regional Transportation Agency
(SRTA)
• Tuolumne County Transportation Council
(TCTC)
• San Joaquin Council of Governments
(SJCOG)

SURVEY OF SALARY AND BENEFITS
RGS contacted the nine (9) comparator agencies. After several attempts to contact SRTA, RGS was informed by their representative that they would be unable to participate in the compensation study. Therefore, salary and benefit data was collected and verified from the remaining eight (8) comparator agencies. A summary of the base pay data can be found in Attachment A; a summary of the total compensation data (base pay plus benefits) can be found in Attachment B.

Please note that during the study process, many staff contacted at the comparable agencies were working remotely. This situation made it impossible for staff at ACTC and SJCOG to provide RGS with all of the requested benefit data. Therefore, while the data from these two agencies have been included in the overall base pay comparisons, they are not included in the total compensation comparisons. The benefits that were able to be collected for ACTC and SJCOG do appear in the detailed total compensation worksheet (Attachment C) for informational purposes only. Additional information can be found in the Data Collection Process section of this report.

Monthly Base Salary: The top of the salary range (excluding longevity salary steps). All figures are presented on a monthly basis.

Health Insurance
Medical Insurance: The maximum monthly amount paid by the agency for full family medical insurance. For agencies where the contribution is dependent on the age of the employee and dependents covered, it was agreed that the contribution used for this survey would be that paid for an employee age 45 with two dependents, one age 45 and one age 15. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation. The maximum monthly amount paid by the employee and the total cost is presented for informational purposes.

Dental Insurance: The maximum monthly amount paid by the agency for employees and dependents for dental insurance. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

The maximum monthly amount paid by the employee and the total cost is presented for informational purposes.

SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
3 Vision Insurance: The maximum monthly amount paid by the agency for employees and dependents for vision insurance. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

The maximum monthly amount paid by the employee and the total cost is presented for informational purposes.

Pension
Social Security (Employer share): This is the amount the employer pays of the statutorily required employer required contribution. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

Social Security (Employee share): This is the amount the employee pays of the statutorily required employee share. This amount is presented for informational purposes.

Employee Paid Member Contribution: This is the amount the employee pays of the statutorily required employee contribution to the CalPERS system. This amount is presented for informational purposes.

Employee Paid Employer Contribution: This is the amount the employee agrees to pay of the statutorily required employer contribution to the CalPERS system. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation (shown as a negative number).

Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC): This is the amount the agency agrees to pay of the statutorily required employee contribution to the CalPERS system. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

Employer Normal Cost Rate: This is the annual cost of service accrual for the upcoming fiscal year for active employees. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

PEPRA Rate: This is the amount contributed by the employer and employee in accordance with the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) on behalf of employees who joined CalPERS on or after January 1, 2013. This amount is presented for informational purposes.

Leaves
Vacation Leave: The number of vacation hours accrued per year by all employees in the classification after five years of employment. The number of days has been converted to a dollar amount based on the base rate of pay and is included in the total compensation calculation.

Sick Leave: The number of sick hours accrued per year by all employees in the classification. The number of hours has been converted to a dollar amount based on the base rate of pay and is included in the total compensation calculation.

SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
4 Holiday Leave: The number of holiday hours accrued per year by employees in the classifications.

The number of hours has been converted to a dollar amount based on the base rate of pay and is included in the total compensation calculation.

Administrative/Management/Personal Leave: The number of hours normally available to management to reward for extraordinary effort in lieu of overtime. Personal leave may be available to other groups of employees to augment vacation or other time off. The number of hours has been converted to a dollar amount based on the base rate of pay and is included in the total compensation calculation.

Other Benefits
Retiree Medical/Healthcare Contribution: the amount provided to the employee during active service to be utilized in retirement. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

Deferred Compensation Match or Contribution: This is the monthly amount the agency contributes to the agency-sponsored deferred compensation plan on behalf of the employee. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

Automobile Allowance: The amount provided to the employee for the use of a personal vehicle while engaged in the work. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

Cell Phone Allowance: The amount provided to the employee for the use of a personal cell phone while engaged in the work. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

Longevity Pay: The amount provided to employees who have reached a specific number of years of service as determined by the employer. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

Education Incentive/Certification Pay: The amount provided to employees for specific degrees or professional certifications. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

Other Compensation: This category includes any additional compensation benefits available to all employees in the class. This amount is included in the total compensation calculation.

DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
Compensation data was collected from the designated comparator agencies during May and June 2020. Data was collected through websites, direct contact with agency human resources or finance staff, and an in-depth review of agency documents including class specifications, memoranda of understanding, organizational charts, personnel allocations, and budget documents.

The new, updated, and reviewed class specifications were utilized to ensure that information was up-to-date and accurately reflected the work performed by the incumbents.

SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
5 One of the most critical factors in conducting a compensation study is ensuring the classifications studied from the comparator agencies match as closely as possible the classifications selected for the study. When comparing appropriate matches to these classifications, the analysis must include more than job titles. Due to different titling conventions, job titles alone can be misleading.

Therefore, a more extensive analysis is performed. The criteria used to determine class matches is similar to that used when updating CCOG’s classification plan. These factors include:
• Education and experience requirements,
• Scope and complexity of the work,
• Knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the work, • Supervision received and exercised,
• Consequence of error; and
• Organizational structure of the division/department where the classification(s) is/are found.

To ensure a thorough understanding of these factors, appropriate staff within each comparator agency was contacted via phone calls and email correspondence. RGS was able to obtain the requested information from the majority of comparator agencies. However, it should be noted that due to staff working remotely during the data collection process and the lack of access to hardcopy data, we were unable to obtain accurate data regarding health contributions from ACTC and SJCOG.

As health insurance contributions constitute a significant portion of the total compensation of classifications, the lack of this data would result in a calculation of total compensation for the classifications of these agencies that would be skewed and would not accurately reflect the nature of the agencies’ compensation package as compared to those of the other agencies and CCOG.

Therefore, RGS has only used data from ACTC and SJCOG for base pay calculations. Data regarding other benefits offered by these agencies have been included in the Compensation Data Detail worksheet (Attachment C) for informational purposes but have not been included in the total compensation calculation.

Our analysis includes the median (midpoint) and the mean (average) of the maximum monthly base pay data for each surveyed classification. With the exception of the Administrative Services Officer, RGS was able to identify match classes in each comparable agency for each of the surveyed classifications. For the Administrative Services Officer, all but one agency (MCAG) had a match class. RGS recommends that the median be used in reviewing the data as opposed to the average. The median is the exact midpoint of all market data collected, with 50% of market data below and 50% of market data above. Using the median methodology eliminates distortion caused by exceptionally high or low salary values (unlike the mean).

MARKET COMPENSATION FINDINGS
As mentioned above, detailed compensation data can be found in Attachment C of this report. A summary of the base salary and total compensation findings for each class surveyed are listed below. The data represents the percentage by which the CCOG current maximum base salary or total compensation for each classification is above or below the market median/average. The data SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
6 has been listed in descending order from the CCOG classification found to be the greatest percentage over the median to the CCOG classification found to be the greatest percentage below the median. For informational purposes, we have also listed the mean salary data.

LABOR MARKET DATA
Base Pay Comparison
Classification
CCOG Current
Maximum
Monthly Base
Pay Median
% Median
Above or
Below CCOG
Executive Director $10,157 $13,449 -24.47%
Administrative Assistant $4,004 $4,779 -16.21%
Administrative Services Officer $7,192 $7,462 -4.52%
Associate Transportation Planner $7,192 $7,233 -.58%
Labor market results show that the monthly base pay for three (3) classifications is below the market median. Only the base pay for the Associate Transportation Planner is above the market.

The base pay for the Administrative Services Officer and Transportation Planner is within 5% of the market median (either above or below). The base pay for the Administrative Assistant is greater than 15% but less than 20% below the market median. Finally, the base pay for the Executive Director is greater than 20% below the market median.

Total Compensation Comparison
Classification
CCOG Current
Maximum
Monthly Total
Compensation Median
% Median
Above or
Below CCOG
Executive Director $15,437 $21,212 -27.82%
Administrative Assistant $6,690 $8,294 -19.53%
Administrative Services Officer $11,029 11,483 -8.26%
Associate Transportation Planner $11,028 11,099 -0.64%
When total monthly compensation data is analyzed, the results differ slightly. The total compensation for the Associate Transportation Planner remains within five percent 5% of the market median. The total compensation for the Administrative Services Officer is greater than 5% but less than 10% below the market median. The total compensation for the Administrative Assistant is more than 15% but less than 20% below the market median. Finally, as with the base pay analysis, the total compensation for the Executive Director is more than 20% below the market median.

SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
7 Generally, if the salary for a classification falls within 5% of the median, it is considered to be equivalent in the labor market for survey purposes. This is because the variance may be explained by differences in the actual scope of the work of the match classes and the differences in total compensation plans and employment policies of the comparator agencies. Therefore, based on the data collected, the base pay and total compensation for the Associate Transportation Planner are considered equivalent to the labor market. The base pay for the Administrative Services Officer is considered equivalent to the labor market, while the total compensation for this class is considered below the labor market. The base pay and total compensation for the Administrative Assistant and the Executive Director are considered significantly below the labor market.

Below is a detailed summary of the benefit findings of the comparable agencies as compared to those provided by CCOG. In addition, a Benefit Comparison Chart is included in Attachment D.

BENEFIT FINDINGS
The following summarizes the major benefits provided by the comparator agencies (excluding ACTC and SJCOG) and CCOG.

Health Insurance
Medical Insurance:
• All of the agencies surveyed pay 100% of the cost for their employees’ medical premiums. • CCOG contributes eighty percent (80%) of the health premiums for employees. Employees contribute the remaining twenty percent (20%)
Dental/Vision Insurance:
• Only TCTC requires employees to pay for dental and vision premiumsfor full family coverage.

All other agencies pay 100% of dental and vision premiums for full family coverage either as a portion of overall health premium contributions or as part of separate dental and vision plans. • CCOG pays 100% of the premiums for both dental and vision insurance for full family coverage.

While not included in the total compensation calculations, RGS has included ACTC and SJCOG in the following summary of benefits to allow CCOG to compare all data available.

Pension
Social Security (Employer share):
• Three (3) of the comparable agencies participate in Social Security. The employer’s share is

6.2% of salary.
• CCOG does not participate in Social Security.

Employee Paid Employer Contribution:
• None of the comparable agencies require their employees to contribute to the employer’s share of retirement.

SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
8 • CCOG does not require its employees to contribute to the employer share of retirement.

Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC):
• Only two agencies provide EPMC; ACTC contributes 2% for the Executive Director only. • TCTC provides EPMC to all classes but the Administrative Services Officer. TCTC provided flat dollar amounts, which are .5% of salary.
• CCOG does not provide EPMC.

Employer Normal Cost Rate:
• Of the four (4) PERS member agencies, the Employer Normal Cost Rate ranges from 8.081% to 11.031%.
• Of those agencies that provide another type of retirement benefit, the employer contribution rate ranges from 15% to 17.13%.
• CCOG’s Employer Normal Cost Rate is 11.348%.

Leaves
Vacation Leave (at five years of service):
• All agencies provide vacation leave for their employees. • Agencies provide between 96-192 hours of vacation leave per year for the Executive Director. • Agencies provide between 96 and 160 hours of vacation leave per year for other employees. • TCTC provides 320 hours of Personal Time Off (PTO) to the Executive Director and 240 hours of PTO to the Administrative Services Officer. PTO can be used for vacation or sick leave. • CCOG provides 120 hours of vacation leave per year for all employees.

Sick Leave:
• Other than TCTC, as noted above, all agencies provide 96 hours of sick leave per year for each employee.
• CCOG provides 96 hours of sick leave per year for each employee.

Holiday Leave:
• All agencies provide holiday leave for their employees. • Agencies provide between 80 and 124 hours of holiday leave per year. • CCOG provides 104 hours of holiday leave per year.

Personal/Administrative Leave:
• ACTC provides no Personal/Administrative leave to employees • Four (4) agencies provide leave to the Executive Director only; NCTC provides 40 hours per year; MCTC, MCAG, and SJCOG provide 80 hours per year.
• EDCTC, HCAOG, and TCTC provide leave to other surveyed classes. The amount varies between 16 and 80 hours per year.
• CCOG provides 40 hours of Personal/Administrative leave to all classes but the Administrative Assistant.

SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
9 Other Benefits
Retiree Medical/Healthcare Contribution:

None of the comparator agencies contribute to retiree medical/healthcare for employees.

Deferred Compensation Match or Contribution:
• Only SJCOG contributes to a deferred compensation plan. The contribution is five percent (5%) for the Executive Director and one percent (1%) for the Administrative Services Officer. • CCOG does not contribute to a deferred compensation plan on behalf of their employees.

Automobile Allowance:
• Five (5) agencies provide an automobile allowance for their Executive Director. This amount varies from $250-600/month. No other classifications are provided with an automobile allowance.
• CCOG does not provide an automobile allowance for any classification.

Cell Phone Allowance:
• One agency (EDCTC) provides all surveyed classes with a cell phone allowance ($29.99/month); one agency provides a cell phone allowance to the Transportation Planner ($30/month); three agencies provide only their Executive Director with a cell phone allowance.

The amount of the allowance varies from $70-$100/month. • CCOG does not provide a cell phone allowance for any classification.

Longevity Pay (at ten years of service):
• HCAOG provides longevity pay of 5% at ten years of service. • TCTC provides longevity pay of 5% at ten years of service for the Executive Director only. • CCOG provides longevity pay of five percent (5%) at ten years of service for all employees.

Education Incentive/Certification Pay:
• TCTC provides education incentive/certification pay for the Transportation Planner. No other agency provides this benefit.
• CCOG does not provide educational incentive or certification pay to any survey classes.

Other Compensation:
• TCTC provides an additional compensation amount to the Executive Director. This benefit was negotiated when TCTC separated from the County. Agency stated that this benefit would most likely be offered to subsequent employees.
• No other agencies provide additional compensation to employees. • CCOG does not provide additional compensation to employees.

When comparing the percentage the compensation of each class is within the labor market median, it was found that there is only a slight difference (less than 5%) between the total compensation data or base pay alone. This would indicate that CCOG’s benefits package is relatively comparable to that offered by the other agencies. Therefore, it appears the SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
10 discrepancies between the compensation of the CCOG’s classifications and the market would be resolved by adjusting the base pay for those classifications.

SALARY CONSIDERATIONS
The above data reflects the percentage differences between CCOG’s salary and benefits and those of the labor market median. While utilizing external data to assist in the determination of appropriate salaries, it is equally important to examine the internal alignment of classifications within an organization. This is especially true when setting salaries of classes that do not share the same class series or class family but share classification factors such as the scope of responsibility, level in the organization, and complexity of work.

As stated earlier, the market data shows that the current salaries for the Associate Transportation Planner and Administrative Services Officer are within 5% of the median and therefore considered equivalent to the market. However, these two classifications are not similar when taking into consideration the classification factors listed above.

Based on the recommended salary structure, CCOG will have two classifications that report directly to the Executive Director: Senior Transportation Planner and Administrative Services Officer. As well as having the same reporting relationship, both acts at the highest level in their area of expertise, both carry out their duties with minimal oversight, and both represent CCOG with various outside groups and agencies.

To determine if this salary structure is unique, RGS reviewed the compensation plan of the comparable agencies and the salary relationships between the match classes for Associate Transportation Planner, Senior Transportation Planner, and Administrative Services Officer. The following reflects the data found:

Agency
Administrative
Services Officer
Associate
Planner
Percentage
Difference
Amador County Transportation Commission $7,274 $7,230 1% El Dorado County Transportation Commission $7,602 $6,907 10% Humboldt County Association of Governments $7,165 $6,423 12% Madera County Transportation Commission $7,928 $5,440 46% Nevada County Transportation Commission $7,462 $7,293 2% Tuolumne County Transportation Council $7,303 $7,059 3% San Joaquin Council of Governments $11,552 $8,377 38%
Of the seven (7) agencies that have match classes for both the Associate Planner and Administrative Services Officer, all provide higher compensation for the Administrative Services SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
11 Officer than the Associate Transportation Planner. For three agencies, that difference is minimal (1%-3%); however, for the other four (4) agencies that salary differential varies from 10%-46%.

Agency
Administrative
Services Officer
Senior
Transportation
Planner
Percentage
Difference
El Dorado County Transportation Commission $7,602 $8,041 -5% Humboldt County Association of Governments $7,165 $7,237 -1% Madera County Transportation Commission $7,928 $6,421 23% Tuolumne County Transportation Council $7,303 $7,369 -1% San Joaquin Council of Governments $11,552 $10,782 7%
Of the five (5) agencies that have match classes for both the Senior Transportation Planner and Administrative Services Officer, three (3) provide a slightly higher salary (within 5%) to the Senior Transportation Planner. Two (2) of the agencies provide a higher salary to the Administrative Services Officer (7%, 23%).

This data shows that most agencies set the salary for the Administrative Services Officer (or equivalent) class more closely to that of the Senior Transportation Planner. This would indicate that while these classifications are not within the same class series or class families, they share other classification factors that may warrant similar salaries within the agencies’ compensation plans.

RECOMMENDATIONS

CLASSIFICATIONS BELOW THE MARKET
When considering the revision of salaries based on market data, CCOG may wish to adjust salaries over time. If funds are limited, the compensation implementation may be carried out over months or years. When this occurs, classifications that are the furthest below the market average should receive the greatest and earliest salary adjustments to minimize disparity. These salary adjustments should be separate and apart from any planned cost of living increases (where applicable).

CLASSIFICATIONS IN A CLASS SERIES
For a classification series, internal alignments of a 5%-15% salary differential between an Assistant and Associate (or I and II) and a 10%-15% salary differential between an Associate and Senior (or II/Senior) depending on the scope of the assignment, are relatively standard.

SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
Based on the findings of the study and agency budgetary constraints and utilizing CCOG’s current salary schedule and structure, RGS recommends CCOG consider the following:

SAMPLE
SECTION II 2020 COMPENSATION STUDY REPORT
Calaveras Council of Governments July 2020
Compensation Study Report
12 • Make no salary adjustments to the salaries for the Associate Transportation Planner. • Set the salary for the newly created Assistant Transportation Planner at Range 26 of the current salary schedule (approximately 10% below the Associate Transportation Planner). • Set the salary for the newly created Senior Transportation Planner between 10-15% above the Associate Transportation Planner (Range 34-36) as the budget allows. • While considering the labor market data, set the salary for the Administrative Services Officer in relation to the Senior Transportation Planner as these classifications share similar classification factors within CCOG's staffing structure. • Adjust the salary for the Administrative Assistant to be equivalent to the labor market either in a single adjustment or by periodic adjustment at the budget allows. • Adjust the salary for the Executive Director to be equivalent to the labor market either in a single adjustment or by periodic adjustment at the budget allows.

COMPENSATION POLICY
While CCOG’s Policies and Procedures recommend a focused compensation study be conducted every five years, CCOG may find a more detailed compensation which establishes and codifies a strategy for setting compensation. This policy should identify the comparator agencies to be surveyed (or at minimum the type of agencies to be surveyed), the benefit components to be used, the method of collecting information, how the comparable data will be determined, and how the data will be implemented.

RGS recommends the policy include how CCOG plans to set compensation in relation to the market data. Will the median or mean be used as a point to set salaries? Will base pay or total compensation be used? Will salaries be set equal to the market or a certain percentage above or below the market?
In addition to market placement, there are many other factors to consider when setting salaries.

The policy should include factors such as recruitment and retention issues, salaries of other similar positions within the same series or across the organization (internal parity), the value of the work performed to the organization, and fiscal sustainability. The value of CCOG’s total compensation package may also be a factor to consider in determining policy parameters.

Finally, the policy should include how CCOG will establish salaries for new classifications (i.e., choosing the closest range from the established salary schedule, which is equal to or greater than the determined salary. This method ensures the basic salary range structure remains intact.

Adopting a compensation policy which includes compensation-setting guidance based on all these factors will provide a foundation that is fact-based and analytical. In addition, it will give CCOG tools needed to resist short-term pressures in favor of long-term fairness and fiscal sustainability.

SAMPLE
Attachment A
Base Pay Data Summary
SAMPLE

BASE PAY SALARY DATA SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Agency Title
Top Monthly
Salary
Humboldt County Association of Governments Executive Director $10,355 Amador County Transportation Commission Executive Director $10,521 Nevada County Transportation Commission Executive Director $11,809 Tuolumne County Tranportation Council Executive Director $13,164 Madera County Transportation Commission Executive Director $13,733 El Dorado County Transportation Commission Executive Director $14,797 Merced County Association of Governments Executive Director $15,457 San Joaquin Council of Governments Executive Director $20,288 Calaveras Council of Governments Executive Director $10,157 Median of Comparator Agencies $13,449
% Above/Below Median -24.47%
Average of Comparator Agencies $13,766
% Above/Below Average -26.21%
NCC - No Comparable Classification
SAMPLE

BASE PAY SALARY DATA SUMMARY - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER Agency Title
Top Monthly
Salary
Humboldt County Association of Governments Fiscal Admin Officer $7,165 Amador County Transportation Commission Administrator/Fiscal Officer $7,274 Tuolumne County Tranportation Council Sr Admin Analyst $7,303 Nevada County Transportation Commission Admin Services Officer $7,462 El Dorado County Transportation Commission Admin Services Officer $7,602 Merced County Association of Governments Finance Services Manager $8,708 Madera County Transportation Commission Fiscal Supervisor $8,814 San Joaquin Council of Governments Manager of Admin Services $11,552 Calaveras Council of Governments Administrative Services Officer $7,192 Median of Comparator Agencies $7,532
% Above/Below Median -4.52%
Average of Comparator Agencies $8,235
% Above/Below Average -12.67%
NCC - No Comparable Classification
SAMPLE

BASE PAY SALARY DATA SUMMARY - ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Agency Title
Top Monthly
Salary
Madera County Transportation Commission Assoc Regional Planner $5,440 El Dorado County Transportation Commission Assoc Transportation Planner $6,907 Tuolumne County Tranportation Council Transportation Planner II $7,059 Amador County Transportation Commission Transportation Planner $7,230 Humboldt County Association of Governments Assoc Transportation Planner $7,237 Nevada County Transportation Commission Transportation Planner $7,293 Merced County Association of Governments Associate Planner $7,523 San Joaquin Council of Governments Assoc Regional Planner $8,377 Calaveras Council of Governments Associate Transportation Planner $7,192 Median of Comparator Agencies $7,233
% Above/Below Median -0.58%
Average of Comparator Agencies $7,133
% Above/Below Average 0.82%
NCC - No Comparable Classification
SAMPLE

BASE PAY SALARY DATA SUMMARY - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Agency Title
Top Monthly
Salary
San Joaquin Council of Governments Admin Clerk II $4,017 Madera County Transportation Commission Office Assistant $4,198 Humboldt County Association of Governments Executive Assistant $4,671 Amador County Transportation Commission Admin Secretary $4,709 Merced County Association of Governments Admin Assistant II $4,848 Nevada County Transportation Commission Admin Assistant $4,880 El Dorado County Transportation Commission Executive Assistant $5,361 Tuolumne County Tranportation Council Asst to the Exec Director $6,019 Calaveras Council of Governments Administrative Assistant $4,004 Median of Comparator Agencies $4,779
% Above/Below Median -16.21%
Average of Comparator Agencies $4,838
% Above/Below Average -17.24%
NCC - No Comparable Classification
SAMPLE
Attachment B
Total Compensation Data Summary
SAMPLE

TOTAL COMPENSATION DATA SUMMARY - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Agency Title
Top Monthly
Salary
Total Monthly
Benefits
Total
Compensation
Humboldt County Association of Governments Executive Director $10,355 $5,445 $15,800 Nevada County Transportation Commission Executive Director $11,809 $6,965 $18,774 El Dorado County Transportation Commission Executive Director $14,797 $6,415 $21,212 Madera County Transportation Commission Executive Director $13,733 $7,830 $21,563 Tuolumne County Tranportation Council Executive Director $13,164 $8,590 $21,754 Merced County Association of Governments Executive Director $15,457 $8,027 $23,484 1 Amador County Transportation Commission Executive Director $10,521 N/A N/A 2 San Joaquin Council of Governments Executive Director $20,288 N/A N/A Calaveras Council of Governments Executive Director $10,157 $5,280 $15,437 Median of Comparator Agencies $13,449 $21,388
% Above/Below Median -24.47% -27.82%
Average of Comparator Agencies $13,766 $20,431
% Above/Below Average -26.21% -24.44%
NCC - No Comparable Classification
1 ACTC - Unable to obtain health insurance contributions, therefore total compensation not calculated. 2 SJCOG - Unable to obtain health insurance contributions, therefore total compensation not calculated.

SAMPLE

TOTAL COMPENSATION DATA SUMMARY - ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER Agency Title
Top Monthly
Salary
Total Monthly
Benefit
Total
Compensation
Tuolumne County Tranportation Council Sr Admin Analyst $7,303 $2,899 $10,202 Nevada County Transportation Commission Admin Services Officer $7,462 $3,971 $11,433 Humboldt County Association of Governments Fiscal Admin Officer $7,165 $4,367 $11,532 El Dorado County Transportation Commission Admin Services Officer $7,602 $4,908 $12,510 Merced County Association of Governments Finance Services Manager $8,708 $4,826 $13,534 Madera County Transportation Commission Fiscal Supervisor $8,814 $5,162 $13,975 1 Amador County Transportation Commission Administrator/Fiscal Officer $7,274 N/A N/A 2 San Joaquin Council of Governments Manager of Admin Services $11,552 N/A N/A Calaveras Council of Governments Administrative Services Officer $7,192 $3,836 $11,028 Median of Comparator Agencies $7,532 $12,021
% Above/Below Median -4.52% -8.26%
Average of Comparator Agencies $8,235 $12,198
% Above/Below Average -12.67% -7.57%
NCC - No Comparable Classification
1 ACTC - Unable to obtain health insurance contributions, therefore total compensation not calculated. 2 SJCOG - Unable to obtain health insurance contributions, therefore total compensation not calculated.

SAMPLE

TOTAL COMPENSATION DATA SUMMARY - ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Agency Title
Top Monthly
Salary
Total Monthly
Benefits
Total
Compensation
Madera County Transportation Commission Assoc Regional Planner $5,440 $3,934 $9,373 Tuolumne County Tranportation Council Transportation Planner II $7,059 $2,997 $10,056 El Dorado County Transportation Commission Assoc Transportation Planner $6,907 $4,179 $11,086 Nevada County Transportation Commission Transportation Planner $7,293 $3,818 $11,111 Humboldt County Association of Governments Assoc Transportation Planner $7,237 $4,168 $11,405 Merced County Association of Governments Associate Planner $7,523 $4,299 $11,822 1 Amador County Transportation Commission Transportation Planner $7,230 N/A N/A 2 San Joaquin Council of Governments Assoc Regional Planner $8,377 N/A N/A Calaveras Council of Governments Transportation Planner $7,192 $3,836 $11,028 Median of Comparator Agencies $7,233 $11,099
% Above/Below Median -0.58% -0.64%
Average of Comparator Agencies $7,133 $10,809
% Above/Below Average 0.82% 2.03%
NCC - No Comparable Classification
1 ACTC - Unable to obtain health insurance contributions, therefore total compensation not calculated. 2 SJCOG - Unable to obtain health insurance contributions, therefore total compensation not calculated.

SAMPLE

TOTAL COMPENSATION DATA SUMMARY - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Agency Title
Top Monthly
Salary
Total Monthly
Benefit
Total
Compensation
Nevada County Transportation Commission Admin Assistant $4,880 $2,796 $7,676 Madera County Transportation Commission Office Assistant $4,198 $3,482 $7,680 Humboldt County Association of Governments Executive Assistant $4,671 $3,623 $8,294 Merced County Association of Governments Admin Assistant II $4,848 $3,486 $8,334 Tuolumne County Tranportation Council Asst to the Exec Director $6,019 $2,614 $8,633 El Dorado County Transportation Commission Executive Assistant $5,361 $3,638 $8,999 1 Amador County Transportation Commission Admin Secretary $4,709 N/A N/A 2 San Joaquin Council of Governments Admin Clerk II $4,017 N/A N/A Calaveras Council of Governments Administrative Assistant $4,004 $2,686 $6,690 Median of Comparator Agencies $4,779 $8,314
% Above/Below Median -16.21% -19.53%
Average of Comparator Agencies $4,838 $8,269
% Above/Below Average -17.24% -19.09%
NCC - No Comparable Classification
1 ACTC - Unable to obtain health insurance contributions, therefore total compensation not calculated. 2 SJCOG - Unable to obtain health insurance contributions, therefore total compensation not calculated.

SAMPLE
Attachment C
Compensation Data Detail
SAMPLE COMPENSATION DATA DETAIL ‐ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Agency Title Top Monthly Salary  EE Paid  Medical  (FF)   ER Paid  Medical  (FF)   Total Cost  Medical  (FF)   EE Paid  Dental  (FF)   ER Paid  Dental  (FF)   Total Cost  Dental  (FF)   EE Paid  Vision  (FF)   ER Paid  Vision  (FF)   Total Cost  Vision  (FF)   Emp. Contrib.  SS   Employer  Contrib.  SS  Emp. Paid Portion Emp. Contrib.   Emp. Paid  Employer  Contrib.  EPMC  Employer Paid  Member  Contrib.  Retirement Contrib. (Normal Rate)  Emp.  PEPRA Normal Rate  Vacation  Leave   Sick Leave   Holiday   Personal/ Admin.  Leave  Retiree  Medical/ Healthcare  Contribution  Deferred Comp.   Auto  Allowance   Cell Phone  Allowance   Longevity Pay   Education Incentive/ Cert. pay   Other Comp.  Total Comp. El Dorado County Transportation  Commission ED $14,797 $0.00 $1,998.00 $1,998.00 $0.00 $167.40 $167.40 $0.00 $26.00 $26.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,035.79 $0.00 $0.00 $1,632.26 7.00% $854  $683  $740  $285  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $29.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21,212 Humboldt County Association of  Governments ED $10,355 $0.00 $1,953.62 $1,953.62 $0.00 $61.20 $61.20 $0.00 $9.35 $9.35 $0.00 $0.00 $724.85 $0.00 $0.00 $836.79 6.75% $597  $478  $518  $398  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $75.00 $517.75 $0.00 $0.00 $15,800 Madera County Transportation Commission ED $13,733 $0.00 $1,954.00 $1,954.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $851.47 $851.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,060.00 ‐ $634  $634  $819  $528  $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21,563 Merced County Association of Governments ED $15,457 $0.00 $1,804.58 $1,804.58 $0.00 $168.77 $168.77 $0.00 $39.89 $39.89 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,318.55 ‐ $1,189  $713  $773  $595  $0.00 $0.00 $355.00 $70.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $23,484 Nevada County Transportation Commission ED $11,809 $0.00 $1,344.32 $1,344.32 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $732.16 $732.16 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,022.88 ‐ $914  $545  $590  $227  $0.00 $0.00 $589.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $18,774 Tuolumne County Transportation  Council ED $13,164 $601.70 $623.00 $1,224.70 $37.87 $0.00 $37.87 $7.10 $0.00 $7.10 $816.17 $816.17 $822.78 $0.00 $65.82 $1,210.69 7.00% $2,025  $0.00 $557  $506  $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $0.00 $658.20 $0.00 $1,627.50 $21,754 1 Amador County Transportation  Commission ED $10,521  ‐   ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ $0.00 $0.00 $526.05 $0.00 $210.42 $1,160.57 7.00% $971  $486  $486  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A 2 San Joaquin Council of Governments ED $20,288   ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,043.20 ‐ $1,561  $936  $780  $780  $0.00 $1,014.40 $600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A Calaveras Council of Governments ED $10,157 $327.14 $1,308.58 $1,635.72 $0.00 $85.80 $85.80 $0.00 $26.10 $26.10 $0.00 $0.00 $711.01 $0.00 $0.00 $1,152.65 7.00% $977  $468.80  $507.87  195.33       $0.00 $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $507.87 $0.00 $0.00 $15,437 Median of Comparator Agencies $13,449 $21,388 % Above/Below Median ‐24.47% ‐27.82% Average of Comparator Agencies $13,766 $20,431 % Above/Below Average ‐26.21% ‐24.44% NCC ‐ No Comparable Classification FF ‐ Full Family SS ‐ Social Security ED ‐ Executive Director 1 ACTC ‐ Unable to obtain health insurance contributions. Benefit amounts are displayed for informational purposes only 2 SJCOG ‐ Unable to obtain health insurance contributions. Benefit amounts are displayed for informational purposes only MEDICAL INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE VISION INSURANCE PENSION LEAVES ADDITIONAL BENEFIT COMPONENTS SAMPLE COMPENSATION DATA DETAIL ‐ ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER Agency Title Top Monthly Salary  EE Paid Med (FF)   ER Paid Med (FF)   Total Cost  Med.  (FF)   EE Paid  Dent.  (FF)   ER Paid  Dent.  (FF)   Total Cost  Dental  (FF)   EE Paid  Vision  (FF)   ER Paid  Vision  (FF)  Total Cost Vision  (FF)   Emp Contrib. SS   Employer  Contrib. SS  Paid Portion Emp. Contrib.  Emp. Paid  Employer  Contrib.  Employer Paid Member Contrib.  Ret. Contrib. (Normal Rate)  Emp.  PEPRA Normal Rate  Vacation  Leave   Sick Leave   Holiday   Personal/ Admin.  Leave  Retiree  Medical/ Healthcare  Contribution  Deferred  Comp.   Auto  Allowance   Cell Phone  Allowance   Longevity Pay   Education  Incentive/ Cert. pay   Other Comp.  Total Comp. El Dorado County Transportation  Commission Admin Services Officer $7,602 $0.00 $1,998.00 $1,998.00 $0.00 $167.40 $167.40 $0.00 $26.00 $26.00 $0.00 $532.14 $532.14 $0.00 $0.00 $838.58 7.00% $439  $351  $380  $146  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $29.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,510 Humboldt County Association of  Governments Fiscal Admin Officer $7,165 $0.00 $1,953.62 $1,953.62 $0.00 $61.20 $61.20 $0.00 $9.35 $9.35 $0.00 $0.00 $501.55 $0.00 $0.00 $579.00 6.75% $413  $331  $386  $276  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $358.25 $0.00 $0.00 $11,532 Madera County Transportation  Commission Fiscal Supervisor $8,814 $0.00 $1,954.00 $1,954.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $546.46 $546.46 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,322.07 ‐ $407  $407  $525  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,975 Merced County Association of  Governments Financial Services  Manager $8,708 $0.00 $1,804.58 $1,804.58 $0.00 $168.17 $168.17 $0.00 $39.89 $39.89 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,306.20 $0.00 $670  $402  $435  $0  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,534 Nevada County Transportation  Admin Services Officer $7,462 $0.00 $1,075.12 $1,075.12 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $462.64 $462.64 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,278.24 ‐ $438  $344  $373  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,433 Tuolumne County Transportation   Sr Admin Analyst $7,303 $44.82 $623.00 $667.82 $37.87 $0.00 $37.87 $7.10 $0.00 $7.10 $452.79 $452.79 $511.21 $0.00 $0.00 $671.66 7.00% $843  $0  $309  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,202 1 Amador County Transportation  Commission Administrator/Fiscal  Officer $7,274  ‐   ‐   ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐   ‐   ‐  $0.00 $0.00 $509.18 $0.00 $0.00 $802.39 7.00% $448  $336  $336  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A 2 San Joaquin Council of Governments Manager of Admin  Services $11,552  ‐   ‐   ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐   ‐   ‐  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,732.80 ‐ $666  $533  $444  $0.00 $0.00 $115.52 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A Calaveras Council of Governments Administrative Services  Officer $7,192 $327.14 $1,308.58 $1,635.72 $0.00 $43.40 $43.40 $0.00 $13.80 $13.80 $0.00 $0.00 $503.41 $0.00 $0.00 $816.10 7.00% $414.90  $331.92  $359.58  138.30       $0.00 $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $359.58 $0.00 $0.00 $11,028 Median of Comparator Agencies $7,532 $12,021 % Above/Below Median ‐4.52% ‐8.26% Average of Comparator Agencies $8,235 $12,198 % Above/Below Average ‐12.67% ‐9.59% NCC ‐ No Comparable Classification FF ‐ Full Family SS ‐ Social Security 1 ACTC ‐ Unable to obtain health insurance contributions. Benefit amounts are displayed for informational purposes only 2 SJCOG ‐ Unable to obtain health insurance contributions. Benefit amounts are displayed for informational purposes only MEDICAL INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE VISION INSURANCE PENSION LEAVES ADDITIONAL BENEFIT COMPONENTS SAMPLE Comp. DATA DETAIL ‐ ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Agency Title Top Monthly  Salary  EE Paid  Med.  (FF)   ER Paid Med.  (FF)   Total Cost Med.  (FF)   EE Paid  Dent.  (FF)   ER Paid  Dent.  (FF)   Total Cost Dent.  (FF)   EE Paid  Vision  (FF)   ER Paid  Vision  (FF)  Total Cost Vision  (FF)   EE Contrib. SS   ER Contrib. SS  EE Paid Portion  EE Contrib.   EE Paid ER  Contrib.  ER Paid Member Contrib.  ER Ret.  Contrib.  (Normal Rate)  EE PEPRA  Normal Rate  Vacation  Leave   Sick Leave   Holiday   Personal/ Admin. Leave  Retiree  Med./ Healthcare  Contrib.  Deferred  Comp.   Auto  Allowance   Cell Phone  Allowance   Longevity Pay  Education  Incentive/ Cert.  pay   Other Comp.  Total Comp. El Dorado County Transportation  Commission Associate  Transportation  $6,907 $0.00 $1,998.00 $1,998.00 $0.00 $167.40 $167.40 $0.00 $26.00 $26.00 $0.00 $0.00 $483.51 $0.00 $0.00 $761.95 7.00% $398  $319  $345  $133  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $29.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,086 Humboldt County Association of  Governments Assoc Transportation  Planner $7,237 $0.00 $1,953.62 $1,953.62 $0.00 $61.20 $61.20 $0.00 $9.35 $9.35 $0.00 $0.00 $506.59 $0.00 $0.00 $584.82 6.75% $418  $334  $445  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $361.85 $0.00 $0.00 $11,405 Madera County Transportation  Commission Assoc Regional  Planner $5,440 $0.00 $1,954.00 $1,954.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $337.26 $337.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $815.96 ‐ $251  $251  $324  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,373 Merced County Association of  Governments Associate Planner $7,523 $0.00 $1,804.58 $1,804.58 $0.00 $168.77 $168.77 $0.00 $39.89 $39.89 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,128.45 ‐ $434  $347  $376  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,822 Nevada County Transportation  Commission Transportation  Planner $7,293 $0.00 $1,134.83 $1,134.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $452.17 $452.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,249.29 ‐ $281  $337  $365  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,111 Tuolumne County Transportation  Council Transportation  Planner II $7,059 $361.70 $623.00 $984.70 $37.87 $0.00 $37.87 $7.10 $0.00 $7.10 $437.66 $437.66 $452.12 $0.00 $35.44 $649.22 7.00% $407  $326  $299  $54  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30.00 $0.00 $135.64 $0.00 $10,056 1 Amador County Transportation  Commission Transportation  Planner $7,230  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ $0.00 $0.00 $488.01 $0.00 $0.00 $797.51 7.00% $445  $334  $334  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A 2 San Joaquin Council of  Governments Assoc Regional  Planner $8,377  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,256.55 ‐ $483  $387  $322  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A Calaveras Council of GovernmentsAssociate  Transportation  Planner $7,192 $327.14 $1,308.58 $1,635.72 $0.00 $43.40 $43.40 $0.00 $13.80 $13.80 $0.00 $0.00 $503.41 $0.00 $0.00 $816.10 7.00% $414.90  $331.92  $359.58  138.30        $0.00 $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $359.58 $0.00 $0.00 $11,028 Median of Comparator Agencies $7,233 $11,099 % Above/Below Median ‐0.58% ‐0.64% Average of Comparator Agencies $7,133 $10,809 % Above/Below Average 0.82% 2.02% NCC ‐ No Comparable Classification FF ‐ Full FamilySS ‐ Social Security
EE ‐ EmployeeER ‐ Employer1 ACTC ‐ Unable to obtain health insurance Contrib.. Benefit amounts are displayed for informational purposes only2 SJCOG ‐ Unable to obtain health insurance Contrib.. Benefit amounts are displayed for informational purposes only Med. INSURANCE Dent. INSURANCE VISION INSURANCE PENSION LEAVES (assumes 8 hr days) ADDITIONAL BENEFIT COMPONENTS SAMPLE COMPENSATION DATA DETAIL‐ ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Agency Title Top Monthly Salary  EE Paid Med.  (FF)   ER Paid Med.  (FF)   Total Cost Med.  (FF)   EE Paid Dent. (FF)   ER  Paid Dent. (FF)   Total Cost Dent.  (FF)   EE Paid Vision  (FF)   ER Paid Vision  (FF)   Total Cost Vision  (FF)   Emp. Contrib. SS   Employer Contrib. SS  Paid Portion Emp. Contrib.   Emp. Paid Emp. Contrib.   EPMC Employer Paid Member  Contributions   Employer Ret. Contrib. (Normal Rate)  Emp. PEPRA Normal Rate  Vacation Leave   Sick Leave   Holiday   Personal/ Admin.  Leave  Retiree Med./ Healthcare Contrib.  Deferred  Comp.   Auto  Allowance   Cell Phone  Allowance   Longevity Pay   Education Incentive/ Cert.  pay   Other Comp.  Total Comp. El Dorado County Transportation  Commission Executive Assistant $5,361 $0.00 $1,998.00 $1,998.00 $0.00 $167.40 $167.40 $0.00 $26.00 $26.00 $0.00 $0.00 $375.27 $0.00 $0.00 $591.37 7.00% $309  $247  $268  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $29.99 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,999 Humboldt County Association of  Governments Executive Assistant $4,671 $0.00 $1,953.62 $1,953.62 $0.00 $61.20 $61.20 $0.00 $9.35 $9.35 $0.00 $0.00 $326.97 $0.00 $0.00 $377.46 6.75% $269  $216  $323  $180  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $233.55 $0.00 $0.00 $8,294 Madera County Transportation  Commission Office Assistant $4,198 $0.00 $1,954.00 $1,954.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $260.27 $260.27 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $629.67 ‐ $194  $194  $250  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,680 Merced County Association of  Governments Admin Assistant II $4,848 $0.00 $1,804.58 $1,804.58 $0.00 $168.77 $168.77 $0.00 $39.89 $39.89 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $727.20 ‐ $280  $224  $242  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,334 Nevada County Transportation  Commission Admin Assistant $4,880 $0.00 $1,000.24 $1,000.24 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $302.56 $302.56 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $835.94 ‐ $188  $225  $244  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,676 Tuolumne County Transportation   Council Asst to the Exec Director $6,019 $361.70 $623.00 $984.70 $37.87 $0.00 $37.87 $7.10 $0.00 $7.10 $373.18 $373.18 $282.98 $0.00 $22.18 $553.57 7.00% $463  $278  $255  $46  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,633 1 Amador County Transportation  Commission Admin Secretary $4,709  ‐   ‐   ‐  ‐   ‐   ‐   ‐   ‐   ‐  $0.00 $0.00 $317.86 $0.00 $0.00 $519.45 7.00% $290  $217  $217  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A 2 San Joaquin Council of Governments Admin Clerk II $4,017  ‐   ‐   ‐   ‐   ‐   ‐   ‐   ‐  ‐ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $602.55 ‐ $232  $185  $155  $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 N/A Calaveras Council of Governments Administrative Assistant $4,004 $327.14 $1,308.58 $1,635.72 $0.00 $43.40 $43.40 $0.00 $13.80 $13.80 $0.00 $0.00 $280.28 $0.00 $0.00 $454.37 7.00% $231.00  $184.80  $200.20  $0.00 $0.00 $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $200.20 $0.00 $0.00 $6,690 Median of Comparator Agencies $4,779 $8,314 % Above/Below Median ‐16.21% ‐19.53% Average of Comparator Agencies $4,838 $8,269 % Above/Below Average ‐17.24% ‐19.09% NCC ‐ No Comparable Classification FF ‐ Full Family SS ‐ Social Security 1 ACTC ‐ Unable to obtain health insurance contributions. Benefit amounts are displayed for informational purposes only 2 SJCOG ‐ Unable to obtain health insurance contributions. Benefit amounts are displayed for informational purposes only MEDICAL INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE VISION INSURANCE PENSION LEAVES ADDITIONAL BENEFIT COMPONENTS SAMPLE
Attachment D
Benefit Comparison Chart
SAMPLE
Agency Classification Information

CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
CCOG survey classes include: Executive Director (Exec Dir) , Administrative Services Officer (ASO), Associate Transportation Planner (ATP), and Administrative Assistant (AA)
Amador Co. Transportation Commission Agency did not provide job specs El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission No additonal class notes Humboldt Co. Association of Governments No additonal class notes Madera Co. Transportation Commission No additonal class notes Merced Co. Association of Governments
Financial Services Manager closest match. Mid-management class. Finance Director not a match because it is a Dept Head who supervises 4 professional accounting , including 1 mgr.

Nevada Co. Transportation Commission No additonal class notes San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments No additonal class notes Shasta Regional Transportation Agency Agency chose not to participate in survey Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council No additonal class notes Agency Benefit: Health/Dental/Vision Insurance

CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
CCOG rates determined by age of employee and dependents. Rate used is for 2 dependents: One age 45 and one age 15.

Amador Co. Transportation Commission
Agency unable to provide health contribution data; included in base pay calculations, but not included in total compenation calculatations El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission Agency pays 100% for all (CalPERS health, Amerita Dental, VSP) Humboldt Co. Association of Governments Agency pays 100% for EE+1; EE pays for cost for additional dependents Madera Co. Transportation Commission
Agency pay 100% of health (max premiums: health $1954, dental/vision/life $212); EE's waiving health receive $500
Merced Co. Association of Governments
Agency rates determined by age of employee and dependents. Rate used is for 2 dependents: One age 45 and one age 15.

Nevada Co. Transportation Commission Amount provided was for ER paid medical/dental/vision San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments
Agency unable to provide health contribution data; included in base pay calculations, but not included in total compenation calculatations Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council Email to agency requesting confirmation of data Agency PENSION - Social Security
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG does not contribute to Social Security Amador Co. Transportation Commission Agency does not contribute to Social Security El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission Agency does not contribute to Social Security Humboldt Co. Association of Governments Agency does not contribute to Social Security Madera Co. Transportation Commission Agency contributes 6.2% of salary to Social Security Merced Co. Association of Governments Agency does not contribute to Social Security Nevada Co. Transportation Commission Agency contributes 6.2% of salary to Social Security San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments Agency does not contribute to Social Security Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council Agency contributes 6.2% of salary to Social Security

CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

BENEFIT COMPARISON CHART
SAMPLE

CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

BENEFIT COMPARISON CHART
Agency PENSION - Employee Paid Employer Contribution
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG employees do not pay any portion of employer's contribution Amador Co. Transportation Commission Employees do not pay any portion of employer's contribution El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission Employees do not pay any portion of employer's contribution Humboldt Co. Association of Governments Employees do not pay any portion of employer's contribution Madera Co. Transportation Commission Employees do not pay any portion of employer's contribution Merced Co. Association of Governments Employees do not pay any portion of employer's contribution Nevada Co. Transportation Commission Employees do not pay any portion of employer's contribution San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments Employees do not pay any portion of employer's contribution Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council Employees do not pay any portion of employer's contribution Agency PENSION - Employer Paid Employee Contribution (EPMC) CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG does not make and EPMC contribution Amador Co. Transportation Commission Exec Dir receives 2%; No contribution for other surveyed classes El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission No employer contribution if hired after 7/1/2011 Humboldt Co. Association of Governments No employer contribution Madera Co. Transportation Commission No equivalent to EPMC provided Merced Co. Association of Governments No equivalent to EPMC provided Nevada Co. Transportation Commission No equivalent to EPMC provided San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments No equivalent to EPMC provided Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council Agency provided flat dollar rates (.5%) for all surveyed classes but ASO.

Agency PENSION - Employer Paid Retirement - Normal Rate (note if not CalPERS) CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG - FY 2020/21 - Employer Normal Cost 11.348% Amador Co. Transportation Commission FY 2020/21 - Employer Normal Cost 11.031% El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission FY 2020/21 - Employer Normal Cost 11.031% Humboldt Co. Association of Governments FY 2020/21 - Employer Normal Cost 8.081% Madera Co. Transportation Commission Retirement plan via ICMA (not CalPERS); 15% ER contribution Merced Co. Association of Governments Retirement is 401A (not CalPERS); 15% ER contribution Nevada Co. Transportation Commission Retirement plan via ICMA (not CalPERS); 17.13% ER contribution San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments Retirement is 401K (not CalPERS); 15% ER contribution Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council FY 2020/21 - Employer Normal Cost 9.197% Agency Benefit: Vacation Leave @ 5 years of service
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG provides 120 hrs/year for all survey classes Amador Co. Transportation Commission 192 hrs/year for Exec Dir; 128 hrs/year for other surveyed classes El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission 120 hrs/year for all surveyed classifications Humboldt Co. Association of Governments 120 hrs/year for all surveyed classifications Madera Co. Transportation Commission 96 hrs/year for all surveyed classifications Merced Co. Association of Governments 160 hrs/year for Exec Dir; 120 hrs/year for other surveyed classes Nevada Co. Transportation Commission 161 hrs/year for Exec Dir; 122 hrs/year for ASO; 80 hrs/year for others San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments 184 hrs/year for Exec Dir; 120hrs/year for all other surveyed classes Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council
320 hrs/yr of PTO for Exec Dir; 240 hrs/yr of PTO for ASO; 120 hrs/yr VAC for Trans Planner and 160hrs/yr VAC of Admin Asst
SAMPLE

CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

BENEFIT COMPARISON CHART
Agency Benefit: Sick Leave
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG provides 96 hrs/year for all survey classes Amador Co. Transportation Commission 96 hrs/year
El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission 96 hrs/year
Humboldt Co. Association of Governments 96 hrs/year
Madera Co. Transportation Commission 96 hrs/year
Merced Co. Association of Governments 96 hrs/year
Nevada Co. Transportation Commission 96 hrs/year
San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments 96 hrs/year
Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council
Exec Dir and ASO receive Paid Time Off (PTO) (see amounts above) ATP and AA receive 96 hrs/year
Agency Benefit: Holiday Leave
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG provides 104 hrs/year for all survey classes Amador Co. Transportation Commission 96 hrs/year
El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission 104 hrs/year
Humboldt Co. Association of Governments
104 hrs/year for Exec Dir; 112 hrs/year for ASO; 128 hrs/year for ATP; and 144 hrs/year for AA
Madera Co. Transportation Commission 124 hrs/year
Merced Co. Association of Governments 104 hrs/year
Nevada Co. Transportation Commission 104 hrs/year
San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments 80 hrs/year
Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council 88 hrs/year
Agency Benefit: Personal/Administrative Leave
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG provides 40 hrs/year for all survey classes but the AA Amador Co. Transportation Commission No leave provided
El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission 40 hrs/year for Exec Dir, ASO, and TP; not provided to AA Humboldt Co. Association of Governments 80 hrs/year for Exec Dir, ASO, and AA; not provided to ATP Madera Co. Transportation Commission 80 hrs/year for Exec Dir only Merced Co. Association of Governments 80 hrs/year for Exec Dir only Nevada Co. Transportation Commission 40 hrs/year for Exec Dir only San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments 80 hrs/year for Exec Dir only Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council 80 hrs/year for Exec Dir, 16 hrs/year for the ATP and AA; 0 for ASO Agency Benefit: Retiree Medical/Healthcare contribution CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG does not provide a contribution ot retiree medical/healthcare Amador Co. Transportation Commission No contribution provided El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission No contribution provided Humboldt Co. Association of Governments No contribution provided Madera Co. Transportation Commission No contribution provided Merced Co. Association of Governments No contribution provided Nevada Co. Transportation Commission No contribution provided San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments No contribution provided Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council No contribution provided SAMPLE

CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

BENEFIT COMPARISON CHART
Agency Benefit: Auto Allowance
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG do not provide an automobile allowance Amador Co. Transportation Commission No allowance provided El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission No allowance provided Humboldt Co. Association of Governments No allowance provided Madera Co. Transportation Commission $250/month for Exec Dir Merced Co. Association of Governments $350/month for Exec Dir Nevada Co. Transportation Commission $589/month for Exec Dir San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments $600/month for Exec Dir Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council $500/month for Exec Dir Agency Benefit: Cell Phone Allowance
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG do not provide a cell phone allowance Amador Co. Transportation Commission No allowance provided El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission $29.99/month for all surveyed classes Humboldt Co. Association of Governments $75/month for Exec Dir Madera Co. Transportation Commission $100/month for Exec Dir Merced Co. Association of Governments $70/month for Exec Dir Nevada Co. Transportation Commission No allowance provided San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments No allowance provided Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council $30/month for ATP
Agency Benefit: Deferred Compensation Plans
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG provides no employer contribution Amador Co. Transportation Commission No Employer Contribution El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission No Employer Contribution Humboldt Co. Association of Governments No Employer Contribution Madera Co. Transportation Commission No Employer Contribution Merced Co. Association of Governments No Employer Contribution Nevada Co. Transportation Commission No Employer Contribution San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments 5% for Exec Dir; 1% for ASO (management benefit only) Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council No Employer Contribution Agency Benefit: Longevity @ 10 years of service
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG provides 5% of salary at 10 years of service Amador Co. Transportation Commission None provided
El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission None provided
Humboldt Co. Association of Governments Agency provides 5% at 10 yrs of service. Add'l 5% at 20 yrs of service Madera Co. Transportation Commission None provided
Merced Co. Association of Governments None provided
Nevada Co. Transportation Commission None provided
San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments None provided
Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council Agency provides 5% at 10 years of service for Exec Dir only.

SAMPLE

CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

BENEFIT COMPARISON CHART
Agency Benefit: Education Incentive/Certification Pay
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG provides no Educational Incentive/Certification Pay Amador Co. Transportation Commission No Educational Incentive/Certification Pay provided El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission No Educational Incentive/Certification Pay provided Humboldt Co. Association of Governments No Educational Incentive/Certification Pay provided Madera Co. Transportation Commission No Educational Incentive/Certification Pay provided Merced Co. Association of Governments No Educational Incentive/Certification Pay provided Nevada Co. Transportation Commission No Educational Incentive/Certification Pay provided San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments No Educational Incentive/Certification Pay provided Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council $135.64/month Certification Pay for ATP Agency Benefit: Other Compensation
CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CCOG provides no other compensation Amador Co. Transportation Commission No other compensation provided El Dorado Co. Transportation Commission No other compensation provided Humboldt Co. Association of Governments No other compensation provided Madera Co. Transportation Commission No other compensation provided Merced Co. Association of Governments No other compensation provided Nevada Co. Transportation Commission No other compensation provided San Joaquin Co. Council of Governments No other compensation provided Tuolumne Co. Transportation Council
Other Comp for Exec Dir was negotiated when Agency separated from the County (likely will not be given to next Exec Director)