The URL can be used to link to this page

Agreement - Ralph Andersen & Associates - 2023-10-041 AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES This Agreement (“AGREEMENT”) is made and effective as of September 27, 2023, between the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, a sanitary district (“DISTRICT”), and Ralph Andersen & Associates, a California Corporation (“CONSULTANT”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This AGREEMENT shall commence on September 27, 2023, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this AGREEMENT. 2. SERVICES CONSULTANT shall perform the Human Resources consulting serivces described below (“SERVICES”) to DISTRICT for DISTRICT’s Classification and Compensation Study (“PROJECT”). The SERVICES to be provided are more particularly described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform all SERVICES under this AGREEMENT in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by consultants in the same discipline in the State of California and consistent with all applicable laws. CONSULTANT shall provide DISTRICT its work product in “turnkey” form. DISTRICT reserves the right to perform reasonable testing of CONSULTANT’s work product before accepting the same. 4. COMPENSATION Compensation for the SERVICES shall be based on the actual amount of time spent in adequately performing the SERVICES. However, unless expressly agreed in a written change order in advance by DISTRICT, the cost to DISTRICT for the SERVICES shall not exceed twenty nine thousand eight hundred fifty five dollars ($29,855) The written change order requirement cannot be waived. Failure to submit a written change order and receive written approval by the DISTRICT prior to performing extra work shall constitute a waiver of a claim for additional time or compensation. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 2 PSA 30U 12 08 Invoices shall be submitted to DISTRICT monthly as performance of the SERVICES progresses. DISTRICT shall review and pay the approved charges on such invoices in a timely manner. SERVICES on the PROJECT shall begin immediately and be completed by December 31, 2023 unless extended by DISTRICT in writing. 5. INSURANCE CONSULTANT shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of this AGREEMENT insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of this AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of this AGREEMENT. If CONSULTANT is an employer or otherwise hires one (1) or more employees during the term of this PROJECT, CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain workers’ compensation coverage for such employees which meets all requirements of state law (Labor Code § 1861). CONSULTANT shall also provide errors and omissions professional liability insurance appropriate to its profession in an amount, with conditions, and for a term acceptable to the DISTRICT. At a minimum, CONSULTANT is required to submit proof of insurance in accordance with the following standards: Minimum Scope of Insurance: Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001): (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. Minimum Limits of Insurance: CONSULTANT shall maintain limits of no less than: (A) General Liability. One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this AGREEMENT/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (B) Automobile Liability. One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (C) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability. Workers’ Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s Liability limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident for bodily injury or disease. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 3 PSA 30U 12 08 Insurance Endorsements: The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, and a separate endorsement stating to add the following provisions to the insurance policies shall be submitted and approved by DISTRICT: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) DISTRICT, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects DISTRICT, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the CONSULTANT’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by DISTRICT, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against DISTRICT, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the CONSULTANT. (C) All Coverage. Each insurance policy required by this AGREEMENT shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced, or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to DISTRICT, and (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches or warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to DISTRICT, its directors, official, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to DISTRICT. All insurance documents must be submitted and approved by the District’s Risk Manager prior to execution of any AGREEMENT with DISTRICT. 6. INDEMNIFICATION (a) Indemnification for Professional Liability. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for CONSULTANT’s services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless DISTRICT and any and all of its officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs to the extent the same arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees, or DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 4 PSA 30U 12 08 subconsultants (or any entity or individual that CONSULTANT shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of professional services under this AGREEMENT. (b) Indemnification for Other than Professional Liability. Other than in the performance of professional services and to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless DISTRICT and any and all of its employees, officials, and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses, or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged, or threatened, including attorney’s fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees) where the same arise out of, pertain to, relate to, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT or by any individual or entity for which CONSULTANT is legally liable, including, but not limited to, officers, agents, employees, or subconsultants of CONSULTANT. 7. TERMINATION DISTRICT may terminate this AGREEMENT at any time with or without cause. If DISTRICT terminates this AGREEMENT without cause before PROJECT completion, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to be paid for SERVICES adequately completed prior to the notification of termination. CONSULTANT may terminate this AGREEMENT for cause only. 8. MISCELLANEOUS This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California and any action arising from this AGREEMENT shall be brought in the superior or federal district court with jurisdiction over DISTRICT. This AGREEMENT and the attachments hereto shall contain the entire agreement between the parties. This AGREEMENT cannot be modified except in a writing signed by both parties. In the event of inconsistency between this AGREEMENT and any attachment hereto, this AGREEMENT shall control in all respects. DISTRICT shall own all work product prepared in the course of providing the SERVICES under this AGREEMENT. In the event of termination of this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall immediately turn all work product over to DISTRICT. If specialized software or computer hardware is required to view or transmit said work product, CONSULTANT shall make that software and hardware available to the DISTRICT at no cost during normal business hours. This AGREEMENT cannot be assigned without the prior written consent of the DISTRICT. CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to DISTRICT an independent contractor. No employee benefits shall be available to CONSULTANT in connection DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 5 PSA 30U 12 08 with the performance of this AGREEMENT. Except for the fees paid to CONSULTANT as provided in this AGREEMENT, DISTRICT shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to CONSULTANT for performing any services hereunder for DISTRICT. DISTRICT shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to CONSULTANT for injury or sickness arising out of performing any services hereunder. All information gained by CONSULTANT in the performance of this AGREEMENT shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by CONSULTANT without DISTRICT’s prior written authorization. CONSULTANT shall not, without written authorization from the General Manager or unless requested by the District Counsel, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this AGREEMENT. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided CONSULTANT gives DISTRICT notice of such court order or subpoena. CONSULTANT warrants that the individual who has signed this AGREEMENT has the legal power, right, and authority to make this AGREEMENT and bind the CONSULTANT hereto. If you agree with the terms of this AGREEMENT, indicate by signing and dating two original agreements where indicated below and return both to the undersigned. Once the documents are fully executed, one original will be returned to you for your records. [Signatures on Next Page] DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 6 PSA 30U 12 08 DISTRICT CONSULTANT Approved by: Reviewed and Accepted by: ________________________________ ________________________________ General Manager Signature ________________________________ Approved as to Form: Name ________________________________ ________________________________ Harper & Burns LLP Title District Counsel ________________________________ Date DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Heather Renschler President/CEO 10/4/2023 5800 Stanford Ranch Road Suite 410 Rocklin, California 95765 916.630.4900 www.ralphandersen.com August 28, 2023 Ms. Dyana Bojarski Administrative Services Manager Costa Mesa Sanitary District 290 Paularino Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Via Email: dbojarski@cmsdca.gov Dear Ms. Bojarski: We are pleased to submit our proposal to conduct a Classification and Compensation Study. The scope of the study will include approximately 19 positions. To facilitate your review, the proposal includes the following: •Experience/Background – A summary of the firm, proposed staff, and our expertise in conducting classification and compensation studies. •Similar Projects – References for similar studies conducted by the firm. •Statement of Methods and Procedures – A summary of methodologies and proposed tasks to accomplish the study’s objectives and anticipated end-products. •Structure and Content of Work Product – References for similar studies conducted by the firm. •Cost Proposal/Fee Schedule – A fixed cost for the proposed project as well as hourly rates. •Additional Information – Responses to additional requested items in the RFP. I am certain that you will find our work plan is responsive to each of your study objectives, and our reputation and experience are unmatched in successfully completing consulting engagements of this nature. Ralph Andersen & Associates is a leader in providing local government consulting services and has successfully completed hundreds of classification and compensation studies. The full resources of the firm will be available to perform consulting services for the duration of the project. Doug Johnson, Vice President, will be the Project Manager for this engagement and will have the assistance of an experienced consulting team. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Doug Johnson at (916) 630-4900. We look forward to the opportunity to work with you on this important assignment. This proposal will remain valid for 90 days. Sincerely, Heather Renschler President/CEO EXHIBIT "A" DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Table of Contents Introductory Letter Experience/Background ......................................................................................... 1 Firm Background ................................................................................................ 1 Project Approach ................................................................................................ 2 Staff Resumes ..................................................................................................... 4 Similar Projects ..................................................................................................... 6 Statement of Methods and Procedures ................................................................... 7 Project Understanding ........................................................................................ 7 Background Data Analysis .................................................................................. 8 Job Analysis Questionnaires............................................................................... 8 Job Analysis Interviews ...................................................................................... 8 Compensation Policy Development .................................................................... 9 Compensation Data Collection and Analysis ....................................................... 9 Project Tasks ...................................................................................................... 9 Task 1 – Project Kick-off Meetings ............................................................................................................ 9 Task 2 – Employees Complete Questionnaires ...................................................................................... 10 Task 3 – Conduct Job Analysis Interviews ............................................................................................. 10 Task 4 – Prepare and Review Preliminary Classification Report .......................................................... 10 Task 5 – Prepare Class Specifications ..................................................................................................... 10 Task 6 – Undertake Management/Employee Review Process ............................................................... 11 Task 7 – Finalize the Classification Recommendations .......................................................................... 11 Task 8 – Discuss and Document Compensation Policy .......................................................................... 11 Task 9 – Collect Compensation Data ...................................................................................................... 12 Task 10 – Compile and Format Compensation Data ............................................................................. 12 Task 11 – Audit and Finalize Compensation Data .................................................................................. 12 Task 12 – Conduct Internal Relationship Analysis................................................................................. 13 Task 13 – Develop Salary Recommendations ......................................................................................... 13 Task 14 – Develop Implementation Strategy Options and Compute Implementation Costs .............. 13 Task 15 – Prepare and Review Preliminary Report ................................................................................ 14 Task 16 – Prepare and Submit Final Reports ......................................................................................... 14 Proposed Schedule ............................................................................................ 14 Structure and Content of Work Product ............................................................... 16 Project Management.......................................................................................... 16 Project Deliverables .......................................................................................... 17 Cost Proposal/Fee Schedule ................................................................................. 19 Additional Information ....................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX A – SAMPLE REPORT ............................................................................... A-1 DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 1 Experience/Background Firm Background Ralph Andersen & Associates has over 51 years of local government consulting experience serving the needs of cities, counties, utilities, special districts, community colleges, schools, non-profit organizations, and state governments. Key service areas of the firm include: • Human Resources Consulting • Executive Search • Management Consulting. Ralph Andersen & Associates serves a nationwide clientele through its Corporate Office in the Sacramento area (Rocklin, California). A multi-disciplined, full-service local government consulting organization, Ralph Andersen & Associates is dedicated to helping our clients improve operating efficiency and organizational effectiveness. The firm employs 14 full-time staff, 3 part- time staff, and has additional contractors and affiliations as needed to provide a full range of services. Corporate and Staffing Structure Robert J. BurgExecutive Vice President Heather RenschlerPresident/CEO Management Consulting and Executive Search Practice Manager Executive Search ConsultantsResearch Associates Graphics Recruitment Manager Senior Recruitment Coordinator Support Staff Senior Recruitment Coordinator Contracts/Proposal Manager Executive SearchNational Practice Leaders Heather Renschler (Western/Midwest Regions) Robert BurgHealth & Human Services and Public Health (East Coast) Ralph Andersen & Associates Updated July 2023 (1)Former City Manager(2)Former Assistant City Manager(3)Former County Manager(4)Former Chief of Police Doug JohnsonVice President Human Resources Consulting and Executive Search Other Members of the Search TeamDavid Morgan(1) Fred Wilson(1) John Slaughter(3) Serena Wright-Black(2) Daniel Hahn(4) Recruitment CoordinatorAccounting Research AssistantsResearch Assistants Consultant For this project, staff from the firm’s human resources practice will provide the consulting services. The human resource practice focuses on those services that are not easily provided by in-house human resources staff. Key services include: DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 2 • Classification Studies – These projects include job analysis, class plan development, position allocation, career ladders, class specifications, FLSA analysis, ADA compliance, and related analysis. • Compensation Studies – The firm provides a full range of compensation services including labor market selection, base salary and benefit surveys, private-public data comparisons, benchmark selection, and internal relationship analysis. • Expert Testimony and Arbitration Support – The firm has had significant experience providing technical support in arbitration and mediation hearings and has significant experience working with labor and management groups. This expertise includes the selection of comparable agencies and the elements of compensation appropriate for labor market surveys. • Job Evaluation Systems – In addition to having a copyrighted Point Factor Job Evaluation System, the staff of Ralph Andersen & Associates have significant expertise in developing customized job evaluation systems and “hybrid” solutions. • Performance Management Programs – Performance management serves as a foundation for measuring/tracking organization and employee performance. We have several standard systems that have demonstrated success in a variety of public agencies. In addition, Ralph Andersen & Associates can develop tailored performance management systems to fit the unique needs of our clients. • Pay-for-Performance/Incentive Programs – Ralph Andersen & Associates is a leader in developing effective pay-for-performance programs for public agencies including merit progression systems, lump sum and incentive programs, and other mechanisms tied to employee or organizational measurement criteria. • Technical Assistance – Ralph Andersen & Associates also provides a full range of hourly technical assistance including conducting job audits, support for labor relations, and expert testimony. The firm has no conflict of interest with the staff or officials of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and is independent of the District as defined by generally accepted auditing standards. Additional information about the firm’s services and background can be found at our web site at www.ralphandersen.com. Project Approach The approach our firm uses to conduct classification and compensation studies is customized to the specific needs and objectives of each client. While the work plan we have provided in this proposal is proven, we are happy to adapt our work plan and approach as needed during project initiation meetings and throughout the process. Our firm has an outstanding reputation working with elected officials, managers, and labor representatives. Our goal is to provide products and deliverables that ensure implementation by the District. Highlights of our approach include: • A transparent and collaborative process. We have significant experience working with diverse stakeholders and ensuring that the project deliverables meet the objectives of the District. Our efforts include briefing sessions, meetings, workshops, and a comprehensive and interactive review of draft reports. We are confident in our ability to research and respond to issues that require clarification and to provide information and data that responds to issues of disagreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 3 • Custom data presentations including base salary and benefits data. We do not rely on “canned” data analysis tools. The firm uses dynamic Excel spreadsheets and can prepare total compensation datasheets for all survey jobs. • We are one of the few firms that has experience with private sector data analysis. We subscribe to the largest private sector database in North America, which is updated quarterly. This data can be regionalized to fit the recruitment region of the District. • Extensive review and input by managers, employees, labor representatives, and elected officials. We provide easy to review draft reports and work with the District to ensure that the final reports meet or exceed all study objectives. We will review our recommended approach including communication and stakeholder interaction plans with the District at the beginning of the project to ensure the District’s requirements are fully incorporated into the work plan. Consultants, complemented by consulting firms, define the difference between success and failure in projects of this nature. Ralph Andersen & Associates understands that selection of a project team with the right mix of skills and experience is the most important decision that will be made during the study. The team must be well led and the project well managed if the study objectives are to be achieved. In defining the project team for this engagement, consideration of the current workload of all consulting staff was taken into account to ensure our ability to fully meet your stated needs and objectives. Doug Johnson, Vice President, will serve as the Project Manager and will have responsibility for all primary contact with the District as well as all on-site review meetings and presentations. Mr. Johnson has managed hundreds of consulting engagements including large public agencies throughout California and the United States. The staffing for this project will include: • Doug Johnson, Vice President – Mr. Johnson will serve as the Project Manager and will conduct all on-site meetings, prepare all written reports, and serve as chief analyst on the project. He is the firm’s most experienced Project Manager and has expertise in working with special districts, cities, and other local government agencies similar to the District involving complex classification and compensation issues. • Jeff McMurdo, Consultant – Mr. McMurdo is the most experienced consultant at the firm and has extensive experience conducting employee interviews, developing classification recommendations, developing job descriptions, and collecting and analyzing market data. All staff members are available for the scheduled duration of the project. Anticipated workloads for all staff have been considered in assigning staff to this project. The firm’s staffing and project management systems allow for multiple studies to be conducted simultaneously without impacting the completion dates of the project. Brief staff resumes are provided below. Doug Johnson Project Manager Jeff McMurdo Consultant Research/ Support Staff DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 4 Staff Resumes Doug Johnson, Vice President Mr. Johnson is currently a Vice President with Ralph Andersen & Associates and has 34 years of local government consulting experience. Mr. Johnson has 20 years of experience with Ralph Andersen & Associates in addition to 13 years as President of Johnson & Associates, some human resources consulting firm. Mr. Johnson is the firm’s expert in job analysis, market comparability, compensation, benefits, and related matters. He has served as an expert witness in arbitration proceedings and mediation sessions, mostly involving police and fire issues. He has extensive experience working with elected officials, public executives, staff members, labor organizations, and ad-hoc committees. He leads the firm’s human resource consulting services and participates in all facets of the firm’s recruitments. Mr. Johnson’s expertise includes consulting experience with public agencies throughout the United States including special districts, cities, counties, utilities, community colleges, school districts, nonprofit organizations, and private companies. Mr. Johnson has provided consulting assistance to hundreds of public sector agencies and is a recognized expert in compensation issues. Specific areas of expertise include: • Job classification studies • Job evaluation system design and implementation • Pay plan development and administration • Market comparability research and analysis • Total compensation analysis • Private sector data analysis • Performance management. Mr. Johnson’s experience includes serving as project manager and chief analyst for hundreds of local government agencies. Recent municipal projects include the cities of Auburn, Union City, Hollister, Indio, Arcadia, Carson, Hermosa Beach, Simi Valley, Carlsbad, Paramount, Signal Hill, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Port Hueneme, Modesto, Monterey, Sacramento, Lake Forest, and Petaluma. Special district projects include Sac Sewer, Turlock Irrigation District, Nevada Irrigation District, Alameda County Water Authority, Mesa Water, South Lake Tahoe PUD, East Bay MUD, South Placer MUD, Olivenhain Water District, Sweetwater Authority, San Diego Water District, Orange County Sanitation District, Valley of the Moon Water District, and Otay Water District. Mr. Johnson holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology with a minor in Communication Studies from California State University, Sacramento. His course work emphasized organizational development and performance incentives. He is an active member of WorldAtWork, The Total Rewards Association. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 5 Jeff McMurdo, Consultant Mr. McMurdo has over 20 years of human resources consulting experience and serves on a variety of project consulting teams focusing on classification and compensation plan development. He is an experienced classification analyst and has developed hundreds of classification plans in addition to ad-hoc reclassification and targeted classification studies for large and small organizations. His duties also include leading and participating in total compensation studies including comprehensive market research, data collection, data analysis, and data presentation. Key responsibilities of Mr. McMurdo include: • Conducting job analysis interviews, analyzing positions and job classifications, and preparing job descriptions. • Designing survey data collection forms, questionnaires, and related instruments. • Market survey research including the review and analysis of budgets, organization charts, MOUs, job descriptions, salary schedules, and benefit documents. • Data compilation including job comparability, range structure analysis, benefit data, and related survey information. He has conducted over a hundred compensation surveys including recent surveys for the cities of Anaheim, Arcadia, Paramount, Temple City, Ketchikan, Laguna Hills, Reno, Sacramento, Monterey, Irwindale, Palm Springs, Tracy, and Sunnyvale. He has also worked with a number of special districts including Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Otay Water District, South Placer MUD, San Diego Water Authority, Mesa Water, Sweetwater Authority, and Alameda County Water District. Mr. McMurdo holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from California State University, Sacramento. His course work emphasized human resource management. Additional firm resources, including support staff and project consultants, will be available to ensure successful and timely completion of the study. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 6 Similar Projects The following references represent just a small sample of similar assignments conducted by the firm. We are certain you will find that our record and our reputation are outstanding. Doug Johnson served as the project manager and Jeff McMurdo served as the primary consultant for all of the following projects. City of Auburn, CA Scope of Work: Classification and Compensation Study 2022-2023. Contact: Nathan Bagwill, Director of Administrative Services 1225 Lincoln Way, Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 823-4211, Ext 110 nbagwill@auburn.ca.gov City of Reno/City of Sacramento/Sloan Sakai Law Firm Support Scope of Work: Classification and Compensation Studies and Expert Witness Services.* Various projects totaling over $500,000. Contact: Mr. Mark Gregersen (775) 556-3000 markgregersen@gmail.com *Mr. Gregersen can speak to a number of projects conducted by the firm including classification and compensation studies conducted for Napa County, San Luis Obispo County, and the cities of Sacramneto, Vallejo, and Reno. Otay Water District Scope of Work: Total Compensation Studies in 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2017-18 in support of labor negotiations. Contact: Suzie Lawson, Human Resources Manager 2554 Sweetwater Springs, Spring Valley, CA 91978 (619) 670-2227 slawson@otaywater.gov City of Lake Forest Scope of Work: Annual classification and Compensation Studies since 2010. Contact: Shelly Cisneros, Human Resources Manager 100 Civic Center Dr., Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 461-3544 scisneros@lakeforestca.gov Additional references can be provided on request. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 7 Statement of Methods and Procedures Project Understanding The Costa Mesa Sanitary District is interested in conducting a Classification and Compensation Study involving all District employees and job classifications (except the General Manager). To ensure that the District’s objectives are met, the following key study components and anticipated end-products are included in the work plan developed by Ralph Andersen & Associates. • Conduct a meeting with District representatives at project initiation to confirm the study goals, objectives, and deliverables • Conduct briefing sessions with employees at the beginning of the study to explain the study process and answer questions • Conduct an extensive review of background documents • Distribute job analysis questionnaires and conduct supplemental interviews with a sampling of employees in the study • Develop classification recommendations, FLSA designations, and update job descriptions • Review historical practices and recommended survey agencies, survey job classifications, and identify data collection needs • Conduct a custom salary and benefit survey and analyze the market data • Conduct internal relationship analyses, survey benchmarking, and develop salary range recommendations for all District job classifications • Develop draft and final reports incorporating all study recommendations and supporting data including implementation plans • Conduct a classification and compensation review and appeal process to fully resolve all classification issues and recommendations • Present the findings to managers, employees, labor representatives, project committees, and the Board of Directors, as needed. Ralph Andersen & Associates has a strong commitment to develop and implement customized and tailored classification and compensation systems. While we have broad expertise and experience from hundreds of successful consulting assignments, we are committed to a “customer service” approach to all of our client engagements. This assures the preparation of study end- products that are uniquely customized to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Ralph Andersen & Associates will apply several technical and administrative methodologies in creating the District’s updated compensation systems. An overview of all key methodologies is described below. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 8 Background Data Analysis The consultant team will identify a wide range of background data that will be collected from the District as part of the study. The consultant team will provide the District with a complete list of background needs upon initiation of the project. Materials collected and reviewed during this initial stage of the project will, at a minimum, include: • Organization charts • Planning documents • Existing class specifications • Budgets • Current pay plan and related salary schedules • Benefits summaries • Memorandums of Understanding • Relevant administrative rules and procedures. These materials provide an understanding of the District’s personnel system and of current applicable policies and procedures. Job Analysis Questionnaires Project consultants will distribute a Job Analysis Questionnaire (JAQ) to all study employees identified for analysis in the classification phase of the study. Two versions of the questionnaire will be used with one focusing more on job description updates while the other will be used for more detailed analysis of issue areas. The questionnaire provides an opportunity for employees to fully describe the duties and responsibilities of their position and provides the information necessary to resolve classification issues including job function consolidation resulting from workforce reductions. The questionnaire is also designed to record data regarding other job- related information such as the knowledge, skills, abilities, and physical requirements necessary to perform the work, as well as supervisory and managerial responsibilities. Each questionnaire will be reviewed by the employee’s supervisory and managerial staff to ensure completeness and accuracy. Once completed, they will be forwarded to the consultants for examination prior conducting job analysis interviews. The questionnaire will be distributed and explained in detail during an employee briefing session at the initiation of the project. All questionnaires used by Ralph Andersen & Associates can be tailored to the specific objectives of the study and the unique organizational characteristics of the District. Job Analysis Interviews As a supplement to the questionnaires, project consultants will conduct interviews with at least one employee in each classification, a sampling of employees in multiple position classifications, all employees requesting an interview, and employees where significant classification issues are identified during project initiation tasks. This will ensure that the consultants are able to obtain information regarding any existing job classification issues as well as confirm job duties and tasks performed. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 9 Compensation Policy Development This methodology relates to the identification and documentation of the District’s compensation philosophies, policies, and procedures. The consulting team will confirm specific policies, both implicit and explicit, and assess their impact on the District’s overall ability to attract, recruit, employ, advance, and retain high quality personnel. These policies and practices will include the relative labor market position the District seeks to maintain in the competitive labor market, the types of employers with which the District chooses to compete, and the relative importance placed on internal equity vs. market forces in the development of the salary plan. This assessment can be conducted through meetings with managers or with broader input using a workshop session that includes project team members, managers, labor representatives, and the Board of Directors. Compensation Data Collection and Analysis The methodology utilized in collecting and analyzing compensation data involves an extensive process to ensure accuracy, reliability, and completeness. Ralph Andersen & Associates does not rely on published or previously collected data; all data is collected personally by the consulting team, who have, based on the classification analysis, an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the survey classifications. Supporting our approach to labor market surveys, this component of the study will include the development of a comprehensive survey packet, the collection of base salary, salary structure, and optional total compensation data through written and electronic materials and telephone calls, and the analysis of the data at the survey market mean, median, and requested percentiles. Project Tasks Task 1 – Project Kick-off Meetings The consultants will begin all administrative and coordinative efforts in support of the project initiation meetings and briefings. Among other things, this will include: • Preparation of a project schedule • Identification and review of background data including existing class specifications, organization charts, budgets, employee listings, salary schedules, and related information • Identification of scheduling parameters for meetings and interaction with various District employee groups. This initial step in the study process will be used to identify significant classification and compensation concerns that should be addressed during the course of the study. The consultants will discuss the best approach for identifying issue areas including an independent assessment of the current classification plan by the consultant, input by human resources staff, and input from managers, labor representatives, and other stakeholders. The consultants will meet with the District’s project manager and other staff as appropriate to ensure a full understanding of project objectives and deliverables. The project work plan and schedule will be adapted to achieve the objectives. Initial project meetings will also include employee orientation and briefing sessions in relation to the study process, timing, and objectives. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 10 Task 2 – Employees Complete Questionnaires The JAQ provides employees with an opportunity to describe the duties and responsibilities of their positions with an emphasis on job related information such as knowledge, skills, abilities, and physical capabilities required to perform the work assigned. Space is also provided on the questionnaire for employees to make any additional comments they wish. The completed questionnaires are reviewed by supervisory and managerial staff, with space provided for their comments. A short form questionnaire will be available to all employees to provide updated information regarding assigned duties. A more detailed questionnaire will be used for positions and classifications where specific issues or questions have been identified. A sample JAQ is provided in Appendix B. Task 3 – Conduct Job Analysis Interviews Prior to conducting interviews, the consultants will thoroughly review the completed questionnaires. The consultants will evaluate position duties and responsibilities, classification series, class titles, job families, reporting relationships, and internal relationships. Based on this preliminary analysis, the project team will identify areas of concern that will be clarified or probed during the job analysis interviews. The consultants will assume responsibility for the preparation of the employee interview schedule. The District’s Project Manager, or designee, will be responsible for scheduling interview rooms, notifying employees, and related coordinative activities. We anticipate interviewing at least one person from each job classification, all employees where significant position classification issues exist, and a sampling of employees beyond the issue areas. Task 4 – Prepare and Review Preliminary Classification Report With the completion of the employee interviews, a preliminary classification report will be prepared. Key components of the preliminary report will include: • Identification of all key issues identified in the classification analysis • Recommended job titles • Employee allocations. In preparing the preliminary classification report, each position is analyzed according to the criteria set forth at initial review meetings. Such criteria typically will include factors relating to job knowledge, experience, training, decision making, management control, working conditions, and outside contacts. Like positions are grouped into tentative classes forming the basis for initial class definition. The preliminary classification report will be reviewed with key management staff prior to preparing class specifications. Because the concepts provide the foundation for the resulting classification plan, management review of the recommendations in their respective areas of responsibility is essential. Task 5 – Prepare Class Specifications Once the preliminary classification recommendations have been reviewed, the project consultants will revise, update, or create new class specifications based on the issues identified in previous tasks. The District’s current job description format will be maintained as appropriate. The class specifications will be drafted and undergo a management/employee review process to ensure they accurately and adequately describe the scope of responsibilities. Once finalized, they will be DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 11 provided to the District in both an electronic and hard-copy format. This process will include FLSA analysis and designation. Task 6 – Undertake Management/Employee Review Process As an important component of the overall classification study, the project consultant team will provide additional opportunities for employee participation and input through the conduct of an employee review process. These steps will (1) build and facilitate the District’s understanding of the newly developed classification plan, (2) enhance employee commitment and understanding of the recommended system by giving each employee the opportunity to comment on the system and (3) ensure that the consultants receive as much information as possible regarding the nature and responsibilities of the various positions in order to make appropriate and equitable final classification recommendations. The various subtasks within this portion of the project are as follows. Task 6.1 – Distribute class specifications to all employees included within the study scope – Each employee will receive an individual copy of the specification for the class to which his/her position has been allocated along with a Position Allocation Notice and Employee Review Form. This will provide employees with an opportunity to review and comment on their proposed classification and allocation. These comments will then be forwarded to management for review and comment. Task 6.2 – Review written comments received from employees – All written comments or suggestions from employees regarding the recommended class plan will be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by the project consultants. Based upon written responses received, the consultant team will incorporate appropriate suggested revisions into the final classification plan. Task 6.3 – Conduct follow-up telephone interviews as necessary – Based upon the analysis of written comments forwarded to the project consultants and where consultant staff needs further information prior to finalizing recommendations, follow-up interviews will be conducted by the project consultants with individual employees. This step will further clarify and refine any remaining problems or issues. This task will further include any additional informal appeal processes/steps established or desired by the District. Task 7 – Finalize the Classification Recommendations With the completion of the employee appeal process, the consultants will finalize all classification study recommendations. Supporting the finalization of the classification plan, each employee who submitted a notice for review will receive a direct response from the project consultants. This response will specifically outline the consultant’s understanding of the employee’s concern, specify the steps taken to resolve the concern, and indicate to the employee the substance of the consultant’s final recommendation. Task 8 – Discuss and Document Compensation Policy The District’s compensation policy directly impacts all study end-products resulting from the compensation components of the analysis. As a starting point for this phase of the study, therefore, we propose that the consulting team meet with key management staff to clarify and confirm the District’s compensation policy. Important considerations to be discussed include historical practices, recruitment and retention issues, pros and cons of the current compensation DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 12 system, and reliance on external market data versus internal equity for purposes of setting salaries. The consultants will work with appropriate District representatives to determine comparison agencies and the scope of compensation data to be collected. Our proposal includes the tasks necessary to identify comparable employers and conduct a custom market survey. Our analysis of the potential and recommended survey employers will be documented in a memorandum report after consultation with appropriate District representatives. If desired, the consultants can conduct a workshop session that identifies labor market selection parameters, options, and pros/cons of different market approaches. The draft labor market recommendations will be reviewed by appropriate District representatives so that all questions and issues are resolved. In that these decisions directly impact the parameters of the market survey, as well as the design and structure of the resulting compensation plan, our suggested approach recommends that these study tasks occur prior to the collection and analysis of the market data. Task 9 – Collect Compensation Data After the compensation policy discussion, the consultant team will collect and analyze the compensation data. Our proposed approach would include: • An initial contact to each labor market employer included in the study to explain the purpose and scope of the survey and confirm cooperation. • The collection and analysis of source documents from each survey agency including position control documents, job descriptions, salary schedules, benefit summaries, and MOUs. • The confirmation of all compensation data through telephone calls, email, and other means. This will assure that comparability is established and that all compensation data is factual and complete. The compensation survey elements will be discussed and confirmed with the District before the survey is initiated. Task 10 – Compile and Format Compensation Data The salary data, once collected and thoroughly reviewed for completeness and accuracy, will be appropriately formatted and the results tabulated in a consistent and uniform manner by the project consultants. The analysis will include pay structure trends and base salary analysis to ensure all appropriate comparison criteria is available for developing recommendations. Through the use of spreadsheet applications developed by our office, it is anticipated that standard formulas will be applied in the calculation of the survey data mean, median, and selected percentiles, with the corresponding percentage relationship to the market data also calculated. Data presentation will be customized to fit the District’s objectives. Task 11 – Audit and Finalize Compensation Data Prior to developing specific salary recommendations, the consultants will thoroughly review and audit the collected survey data. This will include a detailed analysis of data reliability, comparability, statistical validity, and consistency. This audit will be conducted by the Project Manager independent of the consultant who collected that data. This will ensure that the most accurate and defensible survey data is utilized in comparing the District’s compensation plan to the pay practices of the labor market. This analysis will also include the preparation of graphs and other presentation materials to aide in understanding the market relationships broken down by employee/bargaining group. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 13 Task 12 – Conduct Internal Relationship Analysis This task will include the development and application of an appropriate job evaluation methodology in order to meet with the District’s policy objectives and comply with local laws, rules, and regulations. The firm has a number of job evaluation systems available and will recommend and adapt the methodology that best aligns with the District’s historical practices and policy objectives. Using the results of the job evaluation analysis, the consultants will analyze internal pay relationships. The internal pay relationship analysis will involve a number of steps in order to arrive at sound and equitable relationships for the new compensation plan. Among others, the most important of these will include: • Analysis of existing and historical pay relationships • Development of consistent, uniform, and realistic guidelines for determining internal relationships • Recommendation of equitable and appropriate internal relationship differentials based on the above. In developing consistent internal relationship guidelines, the results of the job evaluation tasks will be used to determine an equitable pay structure. Since the balance of market values versus internal values can be a policy issue, options and methodologies for achieving an appropriate balance of internal and external salary equity will be reviewed with the District before developing the salary range recommendations. Task 13 – Develop Salary Recommendations Based upon the results of the internal relationships analysis and the labor market survey, the project consultants will develop salary recommendations for all job classes included as a part of the study process. These salary recommendations will clearly document the means of determining the appropriate pay range and the computation of the dollar and percentage difference between the current maximum salary and the recommended maximum salary. Before finalizing the recommendations, a careful audit of the results will be undertaken to ensure that internal salary compression or compaction does not result. Task 14 – Develop Implementation Strategy Options and Compute Implementation Costs Recognizing that public agencies often have limited funds available for implementation, the project consultants will develop several strategies for implementing the recommended salary structure. Such strategies will address: • The placement of individual employees into ranges and steps • Implementation phasing according to the needs and priorities of the District • Integration of the study recommendations with the balance of the District’s human resource management system including recruitment, selection, and performance appraisal. The cost estimates will reflect District-wide impacts, as well as impacts on individual employees. The cost estimates will serve as a basis for the District to make necessary policy decisions to implement the compensation system in an orderly and effective manner. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 14 Task 15 – Prepare and Review Preliminary Report The Preliminary Report documents all classification and compensation study recommendations and the supporting information used for developing the recommendations. Specifically, the Preliminary Report will include the following: • The District’s documented compensation policy including survey agencies and survey classifications • Results of the labor market salary survey using tables and graphs • Documentation of selected benchmark classifications and the related job families • Appendices containing detailed labor market data sheets, recommended salary schedules, and supporting documentation. The project consultants will conduct an in-depth review of the Preliminary Compensation Report with the District. Any needed corrections, clarifications, or modifications will be discussed at this time. Review of the Draft Compensation Report will also include an appeal process that meets the District’s objectives. Employees, managers, and/or labor representatives will be able to submit specific issues and comments which will be researched, analyzed, and documented by the consultants. The consultants will provide the District with a written response to these issues as well as any changes in our draft recommendations. Task 16 – Prepare and Submit Final Reports The Final Reports will incorporate any appropriate revisions identified and submitted during the review of the preliminary reports and will serve as the administrative and procedural manuals for updating and maintaining the classification and compensation plans. The submittal of final reports will also include on-site presentations to managers, labor representatives, and the Board of Directors. It is not uncommon for a series of draft reports to be prepared, each incrementally addressing feedback and policy direction by the District. Submittal of the final reports will also include training of District staff as needed. Proposed Schedule Projects of this nature are highly sensitive. Because of this sensitivity and the anxiety experienced by many employees when going through this type of process, it is beneficial to complete the analysis in the most expedient manner feasible. Assuming full cooperation of the District and the survey agencies, our schedule assumes that all study activities can be completed within twelve (12) weeks. If this schedule is too aggressive, we can adjust the schedule to fit the District’s timing objectives while also allowing additional review time by the District. The following time schedule lists each task along with key milestones for the project. The time schedule represents the typical schedule for similar size projects and allows sufficient time for review and input from District staff. It is possible to shorten the timeline by a few weeks; this can be discussed as part of project initiation meetings. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Task 1-Conduct project initiation meetings * Task 2-Employees complete questionnaires Task 3-Conduct job analysis interviews * Task 4-Prepare and review preliminary classification report Task 5-Prepare class specifications Task 6-Undertake review process * Task 7-Finalize classification plan Task 8-Discuss and document compensation policy * Task 9-Collect compensation data Task 10-Compile and format data Task 11-Audit and finalize compensation data Task 12-Conduct internal relationship analysis Task 13-Develop salary recommendations Task 14-Develop implementation strategies Task 15-Prepare/review preliminary reports * Task 16-Prepare and present final reports * * Anticipated on-site meetings; key milestones shown in blue DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 16 Structure and Content of Work Product Project Management The firm utilizes a project management system that helps meet project deadlines while balancing the firm’s staff resources. The following sample schedule shows a work plan with major milestones for completing a classification and compensation study. This schedule identifies key dates that will keep the project on track. We make every effort to make up time in project schedules should the District require additional time for some study tasks. A tailored schedule will be developed as part of study initiation tasks. The project manager will work with District staff at study initiation to fine-tune the project schedule. We have conducted many studies within the timeframe requested by the District. As part of our ongoing communication with District Human Resources Staff, we will maintain a project completion and status schedule that shows the percentage completion of each task as well as the schedule for future/upcoming tasks. A sample status schedule is provided below. While it is important to keep the project on schedule, our approach emphasizes deliverables that meet the objectives of the District. We are committed to being fully responsive to the questions, issues, and data needs required of the project and will prepare sufficient documents to ensure study acceptance and implementation. This includes necessary follow-up research, additional meetings, and alternative scenarios/models. Our analytical tools are designed for “what-if” scenarios and the ability to quickly determine the result and cost impacts of specific policy decisions. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 17 The firm anticipates allocating two consultants on this project, all of whom will have sufficient availability to meet the timing requirements of the District. Our staff are all full-time members of the firm and have worked successfully together on numerous compensation projects. The approach and methodologies used by Ralph Andersen & Associates meet industry professional standards and best practices. Our consultants are well-versed in the requirements of a successful compensation study including legal, ethical, and confidentiality issues required of such projects. We understand that our work product reflects on the reputation of the District, and we are proactive in making sure that our approach and deliverables are defensible, credible, and ethical. Ralph Andersen & Associates does not share or reuse client data or information. We maintain strict confidentiality of documents and information provided by the District. Furthermore, we will work with the District to ensure working documents remain confidential and that final reports are prepared in a manner that meets the public disclosure requirements of the District. Project Deliverables The project deliverable will be tailored to meet the District’s objectives and will typically include: • Completed Job Analysis Questionnaires for the District to use as an ongoing resource • Classification plan recommendations including position allocations • Updated job descriptions based on input from District employees and managers in addition to industry updates as appropriate • Analysis and recommendations regarding survey agencies based on the policy objectives of the District • The results of a classification employee review process to ensure all classification issues have been identified and addressed with appropriate recommendations • Base salary analysis with identified job matches in each survey agency • Total compensation analysis that identifies differences or similarities in District benefits compared to the survey agencies DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 18 • Salary range recommendations including the identification of benchmark jobs and appropriate internal salary alignment based on information obtained in the classification analysis • Compensation reports including written and PowerPoint style reports • Cost implementation analysis, as need, to identify the cost impacts of study recommendations • Presentations to managers, employees, and the Board of Directors, as required. The firm will provide PDF documents along with source Microsoft Word and Excel documents as required. A sample report is provided in Appendix A. DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 19 Cost Proposal/Fee Schedule The total fixed cost for professional service fees and non-travel expenses to conduct the Classification and Compensation Study, as proposed, amounts to $29,885. The cost of professional services is based upon the project as described in the work plan and is a “fixed fee” regardless of which consultant performs the task and/or the number of hours needed to complete a particular element of the study. The proposed professional services costs are based on the following hourly rates: • Project Manager - $150 • Project Consultant - $135 • Research/Support Staff - $85 Due to continued Covid-19 restrictions, the firm has completed almost 70 classification and compensation studies using virtual meeting platforms such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams. For efficiency, our proposed cost assumes virtual meetings will be used for kick-off meetings, employee briefing sessions, employee interviews, and the review and presentation of draft and final reports. There is no limit to the number of virtual meetings. If on-site meetings are required, the additional cost would be $2,500 per day which includes professional fees and expenses. Project invoicing will be done monthly based on the percentage completion of the project. If the scope of the analysis creates budget problems for the District, or if additional analysis is desired, we are willing to review the work plan and adjust it and the cost so that it is mutually satisfactory. A detailed budget breakdown by task is provided below. Project Phase/Task Project Mgr.Rate Consultant Rate Support Rate Total Hours Cost Task 1-Conduct project initiation meetings 2 150 135 85 2 300$ Task 2-Employees complete questionnaires 150 135 1 85 1 85$ Task 3-Conduct job analysis interviews 150 6 135 85 6 810$ Task 4-Prepare and review preliminary classification 2 150 6 135 85 8 1,110$ Task 5-Prepare class specifications 150 22 135 4 85 26 3,310$ Task 6-Undertake review process 2 150 4 135 85 6 840$ Task 7-Finalize classification plan 2 150 4 135 85 6 840$ Task 8-Discuss and document compensation policy 6 150 135 85 6 900$ Task 9-Collect compensation data 20 150 92 135 85 112 15,420$ Task 10-Compile and format data 2 150 135 85 2 300$ Task 11-Audit and finalize compensation data 2 150 135 85 2 300$ Task 12-Conduct internal relationship analysis 2 150 2 135 85 4 570$ Task 13-Develop salary recommendations 2 150 2 135 85 4 570$ Task 14-Develop implementation strategies 3 150 135 85 3 450$ Task 15-Prepare/review preliminary reports 9 150 4 135 85 13 1,890$ Task 16-Prepare and present final reports 9 150 6 135 85 15 2,160$ Totals 63 148 5 216 29,855$ DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 20 Additional Information This proposal is valid for 90 days. The firm will provide an insurance certificate showing proof of insurance upon contract award. The firm will meet all of the District’s insurance requirements. The firm does not have any conflicts of interest involving this proposed project. The firm has worked with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District on one previous project, a classification and compensation study conducted in 2019. Additional information can be provided by contacting Doug Johnson, the Project Manager assigned to this project. His contact information is as follows: Doug Johnson Vice President | Ralph Andersen & Associates 5800 Stanford Ranch Rd | Suite 410 Rocklin, CA 95765 office (916) 630-4900 | cell (916) 715-2540 doug@ralphandersen.com DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER F : INSURER E : INSURER D : INSURER C : INSURER B : INSURER A : NAIC # NAME:CONTACT (A/C, No):FAX E-MAILADDRESS: PRODUCER (A/C, No, Ext):PHONE INSURED REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. OTHER: (Per accident) (Ea accident) $ $ N / A SUBR WVD ADDL INSD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $ $ $ $PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY (Per accident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT AUTOS ONLY AUTOSAUTOS ONLY NON-OWNED SCHEDULEDOWNED ANY AUTO AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Y / N WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?(Mandatory in NH) DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS belowIf yes, describe under ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE $ $ $ E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT EROTH-STATUTEPER LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EXP(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EFFPOLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTRINSR DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) EXCESS LIAB UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE $AGGREGATE $ OCCUR CLAIMS-MADE DED RETENTION $ $PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $GENERAL AGGREGATE $PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $MED EXP (Any one person) $EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: POLICY PRO-JECT LOC CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CANCELLATION AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ACORD 25 (2016/03) © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. CERTIFICATE HOLDER The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD HIRED AUTOS ONLY Refer to attached blanket endorsements and forms list for conveyance of any coverage, as per written contract. $2,000,000Aggregate $2,000,000Claims Made Retro Date 11/10/2003 11/10/202311/10/2022PHSD1752614Errors and OmissionsC 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 ✘ 11/10/202311/10/202257 WEC AC2M9VYYB 1,000,000 1,000,000 11/10/202311/10/202257SBABL2394 10,000✘ ✘ B 2,000,000 11/10/202311/10/202257SBABL2394YY ✘✘ A 4,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 10,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 11/10/202311/10/202257SBABL2394YY ✘ ✘ ✘ A 18058Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company 29424The Hartford Casualty Insurance Company 11000Sentinel Insurance Company Rocklin, CA 95765 5800 Stanford Ranch Rd #410 Ralph Andersen & Associates alicia@iceins.com (888) 250-8403(916) 387-6800 Alicia O'Callaghan Sacramento, CA 95834 PO Box 340338 Ice Insurance Agency, LLC 1/18/2023 DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page A-1 Appendix A Sample Compensation Report DocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Classification & Compensation Report - Management East Bay Regional Park District Ralph Andersen & Associates 11/17/2020 SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 1 SECTION I PROJECT OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 2 EFFECTIVE CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION PLANS ........................................................................................................... 2 STUDY OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION II CLASSIFICATION STUDY RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 4 MASTER LIST OF CLASS TITLES .......................................................................................................................................... 4 SUMMARY OF CLASS CHANGES ......................................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION III COMPENSATION METHODOLOGIES ..................................................................................................... 9 WHY MARKET SURVEYS? ................................................................................................................................................. 9 LABOR MARKET SURVEY AGENCIES ..................................................................................................................................... 9 LABOR MARKET POSITION ............................................................................................................................................. 11 MARKET DATA COLLECTION PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. 11 SURVEY JOB CLASSIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 12 POINT OF COMPARISON – MANAGEMENT RANGE STRUCTURE .............................................................................................. 12 SECTION IV COMPENSATION FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 14 SALARY RANGE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 14 BASE SALARY SURVEY RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 15 TOTAL COMPENSATION ANALYSIS (BENEFITS) .................................................................................................................... 17 SECTION V RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 19 REGRESSION ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 20 MANAGEMENT SALARY RANGE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 21 MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN - RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 23 COMPACTION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................ 24 APPENDIX A BASE SALARY SURVEY DATASHEETS................................................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B TOTAL COMPENSATION DATA SHEETS ............................................................................................ B-1 APPENDIX C MANAGEMENT SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS .............................................................................. C-1 SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 2 SECTION I PROJECT OVERVIEW Ralph Andersen & Associates was retained by the East Bay Regional Park District to conduct a Classification and Compensation Study involving the Park District’s Management job classifications. This report presents the results of the study (job descriptions are provided separately). This report contains the following sections:  Section I – Project Overview  Section II – Classification Study Results  Section III – Compensation Methodologies  Section IV – Compensation Survey Findings  Section V –Recommendations  Appendices – Detailed market survey data. The methodologies described in this report are similar to those used for any public or private employer, with a customized approach to fit the location and nature of services of the East Bay Regional Park District. EFFECTIVE CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION PLANS The Park District’s classification and compensation plans are one of the most important elements in its human resources system. Combining a sound compensation system with an effective classification system contributes to the overall effectiveness of an organization. In broad terms, the Park District’s classification and compensation plans should:  Ensure that the Park District can attract and retain well-qualified employees by anchoring the compensation plan to the salary and benefit practices of comparable employers  Provide a defensible and rational basis for compensating employees  Allow flexibility and adaptability for making Park District compensation decisions based on changing market conditions  Recognize the Park District’s responsibility as a public agency in establishing a compensation plan and compensation policy that is consistent with public practices. Policy decisions resulting from the compensation study will ultimately balance the above goals with the Park District’s ability to pay and other budget priorities. STUDY OBJECTIVES Based on the identified needs of the Park District, this study was designed to achieve the following objectives:  Update the Park District’s classification plan based on current employee job duties  Select comparable employers to facilitate a custom market survey  Collect and analyze salary and benefit data to understand market compensation trends  Analyze the market data and document comparisons with the Park District’s compensation plan  Conduct an analysis of internal salary relationships including vertical (compaction) and horizontal pay relationships among similar job classifications  Develop compensation recommendations based on the survey results and internal analysis. SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 3 The primary objective of the compensation survey and subsequent analysis is to identify compensation trends in the labor market and recommend adjustments to the Park District’s salary ranges to best fit those trends. SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 4 SECTION II CLASSIFICATION STUDY RESULTS A classification plan contains relevant job information and provides the basis for allocating positions and establishing salary ranges. The primary objective of the classification study involved the assessment of the Park District’s job classification titles to ensure they were descriptive of current duties and consistent with industry titling standards. The analysis also reviewed each classification series to ensure class levels matched the organization structure and the manner in which duties are allocated to positions. Analyzing the classification system requires a detailed review of each position through the following tasks:  Each employee completed a Job Analysis Questionnaire which provided the consultants with updated job information.  Employees were interviewed to further understand their job duties and to provide the consultants with any specific concerns or issues.  Job documentation was reviewed both in historical context and in the context of modern trends within public agencies.  Employees, supervisors, and managers reviewed the draft recommendations and provided further input before final job title and descriptions were developed. In assessing the Park District’s management classification plan, sound principles of job analysis were used. The method of job analysis applied was the “whole job” analysis method, which identifies classes that reflect distinct differences in levels and types of work performed as determined through the application of relevant job analysis criteria. The criteria applied included expertise, decision-making, independence, resources responsibility, contacts, and working conditions. Recognizing that most of the Park District’s management classification utilize job classification titles that are descriptive of the division, department, unit, and section managed, combined with the fact that most job classifications are single position classifications, few classification issues will likely exist. MASTER LIST OF CLASS TITLES The classification plan developed for the Park District’s Management group covers a total of 63 job classifications. These classes have been identified based on an analysis of the specific duties, responsibilities, knowledge, skills, and abilities assumed by current employees. The plan also incorporates changes based on extensive feedback from employees, supervisors, and managers during the employee review process. The following table summarizes the list of job classifications including current and recommended job titles. The classes are organized by Division. Changes compared to the current class plan are highlighted in green. Master List of Job Classification Titles Current Class Title Recommended Class Title Executive & Legislative General Manager General Manager Deputy General Manager Deputy General Manager Clerk of the Board Clerk of the Board New Class Chief of Government & Legislative Affairs Government Relations and Legislative Affairs Manager Inactivate SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 5 Master List of Job Classification Titles Current Class Title Recommended Class Title Administrative Support Manager Administrative Support Manager New Class Legislative Policy Management Analyst Management Analyst Management Analyst Chief Human Resources Officer Chief Human Resources Officer Human Resources Analyst, Principal Human Resources Analyst, Principal Benefits Manager Benefits Manager New Class Learning and Development Manager Human Resources Analyst, Senior Senior Human Resource Analyst Human Resources Analyst II Human Resources Analyst I Human Resource Analyst Acquisition, Stewardship & Development AGM - Acquisition, Stewardship, and Development AGM - Acquisition, Stewardship, and Development Chief, Design and Construction Chief of Design and Construction Chief, Land Acquisition Chief of Land Acquisition Chief, Planning & GIS Chief of Planning, Trails and GIS Chief, Stewardship Chief of Stewardship Capital Program Manager Capital Program Manager Construction Manager Survey & Construction Inspection Manager Design Manager Design Manager Environmental Services Manager Ecological Services Manager Environmental Program Manager Restoration Projects Manager Fisheries Program Manager Fisheries Program Manager Trails Development Program Manager Trails Program Manager Wildland Vegetation Program Manager Wildland Vegetation Program Manager Wildlife Program Manager Wildlife Program Manager Management Analyst Management Analyst Finance & Management Services AGM - Finance and Management Services/CFO AGM - Finance and Management Services/CFO Assistant Finance Officer Assistant Finance Officer Chief Information Officer Chief Information Officer Facilities Manager Facilities Manager Accounting Manager Accounting Manager Audit Manager Audit Manager Budget Manager Budget Manager Clerk of the Board Clerk of the Board Grants Manager Grants Manager Information Services Network Manager Information Services Systems Manager SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 6 Master List of Job Classification Titles Current Class Title Recommended Class Title Public Affairs AGM - Public Affairs AGM - Public Affairs/Executive Dir of the Regional Parks Foundation Community Relations Manager Community Relations Manager Creative Design Manager Creative Design Manager Legal & Risk AGM - District Counsel AGM – Legal and Risk/District Counsel Assistant District Counsel II Assistant District Counsel II Assistant District Counsel I Assistant District Counsel I Risk Manager Risk and Safety Manager Operations AGM - Operations AGM - Operations Chief, Park Operations Chief of Park Operations Chief, Interpretive and Recreation Services Chief of Interpretive and Recreation Services Chief, Maintenance and Skilled Trades Chief of Maintenance and Skilled Trades Business Services Manager Business Services Manager Maintenance Superintendent Maintenance Superintendent Park Unit Manager Park Unit Manager Regional Interpretive and Recreation Services Manager Regional Interpretive and Recreation Services Manager Fleet Manager Fleet Manager Management Analyst Management Analyst Public Safety AGM - Public Safety AGM - Public Safety/Chief of Police Fire Chief Fire Chief Police Captain Police Captain Police Lieutenant Police Lieutenant Assistant Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief Aquatics Manager Aquatics Manager Communications and Records Manager Communications, Records and Property Manager Regional Parks Foundation These job classifications are unique to the Park District and will not be found in the survey agencies. AGM - Public Affairs AGM - Public Affairs/Executive Dir of the Regional Parks Foundation New Class Regional Parks Foundation Chief Administrative Officer Foundation Program Manager Inactivate Development Officer Development Officer Management Analyst Foundation Finance Manager SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 7 SUMMARY OF CLASS CHANGES The following provides a brief explanation of the changes in the Park District’s classification plan for the Management employee group. EXECUTIVE & LEGISLATIVE Government Relations and Legislative Affairs Manager – Based on the reporting relationship, organizational role, and agency-wide nature of the function, it is recommended that this class be upgraded to the classification of Chief of Government & Legislative Affairs. Management Analyst (1 position) – It is recommended that a new classification of Legislative Policy Management Analyst be created to better recognize the role, expertise, and specialized nature of duties. HUMAN RESOURCES Resources Analyst, Senior (1 position) – Recognizing the need to establish a position with responsibility for talent development, it is recommended that a new class of Learning & Development Manager be created with one Senior Human Resources Analyst being allocated into the classification. Human Resources Analyst II – Our analysis of the job duties of this classification indicates that the level of duties are comparable to Senior level positions within the industry and the Park District. It is recommended that the Human Resources Analyst II be reclassified to Senior Human Resources Analyst. This reclassification recognizes that positions in this class perform lead duties and perform the more complex and sensitive projects within the Human Resources Analyst series. Human Resources Analyst I – The Park District utilizes this classification as a journey level classification. Therefore, it is recommended that the class be retitled to Human Resources Analyst. ACQUISITION, STEWARDSHIP & DEVELOPMENT Chief, Planning & GIS – A minor title change to Chief of Planning, Trails and GIS is recommended. Construction Manager – To better reflect the functions and role, it is recommended that this class be retitled to the classification of Survey & Construction Inspection Manager. Environmental Services Manager – A minor title change to Ecological Services Manager is recommended to better reflect the programs, services, and duties performed. Environmental Program Manager – To better reflect the reporting structure as well as functions and role, it is recommended that this class be retitled to the classification of Restoration Projects Manager. Trails Development Program Manager – It is recommended that this title change to Trails Program Manager to better reflect the reporting structure as well as functions and role of positions in the class. FINANCE & MANAGEMENT SERVICES Information Services Network Manager – A minor title change to Information Services Systems Manager is recommended to better reflect the nature of duties and role of the job classification. SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 8 PUBLIC AFFAIRS AGM – Public Affairs – A minor title change to AGM - Public Affairs/Executive Director of the Regional Parks Foundation is recommended to recognize responsibility for the Regional Parks Foundation. LEGAL & RISK AGM - District Counsel – A minor title change to AGM – Legal and Risk/District Counsel is recommended to recognize responsibility for risk and safety programs. Risk Manager – A change in title to Risk and Safety Manager is recommended to recognize the greater oversight and support of the Parks District’s employee safety programs. Safety and additional duties have been added to the position to warrant a change in classification. POLICE AGM – Public Safety – A minor title change to AGM - Public Safety/Chief of Police is recommended to be more consistent with market titling practices. Communications and Records Manager – A change in title to Communications, Records and Property Manager to better recognize oversight of communications, records, and property functions. REGIONAL PARKS FOUNDATION AGM – Public Affairs – A minor title change to AGM - Public Affairs/Executive Director of the Regional Parks Foundation is recommended to recognize responsibility for the Regional Parks Foundation. Regional Parks Foundation Chief Administrative Officer – This new classification has been created to recognize the expansion of duties and role including higher level of management oversight and increased fundraising role. Management Analyst (1 position) – Recognizing the autonomy, role, and nature of foundation duties, it is recommended that a position currently in the class of Management Analyst be reclassified to the classification of Foundation Finance Manager. SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 9 SECTION III COMPENSATION METHODOLOGIES This section provides an overview of the methodologies that have been used to conduct the compensation analyses and develop specific recommendations. Specific methods and systems presented include:  Why Market Surveys?  Labor Market Survey Agencies  Labor Market Position  Market Data Collection Process  Point of Comparison. All methodologies used by Ralph Andersen & Associates are consistent with established professional standards of compensation. WHY MARKET SURVEYS? Compensation surveys are an effective tool for compensation professionals to utilize in assessing an employer’s competitiveness with market practices. Survey data is necessary because labor markets are constantly changing in response to the availability of skills/experience and fluctuations in economic conditions. These changes can vary among regions and across industries and employer types. Thus, an effective survey will provide data that closely reflects market conditions that the employer is competing against. Survey data is important for the following reasons:  Detailed data allows an employer to anticipate changing market conditions and understand what peer employers are doing with respect to compensation.  Market data allows an employer to be deliberate in making compensation related decisions by reducing guesses or reliance on indexes that may not reflect real market conditions.  Survey data can provide defensibility and transparency for employees and other stakeholders. At a minimum, survey data can help an employer reduce undesired employee turnover and optimize the ability to hire employees when filling vacant positions. The use of labor market data is a common practice in both public and private employers. LABOR MARKET SURVEY AGENCIES One of the most important policy components of a compensation plan is a definition of the labor market within which the Park District must compete. There are typically five important criteria utilized in identifying those employers that comprise an agency’s labor market. They are:  Historical Practices — Over time, an employer will develop some level of continuity regarding labor market comparables for the purposes of conducting compensation surveys. There may be a strong history of surveying a specific set of employers, either by agreement or practice. In some instances, survey agencies can be more formally defined by policy documents or memorandums of understanding. Historical practices are an important consideration, but they were not a driving factor in selecting agencies for this compensation study.  Nature of Services Provided — In order to ensure comparable job classifications are found when conducting a market survey, it is important to utilize employers that provide similar services to the East Bay Regional Park District. Employers who provide similar services are most likely to compete with one SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 10 another for employees and may have similar organizational and operational characteristics. This factor typically eliminates the use of private sector employers since few comparable job classifications exist within these types of employers. It may also be difficult to use enterprise districts due to their different funding and revenue generation capabilities.  Geographic Proximity Geographic proximity of potential employers is one of the most important factors utilized in identifying an organization’s labor market. This factor is particularly useful because it identifies those employers that directly compete with the Park District to recruit and retain personnel. If a sufficient number of comparable agencies exist within close proximity to the Park District, the defined geographic area may be confined to an area among surrounding cities or counties. If comparably sized or similar services do not exist within close proximity, a wider geographic region may be necessary.  Employer Size — The more similar employers are in size and complexity, the greater the likelihood that comparable positions exist within both organizations. This factor is less important for job classifications where employer size makes little difference in the nature of duties and more important where employee or other resources are a defining characteristic of the job.  Economic Similarity — While there are a number of economic factors that can be compared among agencies, the most important factor related to compensation is cost of living. In some regions, living costs can vary significantly and have an important impact on how potential candidates evaluate compensation. This factor can be important if labor market agencies are used beyond the local market, or there are significant differences in the cost of living. Given the location of the Park District, the survey utilized agencies throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The agencies surveyed included two park districts, seven counties, six cities, and one enterprise district for a total of 16 survey agencies. While the State of California and the federal government were considered, data from these agencies has little impact on the local labor market and few job classification comparables will be found. Survey Agencies (16) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Livermore Area Recreation and Park District City and County of San Francisco Alameda County Contra Costa County Marin County San Mateo County Santa Clara County Sonoma County East Bay MUD City of Oakland City of Fremont City of Berkeley City of Hayward City of Pleasanton City of San Jose These agencies were developed in consultation with Park District stakeholders, including the Board of Directors. The agencies are the same as those used for the AFSCME classification and compensation study. SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 11 LABOR MARKET POSITION Since the survey agencies represent a balanced set of employers, the Park District should consider a market position near the labor market median (defined as the “middle” of the labor market or 50th percentile). Ensuring that Park District salary ranges are within 5% of the market median will generally place the Park District at a sufficiently competitive market position for recruitment and retention purposes. The median statistic is preferable to the market mean (average) because it is not subject to skewing with market anomalies or outliers. Important elements to consider when deciding on a market position include the following:  The Park District’s ability to pay  Priority of compensation versus other expenditures  Recruitment and retention/turnover issues (or the absence of this)  Comparability of the survey agencies (size, cost of living differences, etc.)  The mix of salary and benefits in providing a total compensation package for employees. Recognizing the above, the market median has been used to report all survey findings and salary range recommendations have been developed to adjust the Management compensation plan to within 5% of the market median. MARKET DATA COLLECTION PROCESS To ensure reliability and completeness, survey data was collected according to a structured methodology. In conducting the compensation survey, the following specific steps were taken:  Survey employers were contacted to confirm participation and to request background information including current salary schedules, job descriptions, benefit information, position control documents, and organizational charts  Source documents were analyzed for each survey agency in order to determine comparability issues and obtain salary/benefit data  Follow-up reviews were conducted by e-mail and telephone to verify and clarify the data to ensure accuracy and comparability. Throughout the data collection process, careful efforts were made to document the full range of duties and requirements of all job classifications as compared to the Park District’s corresponding survey job classifications. When conducting labor market surveys, one of the most important objectives is to ensure that the labor market data is sufficiently comparable to Park District job classifications while also serving as a strong indicator of market trends. Since the purpose of the labor market analysis is to identify general wage trends with other agencies, broad comparability guidelines are used when collecting data. If the comparability guidelines are too narrow, then insufficient data will be found. Common comparability criteria typically includes similar core functional duties, education/skill requirements, level of duties, and scope of supervisory and management duties. It is not as critical for all job duties to be the same or for the number of employees in those job classifications to be the same. For management job classifications, there will be some variability among the survey agencies with respect to number of subordinate staff, reporting relationships, functional units managed, and similar criteria. On balance, the survey data provides an accurate picture of market trends, with some job matches being higher relative to the Park District job classification and some being lower. This variance is normal when conducting surveys for management job classifications. Overall, the market comparabilities are intended to provide a balanced indication of market trends (higher, lower, same). SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 12 The survey data contains job matches that are sufficiently comparable based on the professional judgment of Ralph Andersen & Associates. Wherever possible, job matches are supported by documentation received from the survey agencies. While job descriptions served as a starting point for all comparability analysis, they were not the sole source of information used to establish job matches. Job descriptions can be unreliable (particularly if they are not up to date), not every agency has the same level of detail in their job descriptions, and many agencies may not have the same philosophy in establishing minimum qualifications. The term “No Comparable Class” has been used to indicate instances where: 1) the job classification does not exist within the survey agency, 2) the level of responsibilities/duties are not sufficiently comparable, or 3) the comparable job duties are spread among several job classifications, none of which are an adequate job match to the survey job classification. SURVEY JOB CLASSIFICATIONS POINT OF COMPARISON – MANAGEMENT RANGE STRUCTURE When comparing Park District salaries with market agencies, it is important to establish a consistent point of comparison. Since the survey agencies used in the market study utilize a variety of pay range structures, a critical review was needed to find the best salary range reference point. In all market instances, the range maximum has been used as the primary comparison point. This essentially serves as the range control point since employees will progress through the salary range to the range maximum over a relatively short period of time. Salary range comparisons should not include additional performance-based portions of the pay range, merit steps, or longevity payments. Longevity has been included in the benefits analysis but performance and merit pay has not since progression to these levels is limited to few employees and requires individual performance assessment. The compensation survey was initiated by surveying 47 of the 63 Management job classifications. In this initial selection of survey job classifications, duplicative “I” and “senior” level job classifications were left out of the survey. This is because these job classifications have a direct internal tie to their “II” (or non-“senior”) level and not all agencies will have these multiple class levels. By focusing on the journey level “II” and non-“senior” job classifications, the survey data will represent a larger number of employers. In addition, unique job classifications that would not be found in the 16 survey agencies were not included in the survey. In addition, the Park District’s Sworn Fire job classifications (Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief) were not surveyed due to the unique operating characteristics of the Park District’s fire operations (wildland emphasis, 40 hour weekly schedule, and a different level of emergency medical services compared to municipal fire departments). Our assessment is that the Park District’s fire operations are so unique that no market data will be available for purposes of evaluating and benchmarking salaries. In the alternative, the Sworn Fire classifications have been aligned internally base on a comparative analysis of management job classifications. This is consistent with the Park District’s past practices. Of the 47 survey job classifications, insufficient data was found for nine job classifications (sufficient data was found for over 80% of the survey job classifications). In order to accurately assess market trends, at least six job matches are required to conduct a reliable statistical analysis. Of the remaining 38 job classifications where sufficient data was available, some data may not be used in the salary range structure analysis due to excessive data variability, unbalanced samples, and related considerations. The use and application of the survey market data is explained in Section IV of this report.SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 13 The Park District’s management job classifications are currently assigned to one of nine steps, Steps A through I as shown below. The range structure provides five annual 5% step increases over five years with three additional merit steps that are available based on further time and performance in the position. The merit steps are rarely used (only 10% of current management employees occupy these steps with no employees at Step I). Consistent with the AFSCME study, we have used Step F which represents maximum progression for 90% of management employees. It should be noted that many of the survey agencies utilize five step range structures. It would not be appropriate to compare rarely used steps with range maximums in the labor market that are occupied by a majority of the employees within each survey agency. Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G Step H Step I START 1 YEAR 2 YEARS 3 YEARS 4 YEARS 5 YEARS MERIT MERIT MERIT SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 14 SECTION IV COMPENSATION FINDINGS This section of the report documents the key findings and observations resulting from the consultant’s compensation survey and data analyses. The focus of the compensation analysis is to identify significant differences in the pay practices of the Park District as compared to the survey agencies. SALARY RANGE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS In order to conduct an “apples-to-apples” salary range comparison, it is important that the appropriate Park District range step is compared with the most comparable step in each of the survey agencies. To establish the proper comparison point, the consultants conducted a detailed analysis of the Park District’s management salary range structure as well as the management ranges structures used in the 16 survey agencies. Our analysis resulted in the following conclusions:  The Park District’s salary range structure combines five annual progression steps based on completion of service with three merit steps (progression to these merit steps is not tied to specific, consistently applied longevity or performance criteria).  The Park District’s salary range structure has nine steps with 5% increments (Step A to Step I) with a total range spread of 48% compared to the average market range spread of 28% (minimum to maximum step).  Most of the market survey agencies use a pay structure with fewer than nine steps (or an open pay range with no steps). None of the agencies have merit steps structured like the Park District salary range.  Of the 70 management positions studied, 90% of the employees occupy steps A through F of the management salary ranges with the greatest number of employees at Step F. Based on our review of the Park District’s current management range structures and those used in competing survey agencies, it is recommended that the Park District use Step F for market comparisons. Furthermore, the following salary range structure changes are recommended to better align with market practices:  Narrow the survey range by dropping Step A and Step I from the current salary table. Very few employees occupy these range steps (none are at Step I) and the Park District’s recruitment practices indicate that Step A is not competitive when hiring/placing new management employees.  Relabel Steps B through H to a new structure of Steps A through F. The result of this change is a seven- step salary range structure with a 34% range spread. This structure better aligns with market practices while still providing a broad salary range for employee range progression.  Maintain an annual step progression in the new salary range from Steps A to F with one remaining merit step (Step G) used on a discretionary basis based on performance assessments. The following provides a graphic example of the recommended range structure compared to the current range structure. Current Range Structure (5% between steps) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G Step H Step I START 1 YEAR 2 YEARS 3 YEARS 4 YEARS 5 YEARS MERIT MERIT MERIT Recommended Range Structure (5% between steps) Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G START 1 YEAR 2 YEARS 3 YEARS 4 YEARS 5 YEARS MERITSAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 15 BASE SALARY SURVEY RESULTS As a starting point, the consultants analyzed base salary ranges (excluding benefits) between the Park District and the survey agencies. Survey agency data is captured by referencing the statistical median of the survey sample in order to identify market trends. A summary of the salary survey is shown in the following graph for 38 survey job classifications using Step F of the current Management salary ranges. As indicated in the graph, a majority of the survey job classifications are below market median. As indicated previously, the survey data reflects a comparison of Step F in the current management salary ranges, as compared with comparable range maximums in the labor market (not including longevity, merit, or peformance based pay). As shown in the graph:  2 job classifications are more than 15% below median  10 job classifications are between 10% and 15% below median  7 job classifications are between 5% and 10% below median  14 job classifications (two bars) are within 5% of median  5 job classifications are 5% to 10% above median  No job classifications are more than 10% above median. The survey data indicates that half of the survey jobs are more than 5% below the market median. It is important to note, the base salary survey results do not recognize the value of merit steps in the current salary range. Merit steps are not readily occupied by current employees. Our analysis assumes the Park District will restructure the management salary range per the recommendations in the previous section. An additional step in salary range progression for the Management group will remedy the average 4.9% market deviation found in the survey. SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 16 On average, the Park District’s salary ranges are at the middle of the labor market (38th percentile on average). The following table provides a detailed summary of the market survey for 38 job classifications where sufficient comparable data was found (at least six job matches). Class Title Current Step F # of Obs. Market Median % +/- Median Percentile 11,067 10 11,984 -8.3% 27 11,067 10 11,457 -3.5% 39 20,400 15 22,815 -11.8% 37 18,547 15 19,353 -4.3% 21 20,400 13 18,923 7.2% 80 18,547 15 18,320 1.2% 56 20,400 13 21,892 -7.3% 29 16,851 15 18,113 -7.5% 38 14,019 13 16,588 -18.3% 25 11,067 10 12,466 -12.6% 26 11,067 12 12,015 -8.6% 29 12,749 9 13,179 -3.4% 33 14,019 12 14,359 -2.4% 43 14,019 14 15,997 -14.1% 24 16,851 15 18,320 -8.7% 34 14,019 7 15,422 -10.0% 19 14,019 10 13,784 1.7% 70 14,019 12 15,636 -11.5% 19 15,441 11 15,422 0.1% 51 14,019 15 15,326 -9.3% 23 14,019 6 15,636 -11.5% 12 11,591 12 11,506 0.7% 52 11,067 12 11,435 -3.3% 40 11,591 8 12,433 -7.3% 32 23,572 14 21,659 8.1% 73 11,591 11 12,798 -10.4% 3 11,591 12 11,588 0.0% 50 27,290 15 25,913 5.0% 59 11,591 6 12,908 -11.4% 0 8,249 16 9,159 -11.0% 16 11,067 12 12,328 -11.4% 10 12,749 13 11,937 6.4% 85 10,542 15 10,379 1.5% 71 12,749 12 11,713 8.1% 75 16,851 13 16,858 0.0% 50 14,019 13 14,030 -0.1% 50 11,067 11 12,747 -15.2% 16 11,067 6 11,340 -2.5% 37 Average 10 -4.9% 38 The summary table table above contains the following information: Accounting Manager Administrative Support Manager AGM, District Counsel AGM, Finance & Mgmt Services/CFO AGM, Operations AGM, Plan/Stew/Des/Con AGM, Public Safety Assistant District Counsel II Assistant Finance Officer Audit Manager Budget Manager Business Services Manager Chief Information Officer Chief, Design & Construction Chief, Human Resources Officer Chief, Interpretive & Recreation Services Chief, Land Acquisition Chief, Maintenance & Skilled Trades Chief, Park Operations Chief, Planning Chief, Stewardship Communications and Records Manager Community Relations Manager Construction Manager Deputy General Manager Environmental Services Manager Fleet Manager General Manager Government Affairs Manager Human Resources Analyst I Information Services Network Manager Maintenance Superintendent Management Analyst Park Unit Manager Police Captain Police Lieutenant Risk Manager Wildlife Program ManagerSAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 17  The job classification title surveyed  The Park District’s current monthly salary at range Step F  The number of observations (matches), not including Park District data  The market median using monthly maximum salaries in the labor market  The percentage relationship of the median to the Park District’s current salary range (Step F)  The percentile rank of each survey job (0 is lowest, 100 is highest, calculated using Excel). Detailed survey data is provided in Appendix A of this report. TOTAL COMPENSATION ANALYSIS (BENEFITS) The purpose of the labor market total compensation analysis is to determine whether the Park District’s benefits improve or worsen the Park District’s market position. This is determined by analyzing the market relationship of base salary comparisons and then adding benefit categories to determine changes in market position. Because this analysis utilizes 16 agencies and eight benefit categories, it is important to utilize the best sample of data to determine market trends (data with at least 10 survey job matches). This provides a sample of 32 job classifications to analyze the impact of benefits in the Park District’s market position. The total compensation survey included common benefits available to all employees and focused on the employer cost of these benefits. The benefits utilized as part of the total compensation analysis included:  Cash benefits paid by the employer Longevity pay (pay for years of experience beyond the normal salary range progression) Deferred compensation (employer paid contributions including matching contributions) Employer paid member contributions (EPMC); it should be noted that while this used to be a common benefit, it is far less common due to the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) which took effect in January 2013.  Insurance benefits paid by the employer Medical, the maximum EE+2 (family) contribution made by the employer excluding rarely used plans Dental, the maximum EE+2 (family) contribution made by the employer Vision, the maximum premium contribution or annual reimbursement for vision benefits.  Retirement Employer retirement contributions for “classic” employees (the pension tier in effect December 2012) Employee contributions toward the employer rate for the “classic” tier (the pension tier in effect December 2012). Using the above categories, the total compensation analysis started with a macro-level analysis to determine if the Park District’s benefits had a significant impact on its labor market position. This analysis is conducted by utilizing four snapshots of data: 1) base salary, 2) base salary plus cash benefits, 3) base salary plus cash benefits plus insurance benefits, and 4) base salary plus cash benefits plus insurance benefits plus retirement benefits. The results of this analysis are the following:  In the sample of 32 job classifications (survey jobs with at least 10 matches), the average labor market position when base salary is compared is 4.4% below median. For purposes of the total compensation analysis, it is not important what this number is as much as how this relative market position shifts as benefits are introduced into the analysis. Base salary comparisons utilize current Step F. Merit steps G, H and I are not included in the total compensation analysis since they are performance based. SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 18  When cash benefits are cumulatively added to base salary, the Park District’s market position shifts to 6.6% below market median (a slight 2.2% loss). This is due to: Several survey agencies provide an employer paid deferred compensation contribution Several survey agencies provide a longevity pay benefit A few agencies pay all or a portion of the employee’s retirement contribution (EPMC).  When insurance benefits are cumulatively added to base salary and cash benefits, the Park District’s market position shifts to 5.2% below market median (a 1.4% gain). This is a result of slightly stronger insurance benefits. On average, the Park District’s maximum insurance contribution is $83 more per month than the market median. It should be noted that the analysis of insurance benefits did not consider qualitative differences in deductibles, co-pays, or other employee costs. Generally, differences in employer contributions will either reflect differences in these qualitative factors, or more commonly, differences in the employee’s share of total premium costs.  When retirement benefits are added to the cumulative total of base salary, cash benefits, and insurance benefits, the Park District’s market position shifts to 7.3% below market median (a loss of 2.1%). This reflects the slightly lower retirement contribution costs for the Park District, however, this does not typically reflect significant differences in the employee’s retirement formula. The difference may be due to demographic differences or differences in the unfunded accrued actuarial liability of the “classic” retirement tier. Overall, the Park District loses 2.9% in market position when all benefit categories are considered compared to base salary. This is an insignificant change and indicates that the Park District’s benefits are consistent with the labor market. As a result, establishing salary ranges does not require total compensation figures nor does it require an adjustment in labor market position. If the Park District had a significant gain or loss in market position due to benefits, this would be factored into the recommendations contained in Section IV. The results of this analysis can change over time, thus the fact that no adjustment due to benefits is required at this time does not mean it should not be a consideration in future surveys. Detailed total compensation data sheets are provided in Appendix B for the 32 job classifications used in the total compensation analysis. Note: The compensation survey represents data collected in December 2019 and does NOT include increases for the 2020-21 fiscal year. Current Park District salary ranges listed do not include the recent April 2020 salary adjustment to ensure a consistent 2019-20 fiscal year comparison. The recent April 2020 salary adjustment equates to future 2020-21 increases in the labor market that will occur over the next few months (typically in July). The consultants conducted a review of July 2020 market changes and determined that the Park District’s April 2020 salary range adjustment is consistent with changes that have occurred in the labor market since the December 2019 survey data was collected (management classes received a 2.5% increase in April 2020 compared to a market change of 2.0% on average as of July 2020). SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 19 SECTION V RECOMMENDATIONS This section of the Compensation Report utilizes the results of the market survey along with internal salary analyses to determine appropriate changes (if any) to the Park District’s Management compensation plan. As shown in the graphic below, compensation plans are developed using a balance of market data and internal relationships to best position the Park District in the market for recruitment and retention purposes while capturing the Park District’s unique organization and classification structure. For management job classifications, a greater emphasis is placed on the internal equity analysis. This is due to the fact that roles, responsibilities, autonomy, and resources managed may be unique within the Park District compared to outside agencies. Furthermore, the Park District has an organizational structure that is defined by its own operation and service structure. Historically, the Park District’s management job classifications can be defined using the following levels:  General Manager – This classification is the Chief Executive Officer and oversees the entire Park District and reports to the Board of Directors.  Deputy General Manager – This management class is the Deputy Chief Executive Officer has broad oversight over multiple divisions, leads District-wide projects and initiatives across multiple disciplines, and reports to the General Manager.  Division, Assistant General Manager (AGM) – Managers at this level are executive level managers reporting to either the Deputy General Manager or the General Manager and are responsible for a major organizational unit, typically a division with multiple departments.  Department, Chief – Job classes at this level are senior level managers responsible for managing a department, often with multiple units, sections and programs. Managers at this level typically report to an Assistant General Manager and utilize the term “Chief” in their job title.  Work Unit, Manager – Positions at this level are responsible for managing units and programs within a department and typically report to a Division Chief. These positions often have subordinate supervisors and are responsible for a section or group.  Program Manager – This level recognizes positions that are responsible for overseeing a program area that may have few if any subordinate staff. For the Park District’s sworn police and fire classifications, more traditional industry titles are used such as Fire Chief, Police Captain, Police Lieutenant, and Assistant Fire Chief. There may also be other industry title exceptions such as Clerk of the Board and Regional Parks Foundation Chief Administrative Officer. Finally, the Park District’s management group includes several “analyst” job classifications with multiple levels. For classification and compensation purposes, it is important to emphasize that the levels described above are organizationally determined. It is not within the scope of a classification and compensation study to change the organizational structure of positions (reporting relationships, groupings of departments and units, staffing levels, SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 20 etc.). Thus, our study takes the current organization structure (and the corresponding job classification titles) as a given, as long as the job classification titles are used consistently. The Park District’s current management job classifications appear to consistently reflect the organizational role, responsibility, and reporting relationships of the positions studied. REGRESSION ANALYSIS When a compensation plan is primarily driven by internal equity, one of the best ways to analyze the impact of market data is to conduct a regression analysis of the data. The following chart provides the results of the regression analysis. The chart contains the following elements:  Plot points (blue dots) that represent a single survey job classification with the horizontal X-Axis based on the current Park District salary range (Step F) and the vertical Y-Axis using the survey median of comparable job classifications (range maximum for each agency). Four plot points are shown with labels to show a sampling of the job classification titles associated with the plot points.  A trend line (red line) using linear regression which models the relationship between current salary ranges and market salary ranges.  The R-squared (R2) which reflects the “goodness-of-fit” or the percentage of variance of current salary ranges compared to market salary ranges. A high R2 indicates strong overall consistency with market practices in terms of job class to job class relationships. Said differently, the fact that R2 is 0.93 (rounded) means that the salary hierarchy used by the Park District is in alignment with (strong correlation) the salary range hierarchies used for comparable management job classifications in the survey agencies. If R2 is low, this would indicate that the Park District’s salary range hierarchy requires adjustment (such as a manager currently placed in range MG04 requiring an adjustment to MG03 or MG05, depending on survey SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 21 results). However, with a an R2 greater than 0.93, our analysis concludes that there are not any significant equity issues within the Park District’s management salary plan. As shown in the above chart, of the 38 job classifications in the regression analysis, in 20 instances the market median salary range is lower than the regression line and in 18 instances the median market salary range is above the regression line. The regression line does not reflect the distribution of survey job classifications above or below median. Instead, it reflects the relative salary relationship (hierarchy) of Park District management job classifications to comparable management job classifications in the survey agencies. The regression analysis provides a measure of hierarchical consistency with the market. MANAGEMENT SALARY RANGE ANALYSIS As indicated in prior sections of this report, the Park District’s salary ranges are below market on average with half of the survey jobs being more than 5% below the market median. Furthermore, as shown in the regression analysis, the overall salary range hierarchy of management jobs is consistent with the hierarchy of comparable jobs in the survey agencies. Since each agency will have an organization and management structure that best suits their operational objectives, it is helpful to review the Park District’s Management salary range hierarchy. There are 12 salary ranges (MG00 to MG11) as shown in the following table. Management Range Number % Above Next Lower Range Description of Job Classifications in Range MG11 16% General Manager MG10 16% Deputy General Manager MG09 10% AGM – Tier 1 divisions with significant impact on Park District operations and responsibility for significant resources MG08 10% AGM – Tier 2 divisions with less relative impact and responsibility for fewer resources MG07 9% AGM – Tier 3 divisions that have the least overall impact on Park District operations and fewer resource responsibilities Department Chiefs and second level managers with broad impact on the organization and/or significant resource responsibility. Highly compensated professionals such as Assistant District Counsel II MG06 10% Department Chiefs with responsibility for a major Park District department with significant resources managed. Highly compensated professionals such as Assistant District Counsel I SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 22 Management Range Number % Above Next Lower Range Description of Job Classifications in Range MG05 10% Department Chiefs with responsibility for moderate resources and key program and service areas Assistant division managers for a major Park District function MG04 10% Subordinate managers below Department Chief with responsibility for major functions and services with broad Park District impact and/or responsibility for moderate level of resources MG03 5% Section/unit managers with responsibility for fewer resources and less prominent functions as compared to managers in MG04 MG02 5% Program, project, and unit managers with narrower responsibilities and minimal resources managed as compared to MG03 managers Subject matter experts MG01 28% Advanced level professionals and more narrow section managers. MG00 Lowest level professional job classifications with lower qualifications and responsibilities compared to professionals in MG01. As indicated in the table, while range assignments typically reflect the organizational level combined with relative impact on Park District operations, resource responsibility, and required expertise, there are range levels with more overlap than others. It should also be noted that range placement is also driven by survey market data with management job classes demanding a higher market salary being placed relatively higher in the Management salary grades. Thus, placement into the current Management salary grades (MG00-MG11) balances market relationships with internal factors such as complexity, autonomy, impact of decisions, resources responsibility, and working relationships. As indicated previously, the overall hierarchy of management job classifications compares well with the hierarchy of comparable job classifications in the labor market survey. However, as with most organizations, there will be salary grades where distinctions and differences in job classifications will be more difficult to quantify. Our analysis indicates that the roles and responsibilities of management job classifications assigned to ranges MG02 to MG04 will be less differentiated compared to higher salary ranges. As with most organizations, assignment to pay ranges will involve assessments of market data along with senior management and human resources input. Our market and internal relationship analysis did not find any significant equity issues requiring changes in salary range assignments for management job classifications. Our analysis found two job classifications requiring attention with a change in the recommended salary range:  Risk & Safety Manager - This class is responsible for Park District-wide risk and safety programs, under the direction of the AGM, District Counsel. Our analysis indicates that this classification should be moved SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 23 from current range MG02 to range MG03 which recognizes the relative placement found in the compensation survey (the job classification was more than 15% below market median) and the level and scope of responsibility across the Park District. Safety and other duties have been added to this position which significantly expands the scope and function of the job classification.  Human Resources Analyst – This classification is the only job classification in range MG00, a salary range that is 28% below the Senior Human Resources Analyst job classification in range MG01. This salary range is also the only range that utilizes 2. 5% differentials between Steps A through F, instead of the 5% differential used for all other Management salary ranges. In order to establish more consistency in the management salary ranges, it is recommended that the MG00 salary range be changed so that a 5% differential exists between Steps A and F. This change will result in a higher new Step F that is more aligned with the labor market. The above changes are documented in Appendix C which contains all Management job classifications. Job classifications not included in Appendix C should be eliminated from the Park District’s classification and compensation plan. MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN - RECOMMENDATIONS The following provides specific recommendations regarding the Park District’s management compensation plan based on internal and external analyses:  Restructure Management Pay Ranges - The Park District’s salary range structure is not consistent with salary ranges of comparable job classifications in the labor market. As recommended previously in this report, the Park District should narrow the current salary range into a seven-step salary range structure by eliminating current steps A and I. Step progression will continue in 5% increments annually until the employee reaches Step F with Step A being equal to the current Step B and Step F being equal to the current Step G). The result of this change provides an additional 5% step increase for all employees (assuming satisfactory job performance requirements are met). In addition, a single merit step should remain (Step G) to provide salary progression opportunities based on performance factors.  Maintain MG00 to MG11 Salary Ranges – The Park District’s current range structure appears to be adequate in recognizing differences in roles and responsibilities, as primarily defined by the organization structure. Higher level ranges are reserved for executive and senior level management, lower level ranges are used for professional analyst level job classifications, and middle ranges recognize management level, job complexity, resource responsibility, working relationships, and impact on Park District services, operations, and support systems. The Park District salary range hierarchy generally reflects the comparable hierarchies found in the labor market as validated by the linear regression analysis.  Salary Range Adjustments – As indicated previously, there are two management classifications that are being recommended for a salary range adjustment, Risk & Safety Manager and Human Resources Analyst. The primary recommendation resulting from the compensation study is to restructure the salary range to a more narrow and more usable seven step salary range. This change will bridge market survey differences. Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G START 1 YEAR 2 YEARS 3 YEARS 4 YEARS 5 YEARS MERIT Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F Step G 7,292.13 7,656.74 8,039.58 8,441.56 8,863.64 9,306.82 9,772.16 SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 R a lp h An de r se n & As s o c ia t es 24 COMPACTION ANALYSIS In addition to the market and internal analysis described in previous sections, the consultants also conducted a compaction analysis to determine if any management salary ranges are below a sufficient differential above subordinate job classifications in various employee groups including both represented and unrepresented employees. Our analysis considered subordinate job classifications compared to management job classifications regardless of the employee group. The results of our analysis are as follows:  Four job classifications are currently below the ideal minimum differential of 15% (Chief, Interpretive & Recreation Services, Chief, Maintenance and Skilled Trades, Assistant Fire Chief, and Construction Manager).  Assuming the Park District implements the range structure recommendations provided on page 14 of this report, there will not be a single instance where a management classification’s salary range is less than 15% greater than the highest subordinate job classification. While a 15% minimum differential is ideal, there may be instances where a 10% differential is sufficient. An additional Merit step can also serve as an additional buffer to prevent salary compaction.  For the Park District’s sworn Police Management classifications (Police Captain, Police Lieutenant), a potential compaction issue exists depending on future salary and benefit changes for the Police Sergeant classification. The Police Sergeant is in a separate represented employee group (Police Association). Recognizing the fact that the Police Association salary increases are on a different fall contract cycle and considering the unique total compensation elements commonly provided to sworn police positions (POST and education incentives), the Park District should establish a policy where salary compaction is reviewed annually with appropriate salary range adjustment for the Police Captain and Police Lieutenant. Should compaction occur in the future, this may result in placing the Police Captain and Police Lieutenant on separate, unique pay ranges (separate from the current MG00 to MG11 pay ranges). Recognizing the equity relationship within Public Safety between these job classifications and Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief, equity relationships for all sworn public safety management job classifications should be maintained with any future salary placements.  Since the Park District has a history of aligning annual Management salary range adjustments (including cost of living adjustments) with adjustments made to subordinate AFSCME job classifications, it is unlikely that salary compaction issues will occur for non-sworn and fire management job classifications. In summary, current compaction issues can be easily remedied with the recommended changes to the Management salary ranges. However, the Park District will need to be attentive to potential future compaction issues that will likely occur in future years for sworn Police Management job classifications. SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ap p e nd ix APPENDIX A BASE SALARY SURVEY DATASHEETS SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Labor Market Summary Internal Auditing Stats Class Title Current Step F # of Obs. Market Median % +/- Median Percentile Accounting Manager 11,067 10 11,984 -8.3%27 Administrative Support Manager 11,067 10 11,457 -3.5%39 AGM, District Counsel 20,400 15 22,815 -11.8%37 AGM, Finance & Management Svcs/CFO 18,547 15 19,353 -4.3%21 AGM, Operations 20,400 13 18,923 7.2%80 AGM, Plan/Stew/Des/Con 18,547 15 18,320 1.2%56 AGM, Public Safety 20,400 13 21,892 -7.3%29 Aquatic Manager 11,591 5 I.D.-- -- Assistant District Counsel II 16,851 15 18,113 -7.5%38 Assistant Finance Officer 14,019 13 16,588 -18.3%25 Audit Manager 11,067 10 12,466 -12.6%26 Budget Manager 11,067 12 12,015 -8.6%29 Business Services Manager 12,749 9 13,179 -3.4%33 Capital Program Manager 11,591 4 I.D.-- -- Chief Information Officer 14,019 12 14,359 -2.4%43 Chief, Design & Construction 14,019 14 15,997 -14.1%24 Chief, Human Resources Officer 16,851 15 18,320 -8.7%34 Chief, Interp & Rec Svcs 14,019 7 15,422 -10.0%19 Chief, Land Acquisition 14,019 10 13,784 1.7%70 Chief, Maint & Skilled Trades 14,019 12 15,636 -11.5%19 Chief, Park Operations 15,441 11 15,422 0.1%51 Chief, Planning 14,019 15 15,326 -9.3%23 Chief, Stewardship 14,019 6 15,636 -11.5%12 Clerk of the Board 11,067 5 I.D.-- -- Communications and Records Mgr 11,591 12 11,506 0.7%52 Community Relations Manager 11,067 12 11,435 -3.3%40 Construction Manager 11,591 8 12,433 -7.3%32 Deputy General Manager 23,572 14 21,659 8.1%73 Environmental Program Manager 11,067 4 I.D.-- -- Environmental Services Manager 11,591 11 12,798 -10.4%3 Facilities Manager 11,591 3 I.D.-- -- Fisheries Program Manager 11,067 4 I.D.-- -- Fleet Manager 11,591 12 11,588 0.0%50 General Manager 27,290 15 25,913 5.0%59 Government Affairs Manager 11,591 6 12,908 -11.4%0 Grants Manager 11,067 3 I.D.-- -- Human Resources Analyst I 8,249 16 9,159 -11.0%16 Information Services Network Manager 11,067 12 12,328 -11.4%10 Maintenance Superintendent 12,749 13 11,937 6.4%85 Management Analyst 10,542 15 10,379 1.5%71 Park Unit Manager 12,749 12 11,713 8.1%75 Police Captain 16,851 13 16,858 0.0%50 Police Lieutenant 14,019 13 14,030 -0.1%50 Risk Manager 11,067 11 12,747 -15.2%16 Trails Develop Program Manager 11,067 0 I.D.-- -- Wildland Veg Program Manager 11,067 1 I.D.-- -- Wildlife Program Manager 11,067 6 11,340 -2.5%37 Average 10 -4.9%38 The compensation survey does not include management job classifications that are unique to the Park District and unlikely to be found in the 16 survey agencies. District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 Survey Class Title of the survey classification. Agency Name of survey agency from which compensation data was collected. Comparable Class Title Comparable title of matching class in each survey agency. The phrase “No Comparable Class” is used when a survey agency does not have the job or if there is a significant difference in qualifications or scope of duties. Monthly Minimum This is the monthly starting salary for positions in the class. Monthly Control Point or Maximum This is the monthly top step or range maximum for those agencies that use the range maximum as the control point. Control point salaries are used if the agency’s range structure utilizes a mid-point or similar reference point. By definition, the range control point is that point in the salary range that most employees attain through tenure, assuming satisfactory performance. The control point is also used as the market “anchoring point” of the salary range. Range maximums do not include longevity, merit, or performance based pay. Park District Rank This is the range relative to the market with 1 being the highest salary in the market. Coefficient of Variance This is a statistical measure of variability and reliability. If this number is above 30%, the data may not be reliable. Number of Obs.The total number of data observations (not including the Park District’s salary). If this number is less than six, insufficient data is available for statistical analysis. Variability This is a quick description of the sample variability. High variability, if inconsistent with the overall trends of the data, can indicate unreliable data. Low variability indicates very reliable data. Mean This is the average of the survey data. This statistic is subject to data skewing by data anomolies and is not as reliable as the median. Median This statistic represents the middle of the labor market. As such, half of the data is above the median and half is below the median. Percentiles This measurement is similar to the median except a different percentage of data is above a specific point in the ranking and the balance of data is below this point (i.e., for the 75th percentile, 25% of the data is above this point and 75% is below). The percentiles are calculated using an Excel spreadsheet function. Since there are different methods for computing percentiles, the function methodology used by Excel may not be the same as other spreadsheet programs or manual calculation methods. Percent Above/Below This percentage represents the difference between the market statistic to the left of the percentage and the District’s salary. Specifically, it is the percentage increase/decrease needed to move the District’s salary to the market. For convenience, below market relations are shown as negative values and above market relations are shown as positive values. The following formula is used to calculate the percentage: (Park District’s Salary - Market) Park District’s Salary It is important that the District’s salary be in the denominator of any percentage formula. Percentile Rank This is the percentile that corresponds to the District’s salary if it is placed into the market data. EXPLANATION OF SURVEY DATA SHEETS District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Accounting Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Fremont Finance Operations Manager 10,455$ 14,114$ 35.0% City of Hayward Accounting Manager 10,471$ 12,724$ 21.5% East Bay MUD Accounting Systems Supervisor 10,924$ 12,646$ 15.8% City of Berkeley Accounting Manager 10,236$ 12,441$ 21.5% City of Oakland Principal Financial Analyst 10,122$ 12,429$ 22.8% Santa Clara County Controller Treasurer Acct Manager 9,493$ 11,538$ 21.5% City and County of San Francisco Manager I 9,031$ 11,529$ 27.7% East Bay Regional Park District Accounting Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% San Mateo County Financial Services Manager I 8,552$ 10,693$ 25.0% Marin County Accounting Unit Manager 8,580$ 10,424$ 21.5% City of San Jose Program Manager I 7,999$ 9,851$ 23.1% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 8/11 Coefficient of Variance 11% Number of Observations 10 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 11,839$ -6.97% Labor Market Median 11,984$ -8.28% 25th Percentile 10,902$ 1.49% 75th Percentile 12,595$ -13.80% Percentile Rank 27 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Administrative Support Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Oakland Manager, Agency Administrative 11,718$ 14,388$ 22.8% City of Berkeley Assistant to the City Manager 10,732$ 14,103$ 31.4% City of Pleasanton Assistant to the City Manager 11,841$ East Bay MUD Assistant to the General Manager 8,185$ 11,820$ 44.4% City and County of San Francisco Manager I 9,031$ 11,529$ 27.7% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District District Clerk/Assistant to the GM 9,115$ 11,385$ 24.9% East Bay Regional Park District Administrative Support Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Sonoma County Department Administrative Services Director 8,842$ 10,747$ 21.5% City of Hayward Assistant to City Manager 8,731$ 10,613$ 21.6% Santa Clara County Secretary to County Executive 6,541$ 10,459$ 59.9% San Mateo County County Manager Office Manager 7,387$ 9,235$ 25.0% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 7/11 Coefficient of Variance 14% Number of Observations 10 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 11,612$ -4.92% Labor Market Median 11,457$ -3.52% 25th Percentile 10,647$ 3.80% 75th Percentile 11,836$ -6.94% Percentile Rank 39 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max AGM, District Counsel Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread San Mateo County County Counsel 22,459$ 28,078$ 25.0% Santa Clara County County Counsel 26,497$ 27,838$ 5.1% City of San Jose City Attorney 19,696$ 26,523$ 34.7% Alameda County County Counsel 19,878$ 25,828$ 29.9% City of Fremont City Attorney 25,223$ 25,223$ 0.0% City and County of San Francisco City Attorney 24,152$ Contra Costa County County Counsel 19,281$ 23,436$ 21.6% East Bay MUD General Counsel 22,815$ Marin County County Counsel 19,961$ 22,114$ 10.8% East Bay Regional Park District AGM, District Counsel 15,983$ 20,400$ 27.6% Sonoma County County Counsel 20,073$ City of Berkeley City Attorney 14,696$ 19,818$ 34.9% City of Oakland City Attorney 19,105$ Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District General Counsel 18,792$ City of Hayward City Attorney 18,715$ City of Pleasanton City Attorney 17,500$ Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 10/16 Coefficient of Variance 16% Number of Observations 15 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 20399.6 22,667$ -11.12% Labor Market Median 22,815$ -11.84% 25th Percentile 19,462$ 4.60% 75th Percentile 25,526$ -25.13% Percentile Rank 37 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max AGM, Finance & Management Svcs/CFO Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread Alameda County Deputy County Administrator 19,237$ 24,551$ 27.6% Contra Costa County County Finance Director 17,855$ 23,929$ 34.0% Santa Clara County Director, Finance Agency 18,641$ 23,918$ 28.3% East Bay MUD Director, Finance 15,167$ 21,908$ 44.4% City of Oakland Director of Finance 14,164$ 21,246$ 50.0% City of San Jose Finance Director 13,144$ 20,544$ 56.3% Sonoma County Auditor/Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector 19,574$ San Mateo County Controller - Elective 19,353$ Marin County Director of Finance 17,469$ 19,261$ 10.3% City of Fremont Finance Director 14,182$ 19,146$ 35.0% City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV 14,796$ 18,880$ 27.6% City of Berkeley Director of Finance 13,521$ 18,588$ 37.5% East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Finance & Management Svcs 14,529$ 18,547$ 27.7% City of Hayward Director of Finance 13,997$ 17,013$ 21.5% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District CFO/Administrative Services Director 13,468$ 16,820$ 24.9% City of Pleasanton Finance Director 16,304$ Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 13/16 Coefficient of Variance 13% Number of Observations 15 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 18546.66 20,069$ -8.21% Labor Market Median 19,353$ -4.35% 25th Percentile 18,734$ -1.01% 75th Percentile 21,577$ -16.34% Percentile Rank 21 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max AGM, Operations Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Director of Operations & Maintenance 15,167$ 21,908$ 44.4% City of Oakland Director of Public Works 14,164$ 21,246$ 50.0% City of San Jose Director of Parks, Recreation, & Neighborhood Services 13,144$ 20,544$ 56.3% East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Operations 15,983$ 20,400$ 27.6% San Mateo County Director of Parks and Recreation 16,129$ 20,157$ 25.0% City of Berkeley Director of Parks & Waterfront 14,091$ 19,377$ 37.5% City of Fremont Community Services Director 14,182$ 19,146$ 35.0% Santa Clara County Director of Parks and Recreation 14,746$ 18,923$ 28.3% City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV 14,796$ 18,880$ 27.6% Marin County Director Parks and Open Space 16,224$ 17,886$ 10.2% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Assistant General Manager 13,468$ 16,820$ 24.9% City of Hayward Director of Maintenance Services 13,400$ 16,290$ 21.6% City of Pleasanton Director of Operations and Water Utilities 16,205$ Sonoma County Director of Regional Parks 12,457$ 15,142$ 21.6% Alameda County No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 4/14 Coefficient of Variance 11% Number of Observations 13 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 20399.6 18,656$ 8.55% Labor Market Median 18,923$ 7.24% AGM, Operations25 25th Percentile 16,820$ 17.55% AGM, Operations75 75th Percentile 20,157$ 1.19% Percentile Rank 80 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max AGM, Plan/Stew/Des/Con Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Director, Engineering & Construction 15,167$ 21,908$ 44.4% City of Fremont Community Development Director 15,509$ 20,938$ 35.0% City of San Jose Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement 13,144$ 20,544$ 56.3% Alameda County Director, Community Development Agency 15,156$ 19,784$ 30.5% City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV 14,796$ 18,880$ 27.6% Santa Clara County Director Department of Planning & Development 14,673$ 18,828$ 28.3% City of Berkeley Director of Planning 13,521$ 18,588$ 37.5% East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Plan/Stew/Des/Con 14,529$ 18,547$ 27.7% City of Oakland Director of Planning & Building 12,214$ 18,320$ 50.0% Contra Costa County Public Works Director 14,771$ 17,955$ 21.6% San Mateo County Director of Community Development 13,933$ 17,413$ 25.0% Marin County Director of Community Development 15,687$ 17,293$ 10.2% City of Pleasanton Director of Community Development 16,988$ City of Hayward Director of Development Services 13,868$ 16,858$ 21.6% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Assistant General Manager 13,468$ 16,820$ 24.9% Sonoma County Director Permit & Resource Management 13,138$ 15,970$ 21.6% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 8/16 Coefficient of Variance 9% Number of Observations 15 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 18546.66 18,473$ 0.40% Labor Market Median 18,320$ 1.22% 25th Percentile 17,141$ 7.58% 75th Percentile 19,332$ -4.24% Percentile Rank 56 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max AGM, Public Safety Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Chief of Police 28,563$ Santa Clara County Sheriff 24,989$ City of Oakland Chief of Police 19,482$ 24,923$ 27.9% City of Fremont Police Chief 17,678$ 24,611$ 39.2% City of San Jose Chief of Police 14,925$ 23,327$ 56.3% Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner 22,431$ San Mateo County Sheriff - Elective 21,892$ Alameda County Sheriff 21,434$ City of Berkeley Police Chief 14,892$ 20,465$ 37.4% East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Public Safety 15,983$ 20,400$ 27.6% Marin County Sheriff 20,335$ City of Hayward Chief of Police 15,931$ 19,363$ 21.5% Sonoma County Sheriff-Coroner 18,728$ City of Pleasanton Police Chief 18,082$ East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 10/14 Coefficient of Variance 13% Number of Observations 13 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 20399.6 22,242$ -9.03% Labor Market Median 21,892$ -7.32% 25th Percentile 20,335$ 0.31% 75th Percentile 24,611$ -20.65% Percentile Rank 29 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Aquatic Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of San Jose Division Manager 8,860$ 13,532$ 52.7% City of Berkeley Waterfront Manager 9,856$ 11,909$ 20.8% East Bay Regional Park District Aquatic Manager 9,086$ 11,591$ 27.6% City and County of San Francisco Manager I 9,031$ 11,529$ 27.7% City of Pleasanton Recreation Manager 10,446$ City of Oakland Recreation General Supervisor 7,193$ 8,832$ 22.8% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank -- Aquatic ManagerKurt Coefficient of Variance I.D. Aquatic ManagerObs Number of Observations 5 Market Percent Variability Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11590.8 I.D. -- Labor Market Median I.D. -- Aquatic Manager25 25th Percentile I.D. -- Aquatic Manager75 75th Percentile I.D. -- Percentile Rank -- District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Assistant District Counsel II Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread Santa Clara County Assistant County Counsel 18,549$ 23,799$ 28.3% Alameda County Chief Assistant County Counsel 18,112$ 23,514$ 29.8% City of San Jose Assistant City Attorney 16,528$ 23,448$ 41.9% San Mateo County Assistant County Counsel 18,625$ 23,282$ 25.0% City and County of San Francisco Confidential Chief Attorney II (Civil & Criminal) 18,285$ 22,228$ 21.6% City of Oakland Assistant City Attorney 15,709$ 19,286$ 22.8% City of Fremont Assistant City Attorney 13,885$ 18,745$ 35.0% Marin County Assistant County Counsel 16,352$ 18,113$ 10.8% Contra Costa County Assistant County Counsel 14,287$ 17,366$ 21.6% East Bay Regional Park District Assistant District Counsel 13,205$ 16,851$ 27.6% Sonoma County Assistant District Counsel 13,698$ 16,652$ 21.6% City of Berkeley Assistant City Attorney 12,370$ 16,550$ 33.8% City of Pleasanton Assistant City Attorney 14,771$ City of Hayward Assistant City Attorney 11,913$ 14,482$ 21.6% East Bay MUD Assistant General Counsel 13,744$ 9,852$ -28.3% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Assistant General Counsel II 12,215$ 1,526$ -87.5% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 10/16 Coefficient of Variance 34% Number of Observations 15 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 16851.46 17,574$ -4.29% Labor Market Median 18,113$ -7.49% 25th Percentile 15,661$ 7.07% 75th Percentile 22,755$ -35.03% Percentile Rank 38 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Assistant Finance Officer Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director V 15,754$ 20,102$ 27.6% Santa Clara County Controller Treasurer 14,968$ 19,208$ 28.3% Contra Costa County Auditor/Controller 18,800$ Alameda County Auditor/Controller 18,034$ East Bay MUD Controller 12,448$ 17,981$ 44.4% City of San Jose Assistant Director 11,490$ 17,911$ 55.9% San Mateo County Assistant Controller 13,269$ 16,588$ 25.0% City of Fremont Deputy Director of Finance 11,424$ 15,422$ 35.0% Marin County Assistant Director of Finance 12,140$ 14,754$ 21.5% East Bay Regional Park District Assistant Finance Officer 10,988$ 14,019$ 27.6% City of Hayward Deputy Director of Finance 11,516$ 13,997$ 21.5% City of Oakland Assistant Controller 11,160$ 13,703$ 22.8% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Administrative Services Manager 11,230$ 13,650$ 21.5% Sonoma County Assistant Auditor/Controller 10,691$ 12,996$ 21.6% City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 10/14 Coefficient of Variance 15% Number of Observations 13 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 14019.2 16,396$ -16.95% Labor Market Median 16,588$ -18.32% 25th Percentile 13,997$ 0.16% 75th Percentile 18,034$ -28.64% Percentile Rank 25 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Audit Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Berkeley City Auditor 14,622$ East Bay MUD Internal Audit Supervisor 9,728$ 14,049$ 44.4% City and County of San Francisco Manager III 10,454$ 13,345$ 27.6% Alameda County Division Chief, Auditor 10,681$ 12,962$ 21.4% City of San Jose Supervising Auditor 9,489$ 12,502$ 31.8% City of Oakland Principal Financial Analyst 10,122$ 12,429$ 22.8% Santa Clara County Supervising Internal Auditor 9,811$ 11,926$ 21.6% East Bay Regional Park District Audit Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Sonoma County Audit Manager 8,806$ 10,703$ 21.5% San Mateo County Senior Internal Auditor 8,353$ 10,443$ 25.0% Contra Costa County Supervising Accountant-Auditor 7,793$ 9,472$ 21.6% City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Audit ManagerSkew East Bay Regional Park District Rank 8/11 Audit ManagerKurt Coefficient of Variance 13% Audit ManagerObs Number of Observations 10 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Audit ManagerMean Labor Market Mean 11067.33 12,245$ -10.64% Labor Market Median 12,466$ -12.63% Audit Manager25 25th Percentile 11,009$ 0.53% Audit Manager75 75th Percentile 13,249$ -19.71% Audit ManagerPrank Percentile Rank 26 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Budget Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of San Jose Assistant Budget Director 11,156$ 17,389$ 55.9% City of Berkeley Budget Manager 11,319$ 15,142$ 33.8% City of Fremont Finance Operations Manager 10,455$ 14,114$ 35.0% City and County of San Francisco Manager III 10,454$ 13,345$ 27.6% City of Oakland Principal Financial Analyst 10,122$ 12,429$ 22.8% Santa Clara County Principal Budget & Public Policy Analyst 8,314$ 12,288$ 47.8% East Bay MUD Supervising Accountant 10,143$ 11,742$ 15.8% Marin County Principal Administrative Analyst 9,480$ 11,471$ 21.0% East Bay Regional Park District Budget Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% City of Hayward Budget Officer 9,051$ 11,001$ 21.5% San Mateo County Financial Services Manager I 8,552$ 10,693$ 25.0% Contra Costa County Supervising Accountant 6,896$ 8,382$ 21.6% Alameda County Accounting Supervisor, PWA 6,869$ 8,360$ 21.7% City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 9/13 Budget ManagerKurt Coefficient of Variance 21% Budget ManagerObs Number of Observations 12 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 12,196$ -10.20% Labor Market Median 12,015$ -8.56% Budget Manager25 25th Percentile 10,924$ 1.29% Budget Manager75 75th Percentile 13,537$ -22.31% Percentile Rank 29 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Business Services Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Manager VI 12,996$ 16,586$ 27.6% City of Oakland Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation 12,923$ 15,868$ 22.8% Santa Clara County Asset Development Manager 11,244$ 13,684$ 21.7% City of Berkeley Manager of Economic Development 11,009$ 13,388$ 21.6% City of Hayward Economic Development Manager 10,842$ 13,179$ 21.6% City of Fremont Economic Development Manager 9,550$ 12,893$ 35.0% East Bay Regional Park District Business Services Manager 9,994$ 12,749$ 27.6% Alameda County Treasurer-Tax Collector Financial Manager 10,272$ 12,464$ 21.3% Contra Costa County Economic Development Manager 8,844$ 11,852$ 34.0% Sonoma County Business Development Manager 8,404$ 10,216$ 21.6% City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 7/10 Coefficient of Variance 15% Number of Observations 9 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 12748.66 13,348$ -4.70% Labor Market Median 13,179$ -3.37% 25th Percentile 12,464$ 2.23% 75th Percentile 13,684$ -7.34% Percentile Rank 33 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Capital Program Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Oakland Project Manager III 13,566$ 16,655$ 22.8% East Bay MUD Senior Civil Engineer 12,354$ 14,302$ 15.8% Alameda County Assistant Deputy Director, CDA 11,173$ 13,575$ 21.5% East Bay Regional Park District Capital Program Manager 9,086$ 11,591$ 27.6% Marin County Chief of Construction 8,483$ 10,213$ 20.4% City and County of San Francisco No Comparable Class City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank -- Coefficient of Variance I.D. Number of Observations 4 Market Percent Variability Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11590.8 I.D. -- Labor Market Median I.D. -- 25th Percentile I.D. -- 75th Percentile I.D. -- Percentile Rank -- District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Chief Information Officer Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread Santa Clara County Director, Information Technology 18,619$ 22,632$ 21.6% East Bay MUD Manager of Information Systems 14,439$ 20,857$ 44.4% City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV 14,796$ 18,880$ 27.6% City of San Jose Assistant Director 11,490$ 17,911$ 55.9% Marin County Assistant Director of Information Services and Technology 12,140$ 14,754$ 21.5% City of Oakland Information Systems Manager II 11,718$ 14,388$ 22.8% San Mateo County Information Services Department Division Manager 11,463$ 14,329$ 25.0% East Bay Regional Park District Chief Information Officer 10,988$ 14,019$ 27.6% City of Fremont Information Technology Manager 10,609$ 13,261$ 25.0% Sonoma County Information Systems Division Director 10,683$ 12,985$ 21.6% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Information Systems & Technology Manager 10,295$ 12,857$ 24.9% Contra Costa County Information Systems Manager II 9,541$ 11,598$ 21.6% Alameda County Information Systems Deputy Director 9,532$ 11,586$ 21.5% City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 8/13 Coefficient of Variance 24% Number of Observations 12 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 14019.2 15,503$ -10.59% Labor Market Median 14,359$ -2.42% 25th Percentile 12,953$ 7.60% 75th Percentile 18,153$ -29.49% Percentile Rank 43 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Chief, Design & Construction Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV 14,796$ 18,880$ 27.6% East Bay MUD Engineering Manager 12,762$ 18,433$ 44.4% City of Fremont City Engineer 13,457$ 18,167$ 35.0% City of Hayward Director of Public Works 14,510$ 17,637$ 21.5% City of Oakland Assistant Director, Public Works Agency 13,570$ 16,660$ 22.8% City of Berkeley Capital Improvement Programs Manager 12,370$ 16,550$ 33.8% City of Pleasanton Director of Engineering Srvcs/City Engineer 16,197$ San Mateo County Deputy Director of Public Works 12,634$ 15,798$ 25.0% Alameda County Deputy Director, GSA 12,863$ 15,643$ 21.6% Santa Clara County Chief of Construction Services 12,217$ 14,909$ 22.0% East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Design & Construction 10,988$ 14,019$ 27.6% Contra Costa County Deputy Public Works Director 11,453$ 13,921$ 21.6% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Engineering & Construction Manager 11,079$ 13,837$ 24.9% Sonoma County Deputy Director Engineering Construction 10,851$ 13,191$ 21.6% City of San Jose Principal Engineer/Architect 10,664$ 12,967$ 21.6% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 11/15 Coefficient of Variance 12% Number of Observations 14 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 14019.2 15,914$ -13.51% Labor Market Median 15,997$ -14.11% 25th Percentile 14,168$ -1.06% 75th Percentile 17,393$ -24.06% Percentile Rank 24 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Chief, Human Resources Officer Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Human Resources Director 16,995$ 21,688$ 27.6% East Bay MUD Manager of Human Resources 14,439$ 20,857$ 44.4% City of San Jose Human Resources Director 13,144$ 20,544$ 56.3% San Mateo County Director of Human Resources 15,359$ 19,197$ 25.0% City of Fremont Director of Human Resources 14,182$ 19,146$ 35.0% Contra Costa County Director of Human Resources 15,675$ 19,054$ 21.6% City of Berkeley Director of Human Resources 13,521$ 18,588$ 37.5% City of Oakland Director of Human Resources Management 12,214$ 18,320$ 50.0% Marin County Human Resources Director 16,224$ 17,886$ 10.2% Santa Clara County Deputy Director, Employee Services Agency 13,215$ 16,956$ 28.3% East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Human Resources Officer 13,205$ 16,851$ 27.6% Sonoma County Director of Human Resources 13,662$ 16,607$ 21.6% City of Hayward Director of Human Resources 13,511$ 16,422$ 21.5% City of Pleasanton Director of Human Resources/Labor Relations 16,197$ Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Human Resources Manager 10,295$ 12,857$ 24.9% Alameda County Human Resource Services Manager 9,941$ 12,503$ 25.8% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 11/16 Coefficient of Variance 15% Number of Observations 15 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 16851.46 17,788$ -5.56% Labor Market Median 18,320$ -8.72% 25th Percentile 16,514$ 2.00% 75th Percentile 19,171$ -13.77% Percentile Rank 34 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Chief, Interp & Rec Svcs Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director III 12,996$ 16,586$ 27.6% City of Oakland Assistant Director, Parks & Recreation 12,923$ 15,868$ 22.8% City of San Jose Deputy Director 10,033$ 15,629$ 55.8% City of Fremont Deputy Director, Community Services 11,424$ 15,422$ 35.0% East Bay MUD Manager of Watershed & Recreation 10,473$ 15,128$ 44.4% East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Interp & Rec Svcs 10,988$ 14,019$ 27.6% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Visitor Services Manager 11,079$ 13,837$ 24.9% City of Berkeley Recreation & Youth Services Manager 10,171$ 12,290$ 20.8% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 6/8 Coefficient of Variance 10% Number of Observations 7 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 14019.2 14,966$ -6.75% Labor Market Median 15,422$ -10.00% 25th Percentile 14,483$ -3.30% 75th Percentile 15,748$ -12.33% Percentile Rank 19 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Chief, Land Acquisition Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Manager of Real Estate Services 11,558$ 16,696$ 44.5% Marin County Assistant Director of Public Works 13,744$ 15,123$ 10.0% City of Oakland Real Estate Services Manager 11,718$ 14,388$ 22.8% East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Land Acquisition 10,988$ 14,019$ 27.6% City of Fremont Facilities and Real Property Manager 10,265$ 13,857$ 35.0% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Real Property Manager 11,079$ 13,837$ 24.9% City and County of San Francisco Principal Real Property Officer 11,299$ 13,730$ 21.5% Santa Clara County Manager of Real Estate Assets 11,244$ 13,698$ 21.8% San Mateo County Real Property Services Manager 10,397$ 12,997$ 25.0% Alameda County Facilities Manager 8,511$ 11,937$ 40.3% Contra Costa County Principal Real Property Agent 9,438$ 11,472$ 21.6% City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 4/11 Coefficient of Variance 11% Number of Observations 10 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 14019.2 13,774$ 1.75% Labor Market Median 13,784$ 1.68% 25th Percentile 13,172$ 6.04% 75th Percentile 14,255$ -1.68% Percentile Rank 70 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Chief, Maint & Skilled Trades Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV 14,796$ 18,880$ 27.6% East Bay MUD Mgr of Facilities Maintenance & Construction 12,142$ 17,539$ 44.4% City of Oakland Assistant Director, Public Works Agency 13,570$ 16,660$ 22.8% City of Fremont Deputy Dir, Maintenance & Bus Operations 11,792$ 15,919$ 35.0% San Mateo County Deputy Director of Public Works 12,634$ 15,798$ 25.0% Alameda County Deputy Director, GSA 12,863$ 15,643$ 21.6% City of San Jose Deputy Director 10,033$ 15,629$ 55.8% City of Berkeley Deputy Director of Public Works 11,661$ 15,600$ 33.8% Marin County Assistant Director of Public Works 13,744$ 15,123$ 10.0% East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Maint & Skilled Trades 10,988$ 14,019$ 27.6% Contra Costa County Deputy Public Works Director 11,453$ 13,921$ 21.6% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Land & Facilities Services Manager 11,079$ 13,837$ 24.9% Sonoma County General Services Deputy Director 10,234$ 12,439$ 21.5% City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 10/13 Coefficient of Variance 11% Number of Observations 12 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 14019.2 15,582$ -11.15% Labor Market Median 15,636$ -11.53% 25th Percentile 14,823$ -5.73% 75th Percentile 16,104$ -14.87% Percentile Rank 19 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Chief, Park Operations Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Oakland Assistant Director, Public Works Agency 13,570$ 16,660$ 22.8% City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director III 12,996$ 16,586$ 27.6% Santa Clara County Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation 12,621$ 16,190$ 28.3% City of San Jose Deputy Director 10,033$ 15,629$ 55.8% City of Berkeley Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation & Waterfront 11,661$ 15,600$ 33.8% East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Park Operations 12,092$ 15,441$ 27.7% City of Fremont Deputy Director, Community Services 11,424$ 15,422$ 35.0% San Mateo County Assistant Director of Parks 12,035$ 15,045$ 25.0% Marin County Assistant Director of Parks and Open Space 13,213$ 14,536$ 10.0% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Operations Manager 11,079$ 13,837$ 24.9% City of Pleasanton Assistant Director of Operations Services 13,254$ Sonoma County Deputy Director of Regional Parks 9,963$ 12,111$ 21.6% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 6/12 Coefficient of Variance 10% Number of Observations 11 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 15440.53 14,988$ 2.93% Labor Market Median 15,422$ 0.12% 25th Percentile 14,186$ 8.12% 75th Percentile 15,909$ -3.04% Percentile Rank 51 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Chief, Planning Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Manager of Regulatory Compliance 12,762$ 18,433$ 44.4% Santa Clara County Planning Manager 13,215$ 16,956$ 28.3% City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director III 12,996$ 16,586$ 27.6% City of Fremont Deputy Director, Community Development 11,792$ 15,919$ 35.0% City of Oakland Deputy Director/City Planner 12,919$ 15,863$ 22.8% Alameda County Deputy Director, CDA 12,863$ 15,643$ 21.6% City of San Jose Deputy Director 10,033$ 15,629$ 55.8% City of Hayward Deputy Director of Development Services 12,607$ 15,326$ 21.6% City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Manager 12,269$ 14,654$ 19.4% City of Pleasanton Planning Manager/Deputy Dir of CD 14,541$ San Mateo County Deputy Director of Community Development 11,463$ 14,329$ 25.0% East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Planning 10,988$ 14,019$ 27.6% Contra Costa County Deputy Director Department of Conservation and Development11,453$ 13,921$ 21.6% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Planning Manager 11,079$ 13,837$ 24.9% Marin County Planning Manager 9,793$ 11,901$ 21.5% Sonoma County Deputy Director - Planning 9,783$ 11,891$ 21.5% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Chief, PlanningSkew East Bay Regional Park District Rank 12/16 Chief, PlanningKurt Coefficient of Variance 12% Chief, PlanningObs Number of Observations 15 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Chief, PlanningMean Labor Market Mean 14019.2 15,029$ -7.20% Labor Market Median 15,326$ -9.32% Chief, Planning25 25th Percentile 14,125$ -0.76% Chief, Planning75 75th Percentile 15,891$ -13.35% Chief, PlanningPrank Percentile Rank 23 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Chief, Stewardship Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director III 12,996$ 16,586$ 27.6% City of Fremont Deputy Director Community Development 11,792$ 15,919$ 35.0% Alameda County Deputy Director, Community Development Agency 12,863$ 15,643$ 21.6% City of San Jose Deputy Director 10,033$ 15,629$ 55.8% City of Hayward Deputy Director of Development Services 12,607$ 15,326$ 21.6% East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Stewardship 10,988$ 14,019$ 27.6% Marin County Chief of Natural Resources and Science 9,793$ 11,901$ 21.5% City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Oakland No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 6/7 Coefficient of Variance 11% Number of Observations 6 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 14019.2 15,167$ -8.19% Labor Market Median 15,636$ -11.53% 25th Percentile 15,402$ -9.86% 75th Percentile 15,850$ -13.06% Percentile Rank 12 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Clerk of the Board Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Manager II 9,698$ 12,378$ 27.6% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District District Clerk/Assistant to the GM 9,115$ 11,385$ 24.9% East Bay Regional Park District Clerk of the Board 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Sonoma County Chief Deputy Clerk of the Board 7,030$ 8,545$ 21.5% Contra Costa County Chief Assistant Clerk-Board of Supervisors 7,008$ 8,519$ 21.6% Alameda County Clerk, Board of Supervisors Service Manager 5,801$ 8,162$ 40.7% City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Oakland No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank -- Coefficient of Variance I.D. Number of Observations 5 Market Percent Variability Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 I.D. -- Labor Market Median I.D. -- Clerk of the Board25 25th Percentile I.D. -- Clerk of the Board75 75th Percentile I.D. -- Percentile Rank -- District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Communications and Records Mgr Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Manager V 12,103$ 15,453$ 27.7% City of Hayward Operations Support Services Manager 12,459$ 15,290$ 22.7% City of San Jose Division Manager 8,860$ 13,532$ 52.7% Santa Clara County Chief Communications Dispatcher 10,977$ 13,361$ 21.7% City of Oakland Police Communications Manager 10,224$ 12,554$ 22.8% City of Fremont Public Safety Communications Manager 8,655$ 11,684$ 35.0% East Bay Regional Park District Communications and Records Mgr 9,086$ 11,591$ 27.6% Alameda County Fire Dispatch Manager 9,227$ 11,328$ 22.8% San Mateo County Communications Program Services Manager 8,980$ 11,225$ 25.0% City of Berkeley Communications Manager 8,924$ 10,956$ 22.8% Contra Costa County Telecommunications Manager 8,841$ 10,746$ 21.6% City of Pleasanton Police Support Services Manager 10,447$ Sonoma County Communications Dispatch Manager 7,936$ 9,648$ 21.6% East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 7/13 Coefficient of Variance 15% Number of Observations 12 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11590.8 12,185$ -5.13% Labor Market Median 11,506$ 0.73% 25th Percentile 10,904$ 5.93% 75th Percentile 13,404$ -15.64% Percentile Rank 52 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Community Relations Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Customer Services Manager 10,473$ 15,128$ 44.4% City of Berkeley Assistant to the City Manager 10,732$ 14,103$ 31.4% City and County of San Francisco Public Relations Manager 10,229$ 12,437$ 21.6% City of San Jose Public Information Manager 9,744$ 11,926$ 22.4% City of Fremont Communications Manager 8,795$ 11,873$ 35.0% City of Hayward Communications & Marketing Officer / Public Information Officer 9,578$ 11,645$ 21.6% San Mateo County Communications Officer 8,980$ 11,225$ 25.0% East Bay Regional Park District Community Relations Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Alameda County Public Information Officer 7,159$ 10,970$ 53.2% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Recreation Department Manager 8,993$ 10,929$ 21.5% Contra Costa County Chief Public Communications Officer 8,535$ 10,374$ 21.6% City of Pleasanton Community Relations Manager/PIO 9,955$ Sonoma County Recreation and Educational Services Manager 7,851$ 9,543$ 21.6% City of Oakland No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 8/13 Coefficient of Variance 14% Number of Observations 12 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 11,676$ -5.50% Labor Market Median 11,435$ -3.32% 25th Percentile 10,790$ 2.51% 75th Percentile 12,054$ -8.91% Percentile Rank 40 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Construction Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Manager VII 13,923$ 17,767$ 27.6% East Bay MUD Supervising Administrative Engineer 11,762$ 13,615$ 15.8% Alameda County Assistant Deputy Director, CDA 11,173$ 13,575$ 21.5% Santa Clara County Manager of Construction 10,540$ 12,811$ 21.5% Contra Costa County Supervising Capital Facilities Project Manager 9,917$ 12,054$ 21.6% East Bay Regional Park District Construction Manager 9,086$ 11,591$ 27.6% City of Pleasanton Construction Services Manager 11,457$ City of San Jose Construction Manager 9,363$ 11,405$ 21.8% City of Oakland Construction Inspector Supervisor II 9,178$ 11,269$ 22.8% City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 6/9 Coefficient of Variance 17% Number of Observations 8 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11590.8 12,994$ -12.11% Labor Market Median 12,433$ -7.27% 25th Percentile 11,444$ 1.27% 75th Percentile 13,585$ -17.21% Percentile Rank 32 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Deputy General Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread Santa Clara County Chief Operating Officer 24,158$ 30,988$ 28.3% City and County of San Francisco Department Head V 21,108$ 26,938$ 27.6% City of San Jose Assistant City Manager 16,528$ 25,793$ 56.1% San Mateo County Assistant County Manager 19,810$ 24,759$ 25.0% East Bay Regional Park District Deputy General Manager 18,462$ 23,572$ 27.7% City of Fremont Assistant City Manager 16,619$ 22,435$ 35.0% City of Oakland Assistant City Administrator 14,518$ 21,777$ 50.0% Contra Costa County Chief Assistant County Administrator 17,855$ 21,704$ 21.6% City of Berkeley Deputy City Manager 14,696$ 21,614$ 47.1% Alameda County Assistant County Administrator 17,661$ 21,460$ 21.5% City of Hayward Assistant City Manager 15,961$ 19,399$ 21.5% Sonoma County Assistant County Administrator 15,271$ 18,561$ 21.5% Marin County Assistant County Administrator 15,936$ 17,571$ 10.3% City of Pleasanton Assistant City Manager 16,316$ Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Assistant General Manager 11,511$ 13,991$ 21.5% East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 5/15 Coefficient of Variance 21% Number of Observations 14 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 23571.6 21,665$ 8.09% Labor Market Median 21,659$ 8.11% 25th Percentile 18,771$ 20.37% 75th Percentile 24,178$ -2.57% Percentile Rank 73 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Environmental Program Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Environmental Affairs Officer 11,847$ 17,112$ 44.4% Alameda County Environmental Program Manager 10,185$ 12,386$ 21.6% City and County of San Francisco Principal Environmental Specialist 9,377$ 11,397$ 21.5% East Bay Regional Park District Environmental Program Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% City of San Jose Environmental Services Program Manager 8,620$ 10,795$ 25.2% City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Oakland No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank -- Coefficient of Variance I.D. Number of Observations 4 Market Percent Variability Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 I.D. -- Labor Market Median I.D. -- 25th Percentile I.D. -- 75th Percentile I.D. -- Percentile Rank -- District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Environmental Services Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Manager of Environmental Compliance 11,002$ 15,892$ 44.4% City of Oakland Environmental Services Manager 11,718$ 14,388$ 22.8% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Natural Resources Manager 11,079$ 13,837$ 24.9% Alameda County Director, Environmental Health 11,338$ 13,754$ 21.3% City of Fremont Environmental Services Manager 10,098$ 13,633$ 35.0% Sonoma County Water Agency Environmental Resources Mgr 10,528$ 12,798$ 21.6% City of Hayward Environmental Services Manager 10,478$ 12,737$ 21.6% City and County of San Francisco Manager II 9,698$ 12,378$ 27.6% City of Berkeley Manager of Environmental Health 10,219$ 12,331$ 20.7% City of San Jose Environmental Sustainability Manager 9,549$ 11,920$ 24.8% East Bay Regional Park District Environmental Services Manager 9,086$ 11,591$ 27.6% City of Pleasanton Environmental Services Manager 11,457$ Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 11/12 Coefficient of Variance 10% Number of Observations 11 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11590.8 13,193$ -13.82% Labor Market Median 12,798$ -10.41% 25th Percentile 12,354$ -6.59% 75th Percentile 13,796$ -19.02% Percentile Rank 3 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Facilities Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Oakland Manager, Building Services 11,718$ 14,388$ 22.8% East Bay Regional Park District Facilities Manager 9,086$ 11,591$ 27.6% City of Hayward Facilities and Building Manager 9,495$ 11,541$ 21.5% Sonoma County Facilities Manager 8,535$ 10,375$ 21.6% Alameda County No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco No Comparable Class City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank -- Coefficient of Variance I.D. Number of Observations 3 Market Percent Variability Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11590.8 I.D. -- Labor Market Median I.D. -- Facilities Manager25 25th Percentile I.D. -- Facilities Manager75 75th Percentile I.D. -- Percentile Rank -- District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Fisheries Program Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread Sonoma County Water Agency Environmental Resources Mgr 10,528$ 12,798$ 21.6% City and County of San Francisco Manager II 9,698$ 12,378$ 27.6% East Bay MUD Supervising Fisheries/Wildlife Biologist 9,895$ 11,455$ 15.8% San Mateo County Natural Resources Manager 8,980$ 11,225$ 25.0% East Bay Regional Park District Fisheries Program Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Oakland No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank -- Coefficient of Variance I.D. Number of Observations 4 Market Percent Variability Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 I.D. -- Labor Market Median I.D. -- 25th Percentile I.D. -- 75th Percentile I.D. -- Percentile Rank -- District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Fleet Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Manager of Fleet and Construction Support 10,473$ 15,128$ 44.4% Santa Clara County Fleet Manager 10,403$ 12,649$ 21.6% Alameda County Logistics Services Manager 9,721$ 11,937$ 22.8% City of Berkeley Equipment Superintendent 9,856$ 11,909$ 20.8% San Mateo County Vehicle & Equipment Mgr 9,429$ 11,788$ 25.0% City and County of San Francisco Automotive Transit Shop Supervisor I 11,635$ East Bay Regional Park District Fleet Manager 9,086$ 11,591$ 27.6% City of Hayward Fleet Maintenance Manager 9,495$ 11,541$ 21.5% City of San Jose Fleet Manager 9,039$ 11,327$ 25.3% City of Fremont Fleet Maintenance Manager 8,150$ 11,002$ 35.0% City of Oakland Equipment Services Superintendent 8,741$ 10,731$ 22.8% Sonoma County Fleet Manager 8,535$ 10,375$ 21.6% Contra Costa County Fleet Manager 8,414$ 10,227$ 21.6% City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Fleet ManagerSkew East Bay Regional Park District Rank 7/13 Fleet ManagerKurt Coefficient of Variance 11% Fleet ManagerObs Number of Observations 12 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Fleet ManagerMean Labor Market Mean 11590.8 11,688$ -0.83% Labor Market Median 11,588$ 0.03% Fleet Manager25 25th Percentile 10,935$ 5.66% Fleet Manager75 75th Percentile 11,916$ -2.80% Fleet ManagerPrank Percentile Rank 50 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max General Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread Santa Clara County County Executive 28,475$ 31,467$ 10.5% Contra Costa County County Administrator 27,974$ 30,842$ 10.2% City of Oakland City Administrator 23,849$ 29,811$ 25.0% Alameda County County Administrator 22,495$ 29,319$ 30.3% San Mateo County County Manager 28,843$ City of San Jose City Manager 23,220$ 28,138$ 21.2% East Bay Regional Park District General Manager 21,374$ 27,290$ 27.7% East Bay MUD General Manager 27,088$ City of Fremont City Manager 25,913$ Marin County County Administrator 23,059$ 25,612$ 11.1% City of Berkeley City Manager 25,119$ Sonoma County County Administrator 22,927$ City of Hayward City Manager 22,655$ Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District General Manager 20,625$ City of Pleasanton City Manager 19,007$ Livermore Area Recreation and Park District General Manager 11,794$ City and County of San Francisco No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 7/16 Coefficient of Variance 21% Number of Observations 15 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 27289.6 25,277$ 7.37% Labor Market Median 25,913$ 5.04% General Manager25 25th Percentile 22,791$ 16.49% General Manager75 75th Percentile 29,081$ -6.56% Percentile Rank 59 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Government Affairs Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Manager of Regulatory Compliance 12,762$ 18,433$ 44.4% City of Berkeley Assistant to the City Manager 10,732$ 14,103$ 31.4% Sonoma County Community & Governmental Affairs Manager 11,011$ 13,384$ 21.5% City of Oakland Assistant to the City Administrator 10,125$ 12,433$ 22.8% City and County of San Francisco Government and Public Affairs Manager 9,819$ 11,936$ 21.6% San Mateo County County Legislative Officer 9,429$ 11,788$ 25.0% East Bay Regional Park District Government Affairs Manager 9,086$ 11,591$ 27.6% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 7/7 Coefficient of Variance 18% Number of Observations 6 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11590.8 13,680$ -18.02% Labor Market Median 12,908$ -11.37% 25th Percentile 12,060$ -4.05% 75th Percentile 13,923$ -20.13% Percentile Rank 0 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Grants Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread Alameda County Grants Program Manager 6,732$ 12,499$ 85.7% East Bay Regional Park District Grants Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% City of Oakland Budget and Grants Administrator 7,931$ 9,738$ 22.8% Sonoma County Administrative Services Officer II 7,851$ 9,543$ 21.6% City and County of San Francisco No Comparable Class City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank -- Grants ManagerKurt Coefficient of Variance I.D. Grants ManagerObs Number of Observations 3 Market Percent Variability Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 I.D. -- Labor Market Median I.D. -- Grants Manager25 25th Percentile I.D. -- Grants Manager75 75th Percentile I.D. -- Percentile Rank -- District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Human Resources Analyst I Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Fremont Human Resources Analyst III 9,356$ 12,632$ 35.0% East Bay MUD Human Resources Analyst II 8,966$ 10,379$ 15.8% City of Pleasanton Management Analyst 9,955$ City of Berkeley Associate Human Resources Analyst 8,160$ 9,826$ 20.4% San Mateo County Management Analyst 7,755$ 9,695$ 25.0% City of Hayward Human Resources Analyst II 7,859$ 9,551$ 21.5% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Management Analyst II 7,498$ 9,365$ 24.9% Santa Clara County Human Resources Analyst 7,685$ 9,344$ 21.6% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Human Resources Officer 7,381$ 8,973$ 21.6% Contra Costa County Human Resources Analyst 6,673$ 8,942$ 34.0% Alameda County Human Resources Analyst II 6,197$ 8,901$ 43.6% City and County of San Francisco Human Resources Analyst 6,047$ 8,899$ 47.2% Marin County Human Resources Analyst II 7,287$ 8,812$ 20.9% East Bay Regional Park District Human Resources Analyst I 7,292$ 8,249$ 13.1% City of Oakland Human Resources Analyst 6,466$ 7,939$ 22.8% City of San Jose Analyst II 6,289$ 7,642$ 21.5% Sonoma County Human Resources Analyst II 6,072$ 7,380$ 21.5% East Bay Regional Park District Rank 14/17 Coefficient of Variance 13% Number of Observations 16 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 8248.93 9,265$ -12.31% Labor Market Median 9,159$ -11.03% 25th Percentile 8,877$ -7.61% 75th Percentile 9,727$ -17.92% Percentile Rank 16 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Information Services Network Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Information Systems Division Manager 12,448$ 17,981$ 44.4% City and County of San Francisco Manager V 12,103$ 15,453$ 27.7% Santa Clara County Information Systems Manager III 11,635$ 14,185$ 21.9% City of Berkeley Information Systems Manager 11,225$ 13,567$ 20.9% Marin County Enterprise Systems Manager 10,911$ 13,260$ 21.5% City of Oakland Information Systems Manager I 10,122$ 12,429$ 22.8% City of Hayward Information Technology Manager 10,057$ 12,227$ 21.6% San Mateo County Information Technology Manager 9,429$ 11,788$ 25.0% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Information Technology Program Administrator 9,115$ 11,385$ 24.9% Sonoma County Information Systems Project Manager 9,295$ 11,298$ 21.6% East Bay Regional Park District Information Services Network Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Contra Costa County Network Manager 8,249$ 11,055$ 34.0% City of San Jose Program Manager I 7,999$ 9,851$ 23.1% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 11/13 Coefficient of Variance 17% Number of Observations 12 Market Percent Variability High Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 12,873$ -16.32% Labor Market Median 12,328$ -11.39% 25th Percentile 11,363$ -2.67% 75th Percentile 13,721$ -23.98% Percentile Rank 10 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Maintenance Superintendent Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Manager V 12,103$ 15,453$ 27.7% City of Oakland Manager, Building Services 11,718$ 14,388$ 22.8% East Bay Regional Park District Maintenance Superintendent 9,994$ 12,749$ 27.6% San Mateo County Facilities Services Manager 9,903$ 12,379$ 25.0% East Bay MUD Assistant Construction & Maintenance Supt 10,657$ 12,338$ 15.8% Santa Clara County Assistant Manager, Building Operations 10,050$ 12,217$ 21.6% City of Pleasanton Operations Superintendent 12,051$ Alameda County Facilities Manager 8,511$ 11,937$ 40.3% City of Berkeley Facilities Maintenance Superintendent 9,856$ 11,909$ 20.8% City of San Jose Building Management Administrator 9,489$ 11,898$ 25.4% City of Hayward Facilities & Building Manager 9,495$ 11,541$ 21.5% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Area Manager 9,115$ 11,385$ 24.9% Contra Costa County Facilities Maintenance Manager 8,894$ 10,810$ 21.6% City of Fremont Street Maintenance Manager 7,996$ 10,795$ 35.0% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 3/14 Coefficient of Variance 11% Number of Observations 13 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 12748.66 12,239$ 4.00% Labor Market Median 11,937$ 6.36% 25th Percentile 11,541$ 9.48% 75th Percentile 12,338$ 3.22% Percentile Rank 85 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Management Analyst Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread Sonoma County Principal Administrative Analyst 9,356$ 11,371$ 21.5% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Senior Management Analyst 8,680$ 10,842$ 24.9% City of San Jose Senior Executive Analyst 7,083$ 10,820$ 52.8% San Mateo County Senior Management Analyst 8,552$ 10,693$ 25.0% City of Berkeley Senior Management Analyst 8,722$ 10,542$ 20.9% East Bay Regional Park District Management Analyst 8,265$ 10,542$ 27.6% City of Hayward Senior Management Analyst 8,642$ 10,501$ 21.5% Contra Costa County Senior Management Analyst 6,767$ 10,497$ 55.1% East Bay MUD Management Analyst II 8,966$ 10,379$ 15.8% City of Fremont Management Analyst II 7,609$ 10,272$ 35.0% Santa Clara County Senior Management Analyst 8,227$ 10,005$ 21.6% City of Pleasanton Management Analyst 9,955$ City and County of San Francisco Senior Administrative Analyst 8,175$ 9,934$ 21.5% City of Oakland City Administrator Analyst 6,078$ 9,117$ 50.0% Marin County Administrative Analyst II 7,287$ 8,812$ 20.9% Alameda County Management Analyst 6,219$ 8,337$ 34.1% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 6/16 Coefficient of Variance 8% Number of Observations 15 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 10542.13 10,139$ 3.83% Labor Market Median 10,379$ 1.55% 25th Percentile 9,945$ 5.67% 75th Percentile 10,618$ -0.72% Percentile Rank 71 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Park Unit Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Oakland Manager, Parks & Recreation Zone 11,718$ 14,388$ 22.8% City of Pleasanton Operations Superintendent 13,700$ San Mateo County Park Superintendent 10,913$ 13,643$ 25.0% East Bay Regional Park District Park Unit Manager 9,994$ 12,749$ 27.6% City and County of San Francisco Manager II 9,698$ 12,378$ 27.6% City of Berkeley Parks Superintendent 9,856$ 11,909$ 20.8% Marin County Park/Open Space Superintendent 9,792$ 11,901$ 21.5% Santa Clara County Manager of Park Maintenance Services 9,482$ 11,525$ 21.6% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Area Manager 9,115$ 11,385$ 24.9% Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Park and Facilities Manager 8,993$ 10,929$ 21.5% City of San Jose Parks Manager 8,916$ 10,865$ 21.9% City of Fremont Parks/Urban Landscape Manager 7,996$ 10,795$ 35.0% Sonoma County Parks and Grounds Maintenance Manager 8,512$ 10,347$ 21.6% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 4/13 Coefficient of Variance 11% Number of Observations 12 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 12748.66 11,980$ 6.03% Labor Market Median 11,713$ 8.12% 25th Percentile 10,913$ 14.40% 75th Percentile 12,694$ 0.43% Percentile Rank 75 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Police Captain Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Fremont Police Captain 14,699$ 19,843$ 35.0% City of Hayward Police Captain 14,548$ 17,680$ 21.5% Santa Clara County Captain 13,747$ 17,638$ 28.3% City and County of San Francisco Police Captain 17,461$ City of Oakland Captain of Police 17,391$ City of San Jose Police Captain 13,969$ 16,975$ 21.5% City of Berkeley Police Captain 14,786$ 16,858$ 14.0% East Bay Regional Park District Police Captain 13,205$ 16,851$ 27.6% City of Pleasanton Police Captain 16,475$ San Mateo County Sheriff's Captain 13,055$ 16,319$ 25.0% Alameda County Captain 13,406$ 16,285$ 21.5% Marin County Sheriff's Captain 13,768$ 15,181$ 10.3% Contra Costa County Captain 11,556$ 14,749$ 27.6% Sonoma County Sheriff's Captain 11,775$ 14,312$ 21.6% East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Police CaptainSkew East Bay Regional Park District Rank 8/14 Police CaptainKurt Coefficient of Variance 9% Police CaptainObs Number of Observations 13 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Police CaptainMean Labor Market Mean 16851.46 16,705$ 0.87% Labor Market Median 16,858$ -0.04% Police Captain25 25th Percentile 16,285$ 3.36% Police Captain75 75th Percentile 17,461$ -3.62% Police CaptainPrank Percentile Rank 50 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Police Lieutenant Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City of Fremont Police Lieutenant 12,762$ 17,228$ 35.0% City of Berkeley Police Lieutenant 12,906$ 14,706$ 13.9% City of San Jose Police Lieutenant 12,066$ 14,673$ 21.6% City of Oakland Lieutenant of Police 14,417$ Alameda County Lieutenant 12,853$ 14,161$ 10.2% San Mateo County Sheriff's Lieutenant 11,279$ 14,101$ 25.0% City of Pleasanton Police Lieutenant 14,030$ East Bay Regional Park District Police Lieutenant 10,988$ 14,019$ 27.6% City and County of San Francisco Police Lieutenant 13,819$ City of Hayward Police Lieutenant 12,873$ 13,499$ 4.9% Marin County Sheriff's Lieutenant 11,905$ 13,132$ 10.3% Santa Clara County Sheriff's Lieutenant 10,635$ 12,929$ 21.6% Contra Costa County Lieutenant 9,805$ 12,514$ 27.6% Sonoma County Sheriff's Lieutenant 10,256$ 12,467$ 21.6% East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 8/14 Coefficient of Variance 9% Number of Observations 13 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 14019.2 13,975$ 0.31% Labor Market Median 14,030$ -0.08% Police Lieutenant25 25th Percentile 13,132$ 6.33% Police Lieutenant75 75th Percentile 14,417$ -2.84% Percentile Rank 50 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Risk Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay MUD Risk Manager 10,473$ 15,128$ 44.4% City of Oakland Claims and Risk Manager 11,721$ 14,392$ 22.8% City of Fremont Risk Manager 10,641$ 14,366$ 35.0% Alameda County Director, Risk Management 10,284$ 13,125$ 27.6% Santa Clara County Occupational Safety Environmental Compliance Program Manager 10,715$ 13,029$ 21.6% City and County of San Francisco Safety Officer 10,489$ 12,747$ 21.5% City of San Jose Risk Manager 8,747$ 12,360$ 41.3% Marin County Risk Manager 9,986$ 12,083$ 21.0% Contra Costa County Risk Manager 9,175$ 11,179$ 21.8% East Bay Regional Park District Risk and Safety Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Sonoma County Risk Manager 8,968$ 10,900$ 21.5% City of Berkeley Occupational Health & Safety Officer 8,424$ 10,179$ 20.8% City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Risk ManagerSkew East Bay Regional Park District Rank 10/12 Risk ManagerKurt Coefficient of Variance 12% Risk ManagerObs Number of Observations 11 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Risk ManagerMean Labor Market Mean 11067.33 12,681$ -14.58% Labor Market Median 12,747$ -15.17% Risk Manager25 25th Percentile 11,631$ -5.09% Risk Manager75 75th Percentile 13,746$ -24.20% Risk ManagerPrank Percentile Rank 16 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Trails Develop Program Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread East Bay Regional Park District Trails Develop Program Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Alameda County No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco No Comparable Class City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Oakland No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank -- Coefficient of Variance I.D. Number of Observations 0 Market Percent Variability Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 I.D. -- Labor Market Median I.D. -- 25th Percentile I.D. -- 75th Percentile I.D. -- Percentile Rank -- District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Wildland Veg Program Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread City and County of San Francisco Manager II 9,698$ 12,378$ 27.6% East Bay Regional Park District Wildland Veg Program Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Oakland No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class East Bay MUD No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank -- Coefficient of Variance I.D. Number of Observations 1 Market Percent Variability Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 I.D. -- Labor Market Median I.D. -- 25th Percentile I.D. -- 75th Percentile I.D. -- Percentile Rank -- District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY Statistics computed using range Control Point/Max Wildlife Program Manager Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max Spread Sonoma County Water Agency Environmental Resources Mgr 10,528$ 12,798$ 21.6% City and County of San Francisco Manager II 9,698$ 12,378$ 27.6% East Bay MUD Supervising Fisheries/Wildlife Biologist 9,895$ 11,455$ 15.8% San Mateo County Natural Resources Manager 8,980$ 11,225$ 25.0% East Bay Regional Park District Wildlife Program Manager 8,679$ 11,067$ 27.5% Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Resource Management Specialist III 8,268$ 10,324$ 24.9% Santa Clara County Parks Natural Resources Program Supervisor 7,950$ 9,666$ 21.6% Alameda County No Comparable Class City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Oakland No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Rank 5/7 Coefficient of Variance 11% Number of Observations 6 Market Percent Variability Moderate Value +/- Labor Market Mean 11067.33 11,308$ -2.17% Labor Market Median 11,340$ -2.46% 25th Percentile 10,549$ 4.68% 75th Percentile 12,147$ -9.76% Percentile Rank 37 District range max uses Step F and does not include merit steps.Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ap p e nd ix APPENDIX B TOTAL COMPENSATION DATA SHEETS SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Labor Market Summary - Median Total Compensation Class Title # of Obs.Base Base + Cash Gain/ Loss Base + Cash + Insurance Gain/ Loss Total Gain/ Loss Total Comp (Cash + Ins. + Ret.) Gain/ Loss Total Gain/ Loss Accounting Manager 10 -8.3%-8.3%0.0%-9.4%-1.1%-1.1%-14.4%-5.0%-6.1% Administrative Support Manager 10 -3.5%-4.0%-0.5%-3.3%0.8%0.3%3.1%6.4%6.6% AGM, District Counsel 15 -11.8%-11.8%0.0%-10.4%1.4%1.4%-9.6%0.8%2.2% AGM, Finance & Management Svcs/CFO15 -4.3%-9.8%-5.4%-7.2%2.5%-2.9%-6.1%1.2%-1.7% AGM, Operations 13 7.2%7.2%0.0%3.4%-3.9%-3.9%9.4%6.1%2.2% AGM, Plan/Stew/Des/Con 15 1.2%-1.5%-2.7%-1.2%0.3%-2.4%1.6%2.8%0.3% AGM, Public Safety 13 -7.3%-9.5%-2.1%-6.6%2.9%0.7%-41.5%-34.9%-34.2% Assistant District Counsel II 15 -7.5%-11.7%-4.2%-9.2%2.5%-1.7%-8.1%1.1%-0.6% Assistant Finance Officer 13 -18.3%-20.7%-2.4%-15.4%5.3%2.9%-15.2%0.3%3.2% Audit Manager 10 -12.6%-12.6%0.0%-10.8%1.8%1.8%-10.5%0.4%2.2% Budget Manager 12 -8.6%-8.6%0.0%-7.2%1.4%1.4%-7.5%-0.3%1.1% Chief Information Officer 12 -2.4%-3.4%-1.0%-1.5%1.9%0.9%0.0%1.6%2.5% Chief, Design & Construction 14 -14.1%-18.1%-4.0%-15.0%3.1%-0.8%-20.9%-5.9%-6.8% Chief, Human Resources Officer 15 -8.7%-8.7%0.0%-7.4%1.4%1.4%-11.7%-4.4%-3.0% Chief, Land Acquisition 10 1.7%1.2%-0.5%-0.7%-1.8%-2.3%7.3%8.0%5.6% Chief, Maint & Skilled Trades 12 -11.5%-15.4%-3.8%-12.3%3.1%-0.8%-13.3%-1.0%-1.8% Chief, Park Operations 11 0.1%-1.2%-1.3%1.3%2.6%1.2%-0.2%-1.5%-0.3% Chief, Planning 15 -9.3%-11.5%-2.2%-9.8%1.7%-0.5%-8.3%1.5%1.0% Communications and Records Mgr 12 0.7%-4.7%-5.4%-4.8%-0.1%-5.5%-3.0%1.7%-3.8% Community Relations Manager 12 -3.3%-4.3%-1.0%-1.7%2.6%1.6%-2.0%-0.3%1.3% Deputy General Manager 14 8.1%3.5%-4.7%3.7%0.3%-4.4%3.1%-0.6%-5.0% Environmental Services Manager 11 -10.4%-19.6%-9.2%-16.8%2.9%-6.4%-11.6%5.2%-1.1% Fleet Manager 12 0.0%0.0%0.0%1.5%1.4%1.4%0.2%-1.3%0.2% General Manager 15 5.0%-2.8%-7.9%-1.4%1.4%-6.5%-1.9%-0.5%-7.0% Human Resources Analyst I 16 -11.0%-14.0%-2.9%-10.3%3.7%0.7%-9.0%1.3%2.0% Information Services Network Manager 12 -11.4%-11.4%0.0%-8.4%3.0%3.0%-13.9%-5.5%-2.5% Maintenance Superintendent 13 6.4%3.6%-2.8%3.5%-0.1%-2.9%4.1%0.6%-2.3% Management Analyst 15 1.5%0.4%-1.2%0.3%-0.1%-1.3%2.0%1.7%0.4% Park Unit Manager 12 8.1%8.1%0.0%5.9%-2.2%-2.2%9.0%3.1%0.9% Police Captain 13 0.0%-4.1%-4.1%-2.3%1.9%-2.2%-27.5%-25.2%-27.5% Police Lieutenant 13 -0.1%-2.1%-2.0%-1.9%0.2%-1.8%-26.8%-24.9%-26.7% Risk Manager 11 -15.2%-15.2%0.0%-10.6%4.6%4.6%-9.4%1.2%5.7% Management Average 13 -4.4%-6.6%-2.2%-5.2%1.4%-0.8%-7.3%-2.1%-2.9% Park District range max uses Step F.B-1 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Prepared by Ralph Andersen & Associates Key to Headers on Benefit Data Sheets Survey Class - The Park District's survey job title Survey Agency - The survey agencies used in the survey sorted alphabetically Comparable Class - The job title determined to be comparable to the Park District's job classification Range Max. - The maximum (top step) monthly base salary (not including longevity, merit, or performance pay) Long. - Longevity pay; additional base salary for years of service, the maximum level in monthly dollars Def. Comp. - Deferred Compensation; employer paid deferred compensation contributions (including matching contributions); monthly dollars Ret. Pickup - Retirement Pick-up; retirement contributions paid by the employer on behalf of the employee (EPMC) for classic tier (in effect December 2012) Base + Cash - The cumulative total of Base Salary and Cash Benefits Health - The maximum monthly health insurance benefit paid by the employer for EE+2 (family) coverage, not including rarely used plans Dental - The maximum monthly dental insurance benefit paid by the employer for EE+2 (family) coverage, not including rarely used plans Vision - The maximum monthly vision benefit paid by the employer for EE+2 (if applicable), not including rarely used plans Base + Cash + Ins. - The cumulative total of Base Salary, Cash Benefits, and Insurance Benefits Emp. Ret. - The monthly cost of Employer Retirement (normal cost and unfunded actuarial liability) for classic tier (in effect December 2012) EE Cont to ER - The monthly cost of additional retirement contributions made by the employee towards the employer costs for classic tier (in effect December 2012) Ret. Form. - The retirement formula for the classic tier (in effect December 2012) Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. - The cumulative total of Base Salary, Cash Benefits, Insurance Benefits, and Retirement Benefits Statistics Mean/%+/-: The average of the survey data; the percentage above or below the mean Median/%+/-: This statistic represents the middle of the labor market. As such, half of the data is above the median and half is below the median. 75th Percentile/%+/-: This measurement is similar to the median except a different percentage of data is above a specific point in the ranking and the balance of data is below this point (i.e., for the 75th percentile, 25% of the data is above this point and 75% is below). The percentiles are calculated using an Excel spreadsheet function. %+/- The percent above/below the referenced statistic with negative numbers indicating the Park District is below the market statistic. Gain/Loss - The percentage gain/loss from each subtotal to the prior subtotal. B-2SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Accounting Manager 10 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Manager I $11,529 $11,529 $2,044 $166 $13,739 $2,279 2.3@62 $16,018 Alameda County No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Marin County Accounting Unit Manager $10,424 $10,424 $1,786 inc inc $12,210 $2,394 2@61.25 $14,605 San Mateo County Financial Services Manager I $10,693 $214 $10,907 $1,650 $127 $16 $12,700 $3,258 ($321)2@55.5 $15,638 Santa Clara County Controller Treasurer Acct Manager $11,538 $11,538 $2,785 $118 $10 $14,450 $2,713 ($924)2.5@55 $16,239 Sonoma County No Comparable Class City of Oakland Principal Financial Analyst $12,429 $12,429 $1,997 $106 $22 $14,555 $5,248 2.5@55 $19,803 City of Fremont Finance Operations Manager $14,114 $282 $14,396 $2,230 $128 $30 $16,785 $4,407 2@60 $21,192 City of Berkeley Accounting Manager $12,441 $373 $181 $995 $13,990 $2,066 $170 $16,226 $4,041 ($995)2.7@55 $19,272 City of Hayward Accounting Manager $12,724 $12,724 $1,798 $148 $14 $14,685 $3,976 ($382)2.5@55 $18,279 City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose Program Manager I $9,851 $9,851 $1,602 $150 $16 $11,618 $9,768 2.5@55 $21,386 East Bay MUD Accounting Systems Supervisor $12,646 $474 $13,120 $1,891 $214 $24 $15,248 $4,636 2.6@62 $19,884 East Bay Regional Park District Accounting Manager $11,067 $11,067 $1,997 $195 $13,260 $3,154 2.5@55 $16,414 Average $11,839 $12,091 $14,222 $18,232 % +/--7.0%-9.2%-7.3%-11.1% Median $11,984 $11,984 $14,502 $18,775 10 % +/--8.3%-8.3%-9.4%-14.4% 75th Percenile $12,595 $13,021 $15,107 $19,864 12 % +/--13.8%-17.7%-13.9%-21.0% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%-1.1%-5.0% Park District range max uses Step F.B-3 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Administrative Support Manager 10 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District District Clerk/Assistant to the GM $11,385 $114 $11,499 $2,020 $118 $10 $13,646 $2,138 2.5@55 $15,784 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Manager I $11,529 $11,529 $2,044 $166 $13,739 $2,279 2.3@62 $16,018 Alameda County No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County County Manager Office Manager $9,235 $185 $9,420 $1,650 $127 $16 $11,214 $2,814 ($277)2@55.5 $13,750 Santa Clara County Secretary to County Executive $10,459 $10,459 $2,785 $118 $10 $13,372 $2,460 ($838)2.5@55 $14,993 Sonoma County Department Administrative Services Director $10,747 $430 $11,177 $1,779 $90 $15 $13,061 $2,042 ($326)3@60 $14,777 City of Oakland Manager, Agency Administrative $14,388 $14,388 $1,997 $106 $22 $16,513 $6,076 2.5@55 $22,589 City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Berkeley Assistant to the City Manager $14,103 $423 $181 $1,128 $15,836 $2,066 $170 $18,072 $4,581 ($1,128)2.7@55 $21,524 City of Hayward Assistant to City Manager $10,613 $10,613 $1,798 $148 $14 $12,573 $3,316 ($318)2.5@55 $15,571 City of Pleasanton Assistant to the City Manager $11,841 $237 $12,078 $2,078 $141 $23 $14,320 $3,912 2.7@55 $18,232 City of San Jose No Comparable Class East Bay MUD Assistant to the General Manager $11,820 $11,820 $1,891 $214 $24 $13,948 $4,333 2.6@62 $18,281 East Bay Regional Park District Administrative Support Manager $11,067 $11,067 $1,997 $195 $13,260 $3,154 2.5@55 $16,414 Average $11,612 $11,882 $14,046 $17,152 % +/--4.9%-7.4%-5.9%-4.5% Median $11,457 $11,514 $13,693 $15,901 10 % +/--3.5%-4.0%-3.3%3.1% 75th Percenile $11,836 $12,013 $14,227 $18,269 11 % +/--6.9%-8.5%-7.3%-11.3% Median Gain/Loss -0.5%0.8%6.4% Park District range max uses Step F.B-4 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District AGM, District Counsel 15 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District General Counsel $18,792 $188 $18,980 $2,020 $118 $10 $21,127 $3,529 2.5@55 $24,657 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco City Attorney $24,152 $24,152 $2,044 $166 $26,362 $4,775 2.3@62 $31,137 Alameda County County Counsel $25,828 $775 $775 $27,378 $1,803 $124 $29,305 $5,571 2.09@62 $34,876 Contra Costa County County Counsel $23,436 $1,641 $235 $25,312 $1,825 $77 $27,214 $6,827 2@55 $34,041 Marin County County Counsel $22,114 $22,114 $1,786 inc inc $23,900 $5,080 2@61.25 $28,979 San Mateo County County Counsel $28,078 $562 $28,640 $1,650 $127 $16 $30,433 $8,555 ($842)2@55.5 $38,147 Santa Clara County County Counsel $27,838 $1,583 $29,421 $2,785 $118 $10 $32,334 $6,547 ($816)2.5@55 $38,064 Sonoma County County Counsel $20,073 $803 $20,876 $1,779 $90 $15 $22,760 $3,814 ($608)3@60 $25,966 City of Oakland City Attorney $19,105 $19,105 $1,997 $106 $22 $21,230 $8,067 2.5@55 $29,298 City of Fremont City Attorney $25,223 $1,583 $26,806 $2,230 $128 $30 $29,195 $7,876 2@60 $37,070 City of Berkeley City Attorney $19,818 $595 $181 $1,585 $22,179 $2,066 $170 $24,415 $6,437 ($1,585)2.7@55 $29,266 City of Hayward City Attorney $18,715 $18,715 $2,311 $148 $14 $21,188 $5,848 ($936)2.5@55 $26,101 City of Pleasanton City Attorney $17,500 $350 $17,850 $2,078 $141 $23 $20,092 $5,782 2.7@55 $25,874 City of San Jose City Attorney $26,523 $26,523 $1,602 $150 $16 $28,290 $26,300 2.5@55 $54,590 East Bay MUD General Counsel $22,815 $22,815 $1,891 $214 $24 $24,943 $8,364 2.6@62 $33,307 East Bay Regional Park District AGM, District Counsel $20,400 $20,400 $1,997 $195 $22,592 $5,813 2.5@55 $28,405 Average $22,667 $23,391 $25,519 $32,758 % +/--11.1%-14.7%-13.0%-15.3% Median $22,815 $22,815 $24,943 $31,137 15 % +/--11.8%-11.8%-10.4%-9.6% 75th Percenile $25,526 $26,664 $28,743 $35,973 16 % +/--25.1%-30.7%-27.2%-26.6% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%1.4%0.8% Park District range max uses Step F.B-5 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Finance & Management Svcs/CFO 15 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District CFO/Administrative Services Director $16,820 $841 $17,661 $2,020 $118 $10 $19,809 $3,159 2.5@55 $22,967 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV $18,880 $18,880 $2,044 $166 $21,091 $3,733 2.3@62 $24,823 Alameda County Deputy County Administrator $24,551 $737 $25,287 $1,803 $124 $27,214 $5,296 2.09@62 $32,510 Contra Costa County County Finance Director $23,929 $1,196 $235 $25,360 $1,825 $77 $27,262 $6,970 2@55 $34,233 Marin County Director of Finance $19,261 $19,261 $1,786 inc inc $21,047 $4,424 2@61.25 $25,471 San Mateo County Controller - Elective $19,353 $387 $19,740 $1,650 $127 $16 $21,533 $5,897 ($581)2@55.5 $26,850 Santa Clara County Director, Finance Agency $23,918 $1,583 $25,502 $2,785 $118 $10 $28,414 $5,625 ($701)2.5@55 $33,338 Sonoma County Auditor/Controller/Treasurer/Tax Collector $19,574 $783 $20,357 $1,779 $90 $15 $22,241 $3,719 ($593)3@60 $25,367 City of Oakland Director of Finance $21,246 $21,246 $1,997 $106 $22 $23,371 $8,971 2.5@55 $32,343 City of Fremont Finance Director $19,146 $333 $19,479 $2,230 $128 $30 $21,868 $5,978 2@60 $27,846 City of Berkeley Director of Finance $18,588 $558 $181 $1,487 $20,813 $2,066 $170 $23,049 $6,037 ($1,487)2.7@55 $27,599 City of Hayward Director of Finance $17,013 $17,013 $2,311 $148 $14 $19,486 $5,316 ($851)2.5@55 $23,952 City of Pleasanton Finance Director $16,304 $326 $16,630 $2,078 $141 $23 $18,872 $5,387 2.7@55 $24,259 City of San Jose Finance Director $20,544 $20,544 $1,602 $150 $16 $22,312 $20,372 2.5@55 $42,684 East Bay MUD Director, Finance $21,908 $21,908 $1,891 $214 $24 $24,036 $8,031 2.6@62 $32,068 East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Finance & Management Svcs $18,547 $18,547 $1,997 $195 $20,739 $5,285 2.5@55 $26,024 Average $20,069 $20,645 $22,774 $29,087 % +/--8.2%-11.3%-9.8%-11.8% Median $19,353 $20,357 $22,241 $27,599 15 % +/--4.3%-9.8%-7.2%-6.1% 75th Percenile $21,577 $21,577 $23,704 $32,426 16 % +/--16.3%-16.3%-14.3%-24.6% Median Gain/Loss -5.4%2.5%1.2% Park District range max uses Step F.B-6 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Operations 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Assistant General Manager $16,820 $841 $17,661 $2,020 $118 $10 $19,809 $3,159 2.5@55 $22,967 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV $18,880 $18,880 $2,044 $166 $21,091 $3,733 2.3@62 $24,823 Alameda County No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Marin County Director Parks and Open Space $17,886 $17,886 $1,786 inc inc $19,672 $4,108 2@61.25 $23,781 San Mateo County Director of Parks and Recreation $20,157 $403 $20,560 $1,650 $127 $16 $22,354 $6,142 ($605)2@55.5 $27,891 Santa Clara County Director of Parks and Recreation $18,923 $18,923 $2,785 $118 $10 $21,835 $4,450 ($555)2.5@55 $25,730 Sonoma County Director of Regional Parks $15,142 $606 $15,748 $1,779 $90 $15 $17,632 $2,877 ($459)3@60 $20,050 City of Oakland Director of Public Works $21,246 $21,246 $1,997 $106 $22 $23,371 $8,971 2.5@55 $32,343 City of Fremont Community Services Director $19,146 $333 $19,479 $2,230 $128 $30 $21,868 $5,978 2@60 $27,846 City of Berkeley Director of Parks & Waterfront $19,377 $581 $181 $1,550 $21,689 $2,066 $170 $23,925 $6,293 ($1,550)2.7@55 $28,668 City of Hayward Director of Maintenance Services $16,290 $16,290 $2,311 $148 $14 $18,763 $5,090 ($814)2.5@55 $23,039 City of Pleasanton Director of Operations and Water Utilities $16,205 $324 $16,529 $2,078 $141 $23 $18,771 $5,354 2.7@55 $24,125 City of San Jose Director of Parks, Recreation, & Neighborhood Services$20,544 $20,544 $1,602 $150 $16 $22,312 $20,372 2.5@55 $42,684 East Bay MUD Director of Operations & Maintenance $21,908 $21,908 $1,891 $214 $24 $24,036 $8,031 2.6@62 $32,068 East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Operations $20,400 $20,400 $1,997 $195 $22,592 $5,813 2.5@55 $28,405 Average $18,656 $19,026 $21,188 $27,386 % +/-8.5%6.7%6.2%3.6% Median $18,923 $18,923 $21,835 $25,730 13 % +/-7.2%7.2%3.4%9.4% 75th Percenile $20,157 $20,560 $22,354 $28,668 14 % +/-1.2%-0.8%1.1%-0.9% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%-3.9%6.1% Park District range max uses Step F.B-7 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Plan/Stew/Des/Con 15 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Assistant General Manager $16,820 $841 $17,661 $2,020 $118 $10 $19,809 $3,159 2.5@55 $22,967 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV $18,880 $18,880 $2,044 $166 $21,091 $3,733 2.3@62 $24,823 Alameda County Director, Community Development Agency $19,784 $594 $594 $20,971 $1,803 $124 $22,898 $4,267 2.09@62 $27,165 Contra Costa County Public Works Director $17,955 $898 $235 $19,087 $1,825 $77 $20,989 $5,230 2@55 $26,219 Marin County Director of Community Development $17,293 $17,293 $1,786 inc inc $19,079 $3,972 2@61.25 $23,052 San Mateo County Director of Community Development $17,413 $348 $17,761 $1,650 $127 $16 $19,555 $5,306 ($522)2@55.5 $24,338 Santa Clara County Director Department of Planning & Development $18,828 $18,828 $2,785 $118 $10 $21,741 $4,428 ($552)2.5@55 $25,617 Sonoma County Director Permit & Resource Management $15,970 $639 $16,609 $1,779 $90 $15 $18,493 $3,034 ($484)3@60 $21,043 City of Oakland Director of Planning & Building $18,320 $18,320 $1,997 $106 $22 $20,446 $7,736 2.5@55 $28,182 City of Fremont Community Development Director $20,938 $333 $21,271 $2,230 $128 $30 $23,660 $6,538 2@60 $30,197 City of Berkeley Director of Planning $18,588 $558 $181 $1,487 $20,813 $2,066 $170 $23,049 $6,037 ($1,487)2.7@55 $27,599 City of Hayward Director of Development Services $16,858 $16,858 $2,311 $148 $14 $19,332 $5,268 ($843)2.5@55 $23,757 City of Pleasanton Director of Community Development $16,988 $340 $17,328 $2,078 $141 $23 $19,570 $5,612 2.7@55 $25,182 City of San Jose Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement$20,544 $20,544 $1,602 $150 $16 $22,312 $20,372 2.5@55 $42,684 East Bay MUD Director, Engineering & Construction $21,908 $21,908 $1,891 $214 $24 $24,036 $8,031 2.6@62 $32,068 East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Plan/Stew/Des/Con $18,547 $18,547 $1,997 $195 $20,739 $5,285 2.5@55 $26,024 Average $18,473 $18,942 $21,071 $26,993 % +/-0.4%-2.1%-1.6%-3.7% Median $18,320 $18,828 $20,989 $25,617 15 % +/-1.2%-1.5%-1.2%1.6% 75th Percenile $19,332 $20,679 $22,605 $27,890 16 % +/--4.2%-11.5%-9.0%-7.2% Median Gain/Loss -2.7%0.3%2.8% Park District range max uses Step F.B-8 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Public Safety 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Chief of Police $28,563 $1,714 $30,277 $2,044 $166 $32,487 $11,530 2@50 $44,017 Alameda County Sheriff $21,434 $21,434 $1,803 $124 $23,361 $12,783 3@55 $36,145 Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner $22,431 $1,682 $1,235 $25,348 $1,809 $76 $27,234 $16,085 N $43,319 Marin County Sheriff $20,335 $20,335 $1,786 inc inc $22,121 $7,536 3@50 $29,658 San Mateo County Sheriff - Elective $21,892 $438 $22,330 $1,650 $127 $16 $24,123 $14,017 ($1,095)Y $37,046 Santa Clara County Sheriff $24,989 $1,583 $26,572 $2,785 $118 $10 $29,485 $11,443 3@50 $40,928 Sonoma County Sheriff-Coroner $18,728 $749 $19,478 $1,779 $90 $15 $21,362 $5,399 ($567)3@50 $26,194 City of Oakland Chief of Police $24,923 $24,923 $1,997 $106 $22 $27,048 $4,631 3@55 $31,680 City of Fremont Police Chief $24,611 $333 $24,945 $2,230 $128 $30 $27,333 $14,177 ($738)3@55 $40,772 City of Berkeley Police Chief $20,465 $1,023 $181 $21,670 $2,066 $170 $23,905 $13,631 ($409)3@55 $37,127 City of Hayward Chief of Police $19,363 $19,363 $2,524 $184 $29 $22,100 $11,330 ($1,162)3@50 $32,268 City of Pleasanton Police Chief $18,082 $362 $18,444 $2,078 $141 $23 $20,686 $3,469 3@55 $24,155 City of San Jose Chief of Police $23,327 $23,327 $1,602 $150 $16 $25,095 $22,756 2.5/4@50 $47,851 East Bay MUD No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District AGM, Public Safety $20,400 $20,400 $2,037 $195 $22,631 $4,162 ($612)3@55 $26,181 Average $22,242 $22,957 $25,103 $36,243 % +/--9.0%-12.5%-10.9%-38.4% Median $21,892 $22,330 $24,123 $37,046 13 % +/--7.3%-9.5%-6.6%-41.5% 75th Percenile $24,611 $24,945 $27,234 $40,928 15 % +/--20.6%-22.3%-20.3%-56.3% Median Gain/Loss -2.1%2.9%-34.9% Park District range max uses Step F.B-9 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Assistant District Counsel II 15 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Assistant General Counsel II $1,526 $15 $1,541 $2,020 $118 $10 $3,689 $287 2.5@55 $3,975 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Confidential Chief Attorney II (Civil & Criminal) $22,228 $22,228 $2,044 $166 $24,438 $4,394 2.3@62 $28,833 Alameda County Chief Assistant County Counsel $23,514 $705 $705 $24,925 $1,803 $124 $26,852 $5,072 2.09@62 $31,924 Contra Costa County Assistant County Counsel $17,366 $1,216 $235 $18,816 $1,825 $77 $20,718 $5,059 2@55 $25,777 Marin County Assistant County Counsel $18,113 $18,113 $1,786 inc inc $19,899 $4,161 2@61.25 $24,060 San Mateo County Assistant County Counsel $23,282 $466 $23,748 $1,650 $127 $16 $25,541 $7,094 ($698)2@55.5 $31,937 Santa Clara County Assistant County Counsel $23,799 $23,799 $2,785 $118 $10 $26,712 $5,597 ($698)2.5@55 $31,611 Sonoma County Assistant District Counsel $16,652 $666 $17,318 $1,779 $90 $15 $19,202 $3,164 ($505)3@60 $21,861 City of Oakland Assistant City Attorney $19,286 $19,286 $1,997 $106 $22 $21,412 $8,144 2.5@55 $29,556 City of Fremont Assistant City Attorney $18,745 $333 $19,078 $2,230 $128 $30 $21,467 $5,853 2@60 $27,320 City of Berkeley Assistant City Attorney $16,550 $497 $181 $1,324 $18,552 $2,066 $170 $20,788 $5,375 ($1,324)2.7@55 $24,839 City of Hayward Assistant City Attorney $14,482 $14,482 $2,311 $148 $14 $16,956 $4,525 ($724)2.5@55 $20,757 City of Pleasanton Assistant City Attorney $14,771 $295 $15,066 $2,078 $141 $23 $17,308 $4,880 2.7@55 $22,188 City of San Jose Assistant City Attorney $23,448 $23,448 $1,602 $150 $16 $25,216 $23,251 2.5@55 $48,467 East Bay MUD Assistant General Counsel $9,852 $9,852 $1,891 $214 $24 $11,980 $3,612 2.6@62 $15,592 East Bay Regional Park District Assistant District Counsel $16,851 $16,851 $1,997 $195 $19,044 $4,802 2.5@55 $23,846 Average $17,574 $18,017 $20,145 $25,913 % +/--4.3%-6.9%-5.8%-8.7% Median $18,113 $18,816 $20,788 $25,777 15 % +/--7.5%-11.7%-9.2%-8.1% 75th Percenile $22,755 $22,838 $24,827 $30,583 16 % +/--35.0%-35.5%-30.4%-28.3% Median Gain/Loss -4.2%2.5%1.1% Park District range max uses Step F.B-10 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Assistant Finance Officer 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Administrative Services Manager $13,650 $546 $14,196 $1,600 $100 $63 $15,959 $4,064 2.5@55 $20,022 City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director V $20,102 $20,102 $2,044 $166 $22,313 $3,974 2.3@62 $26,287 Alameda County Auditor/Controller $18,034 $541 $541 $19,116 $1,803 $124 $21,042 $3,890 2.09@62 $24,932 Contra Costa County Auditor/Controller $18,800 $1,410 $1,235 $21,444 $1,825 $77 $23,346 $5,476 2@55 $28,823 Marin County Assistant Director of Finance $14,754 $14,754 $1,786 inc inc $16,540 $3,389 2@61.25 $19,929 San Mateo County Assistant Controller $16,588 $332 $16,920 $1,650 $127 $16 $18,713 $5,054 ($498)2@55.5 $23,270 Santa Clara County Controller Treasurer $19,208 $19,208 $2,785 $118 $10 $22,120 $4,517 ($563)2.5@55 $26,074 Sonoma County Assistant Auditor/Controller $12,996 $520 $13,516 $1,779 $90 $15 $15,400 $2,469 ($394)3@60 $17,475 City of Oakland Assistant Controller $13,703 $13,703 $1,997 $106 $22 $15,828 $5,786 2.5@55 $21,615 City of Fremont Deputy Director of Finance $15,422 $308 $15,730 $2,230 $128 $30 $18,119 $4,815 2@60 $22,934 City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Hayward Deputy Director of Finance $13,997 $13,997 $2,311 $148 $14 $16,470 $4,374 ($700)2.5@55 $20,144 City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose Assistant Director $17,911 $17,911 $1,602 $150 $16 $19,679 $17,760 2.5@55 $37,439 East Bay MUD Controller $17,981 $17,981 $1,891 $214 $24 $20,109 $6,592 2.6@62 $26,701 East Bay Regional Park District Assistant Finance Officer $14,019 $14,019 $1,997 $195 $16,211 $3,995 2.5@55 $20,207 Average $16,396 $16,814 $18,895 $24,280 % +/--17.0%-19.9%-16.6%-20.2% Median $16,588 $16,920 $18,713 $23,270 13 % +/--18.3%-20.7%-15.4%-15.2% 75th Percenile $18,034 $19,116 $21,042 $26,287 14 % +/--28.6%-36.4%-29.8%-30.1% Median Gain/Loss -2.4%5.3%0.3% Park District range max uses Step F.B-11 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Audit Manager 10 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Manager III $13,345 $13,345 $2,044 $166 $15,555 $2,638 2.3@62 $18,193 Alameda County Division Chief, Auditor $12,962 $389 $13,351 $1,803 $124 $15,278 $2,796 2.09@62 $18,073 Contra Costa County Supervising Accountant-Auditor $9,472 $474 $235 $10,181 $1,825 $77 $12,082 $2,759 2@55 $14,841 Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County Senior Internal Auditor $10,443 $418 $10,861 $1,650 $103 $16 $12,630 $3,182 ($313)2@55.5 $15,499 Santa Clara County Supervising Internal Auditor $11,926 $11,926 $2,785 $118 $10 $14,838 $2,805 ($955)2.5@55 $16,687 Sonoma County Audit Manager $10,703 $428 $11,131 $1,779 $90 $15 $13,015 $2,034 ($324)3@60 $14,725 City of Oakland Principal Financial Analyst $12,429 $12,429 $1,997 $106 $22 $14,555 $5,248 2.5@55 $19,803 City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Berkeley City Auditor $14,622 $439 $181 $1,170 $16,411 $2,066 $151 $18,627 $4,749 ($1,170)2.7@55 $22,207 City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose Supervising Auditor $12,502 $12,502 $1,602 $150 $16 $14,270 $12,397 2.5@55 $26,667 East Bay MUD Internal Audit Supervisor $14,049 $14,049 $1,891 $214 $24 $16,177 $5,150 2.6@62 $21,328 East Bay Regional Park District Audit Manager $11,067 $11,067 $1,997 $195 $13,260 $3,154 2.5@55 $16,414 Average $12,245 $12,619 $14,703 $18,802 % +/--10.6%-14.0%-10.9%-14.6% Median $12,466 $12,466 $14,696 $18,133 10 % +/--12.6%-12.6%-10.8%-10.5% 75th Percenile $13,249 $13,349 $15,485 $20,946 12 % +/--19.7%-20.6%-16.8%-27.6% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%1.8%0.4% Park District range max uses Step F.B-12 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Budget Manager 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Manager III $13,345 $13,345 $2,044 $166 $15,555 $2,638 2.3@62 $18,193 Alameda County Accounting Supervisor, PWA $8,360 $251 $8,611 $1,803 $124 $10,537 $1,803 2.09@62 $12,341 Contra Costa County Supervising Accountant $8,382 $419 $235 $9,036 $1,825 $77 $10,938 $2,442 2@55 $13,379 Marin County Principal Administrative Analyst $11,471 $11,471 $1,786 inc inc $13,257 $2,635 2@61.25 $15,892 San Mateo County Financial Services Manager I $10,693 $214 $10,907 $1,650 $127 $16 $12,700 $3,258 ($321)2@55.5 $15,638 Santa Clara County Principal Budget & Public Policy Analyst $12,288 $12,288 $2,785 $118 $10 $15,200 $2,890 ($984)2.5@55 $17,105 Sonoma County No Comparable Class City of Oakland Principal Financial Analyst $12,429 $12,429 $1,997 $106 $22 $14,555 $5,248 2.5@55 $19,803 City of Fremont Finance Operations Manager $14,114 $282 $14,396 $2,230 $128 $30 $16,785 $4,407 2@60 $21,192 City of Berkeley Budget Manager $15,142 $454 $181 $1,211 $16,989 $2,066 $170 $19,224 $4,918 ($1,211)2.7@55 $22,931 City of Hayward Budget Officer $11,001 $11,001 $1,798 $148 $14 $12,962 $3,438 ($330)2.5@55 $16,069 City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose Assistant Budget Director $17,389 $17,389 $1,602 $150 $16 $19,157 $17,243 2.5@55 $36,400 East Bay MUD Supervising Accountant $11,742 $11,742 $1,891 $214 $24 $13,870 $4,305 2.6@62 $18,175 East Bay Regional Park District Budget Manager $11,067 $11,067 $1,997 $195 $13,260 $3,154 2.5@55 $16,414 Average $12,196 $12,467 $14,562 $18,926 % +/--10.2%-12.6%-9.8%-15.3% Median $12,015 $12,015 $14,212 $17,640 12 % +/--8.6%-8.6%-7.2%-7.5% 75th Percenile $13,537 $13,607 $15,862 $20,150 14 % +/--22.3%-23.0%-19.6%-22.8% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%1.4%-0.3% Park District range max uses Step F.B-13 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Chief Information Officer 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Information Systems & Technology Manager $12,857 $643 $13,500 $2,020 $118 $10 $15,647 $2,415 2.5@55 $18,062 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV $18,880 $18,880 $2,044 $166 $21,091 $3,733 2.3@62 $24,823 Alameda County Information Systems Deputy Director $11,586 $348 $11,933 $1,803 $124 $13,860 $2,499 2.09@62 $16,359 Contra Costa County Information Systems Manager II $11,598 $580 $235 $12,413 $1,825 $77 $14,314 $3,378 2@55 $17,693 Marin County Assistant Director of Information Services and Technology $14,754 $14,754 $1,786 inc inc $16,540 $3,389 2@61.25 $19,929 San Mateo County Information Services Department Division Manager $14,329 $287 $14,616 $1,650 $127 $16 $16,410 $4,366 ($430)2@55.5 $20,346 Santa Clara County Director, Information Technology $22,632 $22,632 $2,785 $118 $10 $25,545 $5,322 ($663)2.5@55 $30,204 Sonoma County Information Systems Division Director $12,985 $519 $13,505 $1,779 $90 $15 $15,389 $2,467 ($393)3@60 $17,463 City of Oakland Information Systems Manager II $14,388 $14,388 $1,997 $106 $22 $16,513 $6,076 2.5@55 $22,589 City of Fremont Information Technology Manager $13,261 $265 $13,527 $2,230 $128 $30 $15,915 $4,141 2@60 $20,056 City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose Assistant Director $17,911 $17,911 $1,602 $150 $16 $19,679 $17,760 2.5@55 $37,439 East Bay MUD Manager of Information Systems $20,857 $20,857 $1,891 $214 $24 $22,985 $7,646 2.6@62 $30,631 East Bay Regional Park District Chief Information Officer $14,019 $14,019 $1,997 $195 $16,211 $3,995 2.5@55 $20,207 Average $15,503 $15,743 $17,824 $22,966 % +/--10.6%-12.3%-9.9%-13.7% Median $14,359 $14,502 $16,462 $20,201 12 % +/--2.4%-3.4%-1.5%0.0% 75th Percenile $18,153 $18,153 $20,032 $26,168 13 % +/--29.5%-29.5%-23.6%-29.5% Median Gain/Loss -1.0%1.9%1.6% Park District range max uses Step F.B-14 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Design & Construction 14 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Engineering & Construction Manager $13,837 $692 $14,529 $2,020 $118 $10 $16,676 $2,599 2.5@55 $19,275 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV $18,880 $18,880 $2,044 $166 $21,091 $3,733 2.3@62 $24,823 Alameda County Deputy Director, GSA $15,643 $469 $469 $16,582 $1,803 $124 $18,509 $3,374 2.09@62 $21,883 Contra Costa County Deputy Public Works Director $13,921 $696 $235 $14,852 $1,825 $77 $16,754 $4,055 2@55 $20,809 Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County Deputy Director of Public Works $15,798 $316 $16,114 $1,650 $127 $16 $17,907 $4,814 ($474)2@55.5 $22,247 Santa Clara County Chief of Construction Services $14,909 $14,909 $2,785 $118 $10 $17,821 $3,506 ($1,194)2.5@55 $20,133 Sonoma County Deputy Director Engineering Construction $13,191 $528 $13,718 $1,779 $90 $15 $15,602 $2,506 ($400)3@60 $17,709 City of Oakland Assistant Director, Public Works Agency $16,660 $16,660 $1,997 $106 $22 $18,786 $7,035 2.5@55 $25,821 City of Fremont City Engineer $18,167 $363 $18,530 $2,230 $128 $30 $20,919 $5,672 2@60 $26,591 City of Berkeley Capital Improvement Programs Manager $16,550 $497 $181 $1,324 $18,552 $2,066 $170 $20,788 $5,375 ($1,324)2.7@55 $24,839 City of Hayward Director of Public Works $17,637 $17,637 $2,311 $148 $14 $20,110 $5,511 ($882)2.5@55 $24,740 City of Pleasanton Director of Engineering Srvcs/City Engineer $16,197 $324 $16,521 $2,078 $141 $23 $18,763 $5,351 2.7@55 $24,114 City of San Jose Principal Engineer/Architect $12,967 $12,967 $1,602 $150 $16 $14,735 $12,858 2.5@55 $27,593 East Bay MUD Engineering Manager $18,433 $18,433 $1,891 $214 $24 $20,561 $6,758 2.6@62 $27,319 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Design & Construction $14,019 $14,019 $1,997 $195 $16,211 $3,995 2.5@55 $20,207 Average $15,914 $16,349 $18,501 $23,421 % +/--13.5%-16.6%-14.1%-15.9% Median $15,997 $16,551 $18,636 $24,427 14 % +/--14.1%-18.1%-15.0%-20.9% 75th Percenile $17,393 $18,234 $20,449 $25,575 15 % +/--24.1%-30.1%-26.1%-26.6% Median Gain/Loss -4.0%3.1%-5.9% Park District range max uses Step F.B-15 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Human Resources Officer 15 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Human Resources Manager $12,857 $643 $13,500 $2,020 $118 $10 $15,647 $2,415 2.5@55 $18,062 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Human Resources Director $21,688 $21,688 $2,044 $166 $23,899 $4,288 2.3@62 $28,186 Alameda County Human Resource Services Manager $12,503 $375 $12,878 $1,854 $124 $14,856 $2,697 2.09@62 $17,553 Contra Costa County Director of Human Resources $19,054 $953 $235 $20,241 $1,825 $77 $22,143 $5,550 2@55 $27,693 Marin County Human Resources Director $17,886 $17,886 $1,786 inc inc $19,672 $4,108 2@61.25 $23,781 San Mateo County Director of Human Resources $19,197 $384 $19,581 $1,650 $127 $16 $21,374 $5,849 ($576)2@55.5 $26,648 Santa Clara County Deputy Director, Employee Services Agency $16,956 $16,956 $2,785 $118 $10 $19,868 $3,988 ($497)2.5@55 $23,359 Sonoma County Director of Human Resources $16,607 $664 $17,271 $1,779 $90 $15 $19,155 $3,155 ($503)3@60 $21,807 City of Oakland Director of Human Resources Management $18,320 $18,320 $1,997 $106 $22 $20,446 $7,736 2.5@55 $28,182 City of Fremont Director of Human Resources $19,146 $383 $19,529 $2,230 $128 $30 $21,917 $5,978 2@60 $27,896 City of Berkeley Director of Human Resources $18,588 $558 $181 $1,487 $20,813 $2,066 $170 $23,049 $6,037 ($1,487)2.7@55 $27,599 City of Hayward Director of Human Resources $16,422 $16,422 $2,311 $148 $14 $18,895 $5,131 ($821)2.5@55 $23,206 City of Pleasanton Director of Human Resources/Labor Relations $16,197 $324 $16,521 $2,078 $141 $23 $18,763 $5,351 2.7@55 $24,114 City of San Jose Human Resources Director $20,544 $20,544 $1,602 $150 $16 $22,312 $20,372 2.5@55 $42,684 East Bay MUD Manager of Human Resources $20,857 $20,857 $1,891 $214 $24 $22,985 $7,646 2.6@62 $30,631 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Human Resources Officer $16,851 $16,851 $1,997 $195 $19,044 $4,802 2.5@55 $23,846 Average $17,788 $18,200 $20,332 $26,093 % +/--5.6%-8.0%-6.8%-9.4% Median $18,320 $18,320 $20,446 $26,648 15 % +/--8.7%-8.7%-7.4%-11.7% 75th Percenile $19,171 $20,393 $22,228 $28,039 16 % +/--13.8%-21.0%-16.7%-17.6% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%1.4%-4.4% Park District range max uses Step F.B-16 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Land Acquisition 10 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Real Property Manager $13,837 $138 $13,975 $2,020 $118 $10 $16,123 $2,599 2.5@55 $18,721 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Principal Real Property Officer $13,730 $13,730 $1,750 $166 $15,647 $2,714 2.3@62 $18,361 Alameda County Facilities Manager $11,937 $358 $12,296 $1,803 $124 $14,222 $2,575 2.09@62 $16,797 Contra Costa County Principal Real Property Agent $11,472 $574 $235 $12,281 $1,825 $77 $14,182 $3,342 2@55 $17,524 Marin County Assistant Director of Public Works $15,123 $15,123 $1,786 inc inc $16,909 $3,474 2@61.25 $20,383 San Mateo County Real Property Services Manager $12,997 $260 $13,256 $1,650 $127 $16 $15,050 $3,960 ($390)2@55.5 $18,620 Santa Clara County Manager of Real Estate Assets $13,698 $13,698 $2,785 $118 $10 $16,610 $3,221 ($1,097)2.5@55 $18,735 Sonoma County No Comparable Class City of Oakland Real Estate Services Manager $14,388 $14,388 $1,997 $106 $22 $16,513 $6,076 2.5@55 $22,589 City of Fremont Facilities and Real Property Manager $13,857 $277 $14,134 $2,230 $128 $30 $16,523 $4,327 2@60 $20,849 City of Berkeley No Comparable Class City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose No Comparable Class East Bay MUD Manager of Real Estate Services $16,696 $16,696 $1,891 $214 $24 $18,824 $6,121 2.6@62 $24,945 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Land Acquisition $14,019 $14,019 $1,997 $195 $16,211 $3,995 2.5@55 $20,207 Average $13,774 $13,958 $16,060 $19,753 % +/-1.8%0.4%0.9%2.2% Median $13,784 $13,853 $16,318 $18,728 10 % +/-1.7%1.2%-0.7%7.3% 75th Percenile $14,255 $14,325 $16,589 $20,733 11 % +/--1.7%-2.2%-2.3%-2.6% Median Gain/Loss -0.5%-1.8%8.0% Park District range max uses Step F.B-17 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Maint & Skilled Trades 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Land & Facilities Services Manager $13,837 $692 $14,529 $2,020 $118 $10 $16,676 $2,599 2.5@55 $19,275 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director IV $18,880 $18,880 $2,044 $166 $21,091 $3,733 2.3@62 $24,823 Alameda County Deputy Director, GSA $15,643 $469 $469 $16,582 $1,803 $124 $18,509 $3,374 2.09@62 $21,883 Contra Costa County Deputy Public Works Director $13,921 $696 $235 $14,852 $1,825 $77 $16,754 $4,055 2@55 $20,809 Marin County Assistant Director of Public Works $15,123 $15,123 $1,786 inc inc $16,909 $3,474 2@61.25 $20,383 San Mateo County Deputy Director of Public Works $15,798 $316 $16,114 $1,650 $127 $16 $17,907 $4,814 ($474)2@55.5 $22,247 Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County General Services Deputy Director $12,439 $498 $12,937 $1,779 $90 $15 $14,821 $2,363 ($377)3@60 $16,807 City of Oakland Assistant Director, Public Works Agency $16,660 $16,660 $1,997 $106 $22 $18,786 $7,035 2.5@55 $25,821 City of Fremont Deputy Dir, Maintenance & Bus Operations $15,919 $318 $16,238 $2,230 $128 $30 $18,626 $4,971 2@60 $23,597 City of Berkeley Deputy Director of Public Works $15,600 $468 $181 $1,248 $17,497 $2,066 $170 $19,733 $5,067 ($1,248)2.7@55 $23,552 City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose Deputy Director $15,629 $15,629 $1,602 $150 $16 $17,397 $15,498 2.5@55 $32,895 East Bay MUD Mgr of Facilities Maintenance & Construction $17,539 $17,539 $1,891 $214 $24 $19,667 $6,430 2.6@62 $26,097 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Maint & Skilled Trades $14,019 $14,019 $1,997 $195 $16,211 $3,995 2.5@55 $20,207 Average $15,582 $16,048 $18,073 $23,182 % +/--11.2%-14.5%-11.5%-14.7% Median $15,636 $16,176 $18,208 $22,899 12 % +/--11.5%-15.4%-12.3%-13.3% 75th Percenile $16,104 $16,869 $19,006 $25,073 13 % +/--14.9%-20.3%-17.2%-24.1% Median Gain/Loss -3.8%3.1%-1.0% Park District range max uses Step F.B-18 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Park Operations 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Operations Manager $13,837 $692 $14,529 $2,020 $118 $10 $16,676 $2,599 2.5@55 $19,275 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director III $16,586 $16,586 $2,044 $166 $18,796 $3,279 2.3@62 $22,075 Alameda County No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Marin County Assistant Director of Parks and Open Space $14,536 $14,536 $1,786 inc inc $16,322 $3,339 2@61.25 $19,660 San Mateo County Assistant Director of Parks $15,045 $301 $15,346 $1,650 $127 $16 $17,140 $4,584 ($451)2@55.5 $21,273 Santa Clara County Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation $16,190 $16,190 $2,785 $118 $10 $19,102 $3,807 ($475)2.5@55 $22,435 Sonoma County Deputy Director of Regional Parks $12,111 $484 $12,595 $1,779 $90 $15 $14,479 $2,301 ($367)3@60 $16,413 City of Oakland Assistant Director, Public Works Agency $16,660 $16,660 $1,997 $106 $22 $18,786 $7,035 2.5@55 $25,821 City of Fremont Deputy Director, Community Services $15,422 $308 $15,730 $2,230 $128 $30 $18,119 $4,815 2@60 $22,934 City of Berkeley Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation & Waterfront$15,600 $468 $181 $1,248 $17,497 $2,066 $170 $19,733 $5,067 ($1,248)2.7@55 $23,552 City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton Assistant Director of Operations Services $13,254 $265 $13,519 $2,078 $141 $23 $15,761 $4,379 2.7@55 $20,140 City of San Jose Deputy Director $15,629 $15,629 $1,602 $150 $16 $17,397 $15,498 2.5@55 $32,895 East Bay MUD No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Park Operations $15,441 $15,441 $1,997 $195 $17,633 $4,400 2.5@55 $22,033 Average $14,988 $15,347 $17,483 $22,407 % +/-2.9%0.6%0.9%-1.7% Median $15,422 $15,629 $17,397 $22,075 11 % +/-0.1%-1.2%1.3%-0.2% 75th Percenile $15,909 $16,388 $18,791 $23,243 12 % +/--3.0%-6.1%-6.6%-5.5% Median Gain/Loss -1.3%2.6%-1.5% Park District range max uses Step F.B-19 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Planning 15 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Planning Manager $13,837 $692 $14,529 $2,020 $118 $10 $16,676 $2,599 2.5@55 $19,275 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Deputy Director III $16,586 $16,586 $2,044 $166 $18,796 $3,279 2.3@62 $22,075 Alameda County Deputy Director, CDA $15,643 $469 $469 $16,582 $1,803 $124 $18,509 $3,374 2.09@62 $21,883 Contra Costa County Deputy Director Department of Conservation and Development$13,921 $696 $235 $14,852 $1,825 $77 $16,754 $4,055 2@55 $20,809 Marin County Planning Manager $11,901 $11,901 $1,786 inc inc $13,687 $2,734 2@61.25 $16,421 San Mateo County Deputy Director of Community Development $14,329 $287 $14,616 $1,650 $127 $16 $16,410 $4,366 ($430)2@55.5 $20,346 Santa Clara County Planning Manager $16,956 $16,956 $2,785 $118 $10 $19,868 $3,988 ($497)2.5@55 $23,359 Sonoma County Deputy Director - Planning $11,891 $476 $12,367 $1,779 $90 $15 $14,251 $2,259 ($360)3@60 $16,150 City of Oakland Deputy Director/City Planner $15,863 $15,863 $1,997 $106 $22 $17,989 $6,698 2.5@55 $24,687 City of Fremont Deputy Director, Community Development $15,919 $318 $16,238 $2,230 $128 $30 $18,626 $4,971 2@60 $23,597 City of Berkeley Land Use Planning Manager $14,654 $440 $181 $1,172 $16,446 $2,066 $170 $18,682 $4,759 ($1,172)2.7@55 $22,269 City of Hayward Deputy Director of Development Services $15,326 $15,326 $2,311 $148 $14 $17,800 $4,789 ($766)2.5@55 $21,822 City of Pleasanton Planning Manager/Deputy Dir of CD $14,541 $291 $14,832 $2,078 $141 $23 $17,074 $4,804 2.7@55 $21,878 City of San Jose Deputy Director $15,629 $15,629 $1,602 $150 $16 $17,397 $15,498 2.5@55 $32,895 East Bay MUD Manager of Regulatory Compliance $18,433 $18,433 $1,891 $214 $24 $20,561 $6,758 2.6@62 $27,319 East Bay Regional Park District Chief, Planning $14,019 $14,019 $1,997 $195 $16,211 $3,995 2.5@55 $20,207 Average $15,029 $15,410 $17,539 $22,319 % +/--7.2%-9.9%-8.2%-10.5% Median $15,326 $15,629 $17,800 $21,883 15 % +/--9.3%-11.5%-9.8%-8.3% 75th Percenile $15,891 $16,514 $18,654 $23,478 16 % +/--13.4%-17.8%-15.1%-16.2% Median Gain/Loss -2.2%1.7%1.5% Park District range max uses Step F.B-20 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Communications and Records Mgr 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Manager V $15,453 $15,453 $2,044 $166 $17,663 $3,055 2.3@62 $20,718 Alameda County Fire Dispatch Manager $11,328 $11,328 $1,803 $124 $13,255 $3,876 3@50 $17,131 Contra Costa County Telecommunications Manager $10,746 $537 $235 $11,519 $1,825 $77 $13,420 $3,130 2@55 $16,551 Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County Communications Program Services Manager $11,225 $225 $11,450 $1,650 $127 $16 $13,243 $3,420 ($337)2@55.5 $16,327 Santa Clara County Chief Communications Dispatcher $13,361 $13,361 $2,785 $118 $10 $16,274 $3,142 ($1,070)2.5@55 $18,346 Sonoma County Communications Dispatch Manager $9,648 $482 $10,130 $1,779 $92 $15 $12,016 $1,833 ($292)3@60 $13,557 City of Oakland Police Communications Manager $12,554 $12,554 $1,997 $106 $22 $14,679 $5,301 2.5@55 $19,980 City of Fremont Public Safety Communications Manager $11,684 $234 $11,917 $2,230 $128 $30 $14,306 $3,648 2@60 $17,954 City of Berkeley Communications Manager $10,956 $329 $181 $876 $12,342 $2,066 $170 $14,578 $3,558 ($876)2.7@55 $17,260 City of Hayward Operations Support Services Manager $15,290 $15,290 $2,311 $148 $14 $17,763 $4,778 ($764)2.5@55 $21,777 City of Pleasanton Police Support Services Manager $10,447 $209 $10,656 $2,078 $141 $23 $12,898 $3,451 2.7@55 $16,349 City of San Jose Division Manager $13,532 $13,532 $1,602 $150 $16 $15,300 $13,419 2.5@55 $28,719 East Bay MUD No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Communications and Records Mgr $11,591 $11,591 $1,997 $195 $13,783 $3,303 2.5@55 $17,086 Average $12,185 $12,461 $14,616 $18,722 % +/--5.1%-7.5%-6.0%-9.6% Median $11,506 $12,130 $14,442 $17,607 12 % +/-0.7%-4.7%-4.8%-3.0% 75th Percenile $13,404 $13,404 $15,544 $20,164 14 % +/--15.6%-15.6%-12.8%-18.0% Median Gain/Loss -5.4%-0.1%1.7% Park District range max uses Step F.B-21 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Community Relations Manager 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Recreation Department Manager $10,929 $437 $11,366 $1,600 $100 $63 $13,128 $3,253 2.5@55 $16,382 City and County of San Francisco Public Relations Manager $12,437 $12,437 $2,044 $166 $14,647 $2,459 2.3@62 $17,106 Alameda County Public Information Officer $10,970 $329 $11,299 $1,854 $124 $13,278 $2,366 2.09@62 $15,644 Contra Costa County Chief Public Communications Officer $10,374 $519 $235 $11,128 $1,825 $77 $13,030 $3,022 2@55 $16,051 Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County Communications Officer $11,225 $225 $11,450 $1,650 $127 $16 $13,243 $3,420 ($337)2@55.5 $16,327 Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County Recreation and Educational Services Manager $9,543 $382 $9,925 $1,779 $90 $15 $11,809 $1,813 ($289)3@60 $13,333 City of Oakland No Comparable Class City of Fremont Communications Manager $11,873 $237 $12,110 $2,230 $128 $30 $14,499 $3,707 2@60 $18,206 City of Berkeley Assistant to the City Manager $14,103 $423 $181 $1,128 $15,836 $2,066 $170 $18,072 $4,581 ($1,128)2.7@55 $21,524 City of Hayward Communications & Marketing Officer / Public Information Officer $11,645 $11,645 $2,311 $148 $14 $14,118 $3,639 ($582)2.5@55 $17,175 City of Pleasanton Community Relations Manager/PIO $9,955 $199 $10,154 $2,078 $141 $23 $12,396 $3,289 2.7@55 $15,685 City of San Jose Public Information Manager $11,926 $11,926 $1,602 $150 $16 $13,694 $11,826 2.5@55 $25,519 East Bay MUD Customer Services Manager $15,128 $15,128 $1,891 $214 $24 $17,256 $5,546 2.6@62 $22,802 East Bay Regional Park District Community Relations Manager $11,067 $11,067 $1,997 $195 $13,260 $3,154 2.5@55 $16,414 Average $11,676 $12,034 $14,097 $17,980 % +/--5.5%-8.7%-6.3%-9.5% Median $11,435 $11,547 $13,486 $16,744 12 % +/--3.3%-4.3%-1.7%-2.0% 75th Percenile $12,054 $12,192 $14,536 $19,036 13 % +/--8.9%-10.2%-9.6%-16.0% Median Gain/Loss -1.0%2.6%-0.3% Park District range max uses Step F.B-22 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Deputy General Manager 14 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Assistant General Manager $13,991 $560 $14,551 $1,600 $100 $63 $16,314 $4,165 2.5@55 $20,479 City and County of San Francisco Department Head V $26,938 $26,938 $2,044 $166 $29,148 $5,326 2.3@62 $34,474 Alameda County Assistant County Administrator $21,460 $644 $644 $22,748 $1,803 $124 $24,675 $4,629 2.09@62 $29,304 Contra Costa County Chief Assistant County Administrator $21,704 $1,085 $235 $23,024 $1,825 $77 $24,926 $6,322 2@55 $31,249 Marin County Assistant County Administrator $17,571 $17,571 $1,786 inc inc $19,357 $4,036 2@61.25 $23,393 San Mateo County Assistant County Manager $24,759 $495 $25,254 $1,650 $127 $16 $27,048 $7,544 ($743)2@55.5 $33,849 Santa Clara County Chief Operating Officer $30,988 $1,583 $32,571 $2,785 $118 $10 $35,483 $7,287 ($908)2.5@55 $41,862 Sonoma County Assistant County Administrator $18,561 $742 $19,304 $1,779 $90 $15 $21,188 $3,527 ($562)3@60 $24,152 City of Oakland Assistant City Administrator $21,777 $21,777 $1,997 $106 $22 $23,902 $9,196 2.5@55 $33,098 City of Fremont Assistant City Manager $22,435 $333 $22,768 $2,230 $128 $30 $25,157 $7,005 2@60 $32,162 City of Berkeley Deputy City Manager $21,614 $648 $181 $1,729 $24,173 $2,066 $170 $26,409 $7,020 ($1,729)2.7@55 $31,700 City of Hayward Assistant City Manager $19,399 $19,399 $2,311 $148 $14 $21,873 $6,062 ($970)2.5@55 $26,965 City of Pleasanton Assistant City Manager $16,316 $326 $16,642 $2,078 $141 $23 $18,884 $5,390 2.7@55 $24,275 City of San Jose Assistant City Manager $25,793 $25,793 $1,602 $150 $16 $27,561 $25,576 2.5@55 $53,137 East Bay MUD No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Deputy General Manager $23,572 $23,572 $1,997 $195 $25,764 $6,717 2.5@55 $32,481 Average $21,665 $22,322 $24,423 $31,436 % +/-8.1%5.3%5.2%3.2% Median $21,659 $22,758 $24,800 $31,474 14 % +/-8.1%3.5%3.7%3.1% 75th Percenile $24,178 $24,984 $26,888 $33,661 15 % +/--2.6%-6.0%-4.4%-3.6% Median Gain/Loss -4.7%0.3%-0.6% Park District range max uses Step F.B-23 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Environmental Services Manager 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Natural Resources Manager $13,837 $138 $13,975 $2,020 $118 $10 $16,123 $2,599 2.5@55 $18,721 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Manager II $12,378 $12,378 $2,044 $166 $14,588 $2,447 2.3@62 $17,036 Alameda County Director, Environmental Health $13,754 $413 $14,167 $1,803 $124 $16,093 $2,967 2.09@62 $19,060 Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County No Comparable Class Sonoma County Water Agency Environmental Resources Mgr $12,798 $512 $13,309 $1,779 $90 $15 $15,194 $2,432 ($388)3@60 $17,237 City of Oakland Environmental Services Manager $14,388 $14,388 $1,997 $106 $22 $16,513 $6,076 2.5@55 $22,589 City of Fremont Environmental Services Manager $13,633 $273 $13,906 $2,230 $128 $30 $16,294 $4,257 2@60 $20,551 City of Berkeley Manager of Environmental Health $12,331 $370 $181 $986 $13,868 $2,066 $170 $16,104 $4,005 ($986)2.7@55 $19,122 City of Hayward Environmental Services Manager $12,737 $12,737 $1,798 $148 $14 $14,697 $3,980 ($382)2.5@55 $18,294 City of Pleasanton Environmental Services Manager $11,457 $229 $11,686 $2,078 $141 $23 $13,928 $3,785 2.7@55 $17,713 City of San Jose Environmental Sustainability Manager $11,920 $11,920 $1,602 $150 $16 $13,688 $11,820 2.5@55 $25,507 East Bay MUD Manager of Environmental Compliance $15,892 $15,892 $1,891 $214 $24 $18,020 $5,826 2.6@62 $23,846 East Bay Regional Park District Environmental Services Manager $11,591 $11,591 $1,997 $195 $13,783 $3,303 2.5@55 $17,086 Average $13,193 $13,475 $15,568 $19,971 % +/--13.8%-16.3%-12.9%-16.9% Median $12,798 $13,868 $16,093 $19,060 11 % +/--10.4%-19.6%-16.8%-11.6% 75th Percenile $13,796 $14,071 $16,209 $21,570 12 % +/--19.0%-21.4%-17.6%-26.2% Median Gain/Loss -9.2%2.9%5.2% Park District range max uses Step F.B-24 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Fleet Manager 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Automotive Transit Shop Supervisor I $11,635 $11,635 $1,750 $166 $13,552 $2,300 2.3@62 $15,852 Alameda County Logistics Services Manager $11,937 $358 $12,296 $1,803 $124 $14,222 $2,575 2.09@62 $16,797 Contra Costa County Fleet Manager $10,227 $511 $235 $10,974 $1,825 $77 $12,875 $2,979 2@55 $15,855 Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County Vehicle & Equipment Mgr $11,788 $236 $12,024 $1,650 $127 $16 $13,818 $3,592 ($354)2@55.5 $17,056 Santa Clara County Fleet Manager $12,649 $12,649 $2,785 $118 $10 $15,561 $2,975 ($1,013)2.5@55 $17,523 Sonoma County Fleet Manager $10,375 $415 $10,790 $1,779 $90 $15 $12,674 $1,971 ($314)3@60 $14,331 City of Oakland Equipment Services Superintendent $10,731 $10,731 $1,997 $106 $22 $12,857 $4,531 2.5@55 $17,388 City of Fremont Fleet Maintenance Manager $11,002 $220 $11,222 $2,230 $128 $30 $13,611 $3,435 2@60 $17,047 City of Berkeley Equipment Superintendent $11,909 $357 $181 $953 $13,399 $2,066 $170 $15,635 $3,868 ($953)2.7@55 $18,550 City of Hayward Fleet Maintenance Manager $11,541 $11,541 $1,798 $148 $14 $13,501 $3,606 ($346)2.5@55 $16,761 City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose Fleet Manager $11,327 $11,327 $1,602 $150 $16 $13,095 $11,232 2.5@55 $24,328 East Bay MUD Manager of Fleet and Construction Support $15,128 $15,128 $1,891 $214 $24 $17,256 $5,546 2.6@62 $22,802 East Bay Regional Park District Fleet Manager $11,591 $11,591 $1,997 $195 $13,783 $3,303 2.5@55 $17,086 Average $11,688 $11,976 $14,055 $17,857 % +/--0.8%-3.3%-2.0%-4.5% Median $11,588 $11,588 $13,581 $17,051 12 % +/-0.0%0.0%1.5%0.2% 75th Percenile $11,916 $12,384 $14,557 $17,780 14 % +/--2.8%-6.8%-5.6%-4.1% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%1.4%-1.3% Park District range max uses Step F.B-25 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District General Manager 15 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District General Manager $20,625 $1,031 $21,656 $2,020 $118 $10 $23,804 $3,873 2.5@55 $27,677 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District General Manager $11,794 $472 $12,266 $1,600 $100 $63 $14,028 $3,511 2.5@55 $17,540 City and County of San Francisco No Comparable Class Alameda County County Administrator $29,319 $2,932 $880 $33,131 $1,803 $124 $35,057 $6,324 2.09@62 $41,382 Contra Costa County County Administrator $30,842 $1,542 $235 $32,619 $1,825 $77 $34,521 $8,984 2@55 $43,505 Marin County County Administrator $25,612 $25,612 $1,786 inc inc $27,398 $5,883 2@61.25 $33,281 San Mateo County County Manager $28,843 $577 $29,420 $1,650 $127 $16 $31,213 $8,788 ($865)2@55.5 $39,136 Santa Clara County County Executive $31,467 $1,583 $33,051 $2,785 $118 $10 $35,963 $7,400 ($922)2.5@55 $42,441 Sonoma County County Administrator $22,927 $917 $23,844 $1,779 $90 $15 $25,728 $4,356 ($695)3@60 $29,390 City of Oakland City Administrator $29,811 $29,811 $1,997 $106 $22 $31,937 $12,588 2.5@55 $44,525 City of Fremont City Manager $25,913 $1,583 $27,497 $2,230 $128 $30 $29,885 $8,091 2@60 $37,977 City of Berkeley City Manager $25,119 $754 $181 $2,010 $28,063 $2,066 $170 $30,299 $8,159 ($2,010)2.7@55 $36,448 City of Hayward City Manager $22,655 $22,655 $2,311 $148 $14 $25,128 $7,079 ($1,133)2.5@55 $31,075 City of Pleasanton City Manager $19,007 $380 $19,387 $2,078 $141 $23 $21,629 $6,279 2.7@55 $27,908 City of San Jose City Manager $28,138 $28,138 $1,602 $150 $16 $29,906 $27,901 2.5@55 $57,807 East Bay MUD General Manager $27,088 $2,083 $29,171 $1,840 $214 $24 $31,249 $9,930 2.6@62 $41,179 East Bay Regional Park District General Manager $27,290 $27,290 $1,997 $195 $29,482 $7,777 2.5@55 $37,259 Average $25,277 $26,421 $28,516 $36,751 % +/-7.4%3.2%3.3%1.4% Median $25,913 $28,063 $29,906 $37,977 15 % +/-5.0%-2.8%-1.4%-1.9% 75th Percenile $29,081 $29,615 $31,593 $41,911 15 % +/--6.6%-8.5%-7.2%-12.5% Median Gain/Loss -7.9%1.4%-0.5% Park District range max uses Step F.B-26 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Human Resources Analyst I 16 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Management Analyst II $9,365 $94 $9,459 $2,020 $118 $10 $11,606 $1,759 2.5@55 $13,365 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Human Resources Officer $8,973 $359 $9,332 $1,600 $100 $63 $11,095 $2,671 2.5@55 $13,766 City and County of San Francisco Human Resources Analyst $8,899 $8,899 $1,750 $166 $10,815 $1,759 2.3@62 $12,575 Alameda County Human Resources Analyst II $8,901 $267 $9,168 $1,803 $124 $11,094 $1,920 2.09@62 $13,014 Contra Costa County Human Resources Analyst $8,942 $447 $235 $9,624 $1,825 $77 $11,526 $2,605 2@55 $14,131 Marin County Human Resources Analyst II $8,812 $8,812 $1,786 inc inc $10,598 $2,024 2@61.25 $12,622 San Mateo County Management Analyst $9,695 $194 $9,888 $1,650 $127 $16 $11,682 $2,954 ($291)2@55.5 $14,345 Santa Clara County Human Resources Analyst $9,344 $9,344 $2,785 $118 $10 $12,257 $2,197 ($749)2.5@55 $13,705 Sonoma County Human Resources Analyst II $7,380 $295 $7,675 $1,779 $90 $15 $9,559 $1,402 ($224)3@60 $10,738 City of Oakland Human Resources Analyst $7,939 $7,939 $1,997 $106 $22 $10,064 $3,352 2.5@55 $13,416 City of Fremont Human Resources Analyst III $12,632 $253 $12,884 $2,230 $128 $30 $15,273 $3,944 2@60 $19,217 City of Berkeley Associate Human Resources Analyst $9,826 $295 $181 $786 $11,087 $2,066 $151 $13,303 $3,191 ($786)2.7@55 $15,709 City of Hayward Human Resources Analyst II $9,551 $9,551 $1,798 $148 $14 $11,511 $2,984 ($287)2.5@55 $14,209 City of Pleasanton Management Analyst $9,955 $199 $10,154 $2,078 $141 $23 $12,396 $3,289 2.7@55 $15,685 City of San Jose Analyst II $7,642 $7,642 $1,602 $150 $16 $9,410 $7,578 2.5@55 $16,988 East Bay MUD Human Resources Analyst II $10,379 $10,379 $1,891 $214 $24 $12,507 $3,805 2.6@62 $16,312 East Bay Regional Park District Human Resources Analyst I $8,249 $8,249 $1,997 $195 $10,441 $2,351 2.5@55 $12,792 Average $9,265 $9,490 $11,544 $14,362 % +/--12.3%-15.0%-10.6%-12.3% Median $9,159 $9,401 $11,518 $13,949 16 % +/--11.0%-14.0%-10.3%-9.0% 75th Percenile $9,727 $9,955 $12,291 $15,691 16 % +/--17.9%-20.7%-17.7%-22.7% Median Gain/Loss -2.9%3.7%1.3% Park District range max uses Step F.B-27 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Information Services Network Manager 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Information Technology Program Administrator $11,385 $114 $11,499 $2,020 $118 $10 $13,646 $2,138 2.5@55 $15,784 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Manager V $15,453 $15,453 $2,044 $166 $17,663 $3,055 2.3@62 $20,718 Alameda County No Comparable Class Contra Costa County Network Manager $11,055 $553 $235 $11,842 $1,825 $77 $13,744 $3,220 2@55 $16,964 Marin County Enterprise Systems Manager $13,260 $13,260 $1,786 inc inc $15,046 $3,046 2@61.25 $18,092 San Mateo County Information Technology Manager $11,788 $236 $12,024 $1,650 $127 $16 $13,818 $3,592 ($354)2@55.5 $17,056 Santa Clara County Information Systems Manager III $14,185 $14,185 $2,785 $118 $10 $17,097 $3,336 ($1,136)2.5@55 $19,296 Sonoma County Information Systems Project Manager $11,298 $452 $11,750 $1,779 $90 $15 $13,634 $2,147 ($342)3@60 $15,439 City of Oakland Information Systems Manager I $12,429 $12,429 $1,997 $106 $22 $14,554 $5,248 2.5@55 $19,803 City of Fremont No Comparable Class City of Berkeley Information Systems Manager $13,567 $407 $181 $1,085 $15,240 $2,066 $170 $17,476 $4,406 ($1,085)2.7@55 $20,797 City of Hayward Information Technology Manager $12,227 $12,227 $1,798 $148 $14 $14,187 $3,821 ($367)2.5@55 $17,641 City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose Program Manager I $9,851 $9,851 $1,602 $150 $16 $11,618 $9,768 2.5@55 $21,386 East Bay MUD Information Systems Division Manager $17,981 $17,981 $1,891 $214 $24 $20,109 $6,592 2.6@62 $26,701 East Bay Regional Park District Information Services Network Manager $11,067 $11,067 $1,997 $195 $13,260 $3,154 2.5@55 $16,414 Average $12,873 $13,145 $15,216 $19,140 % +/--16.3%-18.8%-14.8%-16.6% Median $12,328 $12,328 $14,371 $18,694 12 % +/--11.4%-11.4%-8.4%-13.9% 75th Percenile $13,721 $14,448 $17,192 $20,738 13 % +/--24.0%-30.6%-29.7%-26.3% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%3.0%-5.5% Park District range max uses Step F.B-28 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Maintenance Superintendent 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Area Manager $11,385 $114 $11,499 $2,020 $118 $10 $13,646 $2,138 2.5@55 $15,784 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Manager V $15,453 $15,453 $2,044 $166 $17,663 $3,055 2.3@62 $20,718 Alameda County Facilities Manager $11,937 $358 $12,296 $1,803 $124 $14,222 $2,575 2.09@62 $16,797 Contra Costa County Facilities Maintenance Manager $10,810 $541 $235 $11,586 $1,825 $77 $13,488 $3,149 2@55 $16,637 Marin County No Comparable Class San Mateo County Facilities Services Manager $12,379 $248 $12,627 $1,650 $127 $16 $14,421 $3,772 ($371)2@55.5 $17,821 Santa Clara County Assistant Manager, Building Operations $12,217 $12,217 $2,785 $118 $10 $15,130 $2,873 ($979)2.5@55 $17,024 Sonoma County No Comparable Class City of Oakland Manager, Building Services $14,388 $14,388 $1,997 $106 $22 $16,513 $6,076 2.5@55 $22,589 City of Fremont Street Maintenance Manager $10,795 $216 $11,011 $2,230 $128 $30 $13,399 $3,371 2@60 $16,770 City of Berkeley Facilities Maintenance Superintendent $11,909 $357 $181 $953 $13,399 $2,066 $170 $15,635 $3,868 ($953)2.7@55 $18,550 City of Hayward Facilities & Building Manager $11,541 $11,541 $1,798 $148 $14 $13,501 $3,606 ($346)2.5@55 $16,761 City of Pleasanton Operations Superintendent $12,051 $241 $12,292 $2,078 $141 $23 $14,534 $3,981 2.7@55 $18,515 City of San Jose Building Management Administrator $11,898 $11,898 $1,602 $150 $16 $13,666 $11,798 2.5@55 $25,464 East Bay MUD Assistant Construction & Maintenance Supt $12,338 $463 $12,801 $1,891 $214 $24 $14,929 $4,523 2.6@62 $19,452 East Bay Regional Park District Maintenance Superintendent $12,749 $12,749 $1,997 $195 $14,941 $3,633 2.5@55 $18,574 Average $12,239 $12,539 $14,673 $18,683 % +/-4.0%1.6%1.8%-0.6% Median $11,937 $12,292 $14,421 $17,821 13 % +/-6.4%3.6%3.5%4.1% 75th Percenile $12,338 $12,801 $15,130 $19,452 14 % +/-3.2%-0.4%-1.3%-4.7% Median Gain/Loss -2.8%-0.1%0.6% Park District range max uses Step F.B-29 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Management Analyst 15 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Senior Management Analyst $10,842 $108 $10,950 $2,020 $118 $10 $13,098 $2,036 2.5@55 $15,134 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Senior Administrative Analyst $9,934 $9,934 $1,750 $166 $11,851 $1,964 2.3@62 $13,815 Alameda County Management Analyst $8,337 $250 $8,587 $1,803 $124 $10,514 $1,798 2.09@62 $12,312 Contra Costa County Senior Management Analyst $10,497 $525 $235 $11,257 $1,825 $77 $13,159 $3,058 2@55 $16,217 Marin County Administrative Analyst II $8,812 $8,812 $1,786 inc inc $10,598 $2,024 2@61.25 $12,622 San Mateo County Senior Management Analyst $10,693 $214 $10,907 $1,650 $127 $16 $12,700 $3,258 ($321)2@55.5 $15,638 Santa Clara County Senior Management Analyst $10,005 $10,005 $2,785 $118 $10 $12,917 $2,353 ($801)2.5@55 $14,468 Sonoma County Principal Administrative Analyst $11,371 $227 $11,599 $1,779 $90 $15 $13,483 $2,161 ($345)3@60 $15,299 City of Oakland City Administrator Analyst $9,117 $9,117 $1,997 $106 $22 $11,242 $3,850 2.5@55 $15,092 City of Fremont Management Analyst II $10,272 $205 $10,478 $2,230 $128 $30 $12,866 $3,207 2@60 $16,074 City of Berkeley Senior Management Analyst $10,542 $316 $181 $843 $11,883 $2,066 $170 $14,119 $3,424 ($843)2.7@55 $16,699 City of Hayward Senior Management Analyst $10,501 $10,501 $1,798 $148 $14 $12,461 $3,281 ($315)2.5@55 $15,427 City of Pleasanton Management Analyst $9,955 $199 $10,154 $2,078 $141 $23 $12,396 $3,289 2.7@55 $15,685 City of San Jose Senior Executive Analyst $10,820 $10,820 $1,602 $150 $16 $12,588 $10,729 2.5@55 $23,317 East Bay MUD Management Analyst II $10,379 $389 $10,768 $1,891 $214 $24 $12,896 $3,805 2.6@62 $16,701 East Bay Regional Park District Management Analyst $10,542 $10,542 $1,997 $195 $12,734 $3,004 2.5@55 $15,739 Average $10,139 $10,385 $12,459 $15,633 % +/-3.8%1.5%2.2%0.7% Median $10,379 $10,501 $12,700 $15,427 15 % +/-1.5%0.4%0.3%2.0% 75th Percenile $10,618 $10,929 $13,008 $16,145 16 % +/--0.7%-3.7%-2.1%-2.6% Median Gain/Loss -1.2%-0.1%1.7% Park District range max uses Step F.B-30 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Park Unit Manager 12 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Area Manager $11,385 $114 $11,499 $2,020 $118 $10 $13,646 $2,138 2.5@55 $15,784 Livermore Area Recreation and Park District Park and Facilities Manager $10,929 $437 $11,366 $1,600 $100 $63 $13,128 $3,253 2.5@55 $16,382 City and County of San Francisco Manager II $12,378 $12,378 $2,044 $166 $14,588 $2,447 2.3@62 $17,036 Alameda County No Comparable Class Contra Costa County No Comparable Class Marin County Park/Open Space Superintendent $11,901 $11,901 $1,786 inc inc $13,687 $2,734 2@61.25 $16,421 San Mateo County Park Superintendent $13,643 $273 $13,916 $1,650 $127 $16 $15,710 $4,157 ($409)2@55.5 $19,457 Santa Clara County Manager of Park Maintenance Services $11,525 $11,525 $2,785 $118 $10 $14,438 $2,710 ($923)2.5@55 $16,225 Sonoma County Parks and Grounds Maintenance Manager $10,347 $414 $10,761 $1,779 $90 $15 $12,645 $1,966 ($314)3@60 $14,297 City of Oakland Manager, Parks & Recreation Zone $14,388 $14,388 $1,997 $106 $22 $16,513 $6,076 2.5@55 $22,589 City of Fremont Parks/Urban Landscape Manager $10,795 $216 $11,011 $2,230 $128 $30 $13,399 $3,371 2@60 $16,770 City of Berkeley Parks Superintendent $11,909 $357 $181 $953 $13,399 $2,066 $170 $15,635 $3,868 ($953)2.7@55 $18,550 City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton Operations Superintendent $13,700 $274 $13,974 $2,078 $141 $23 $16,216 $4,526 2.7@55 $20,742 City of San Jose Parks Manager $10,865 $10,865 $1,602 $150 $16 $12,632 $10,773 2.5@55 $23,406 East Bay MUD No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Park Unit Manager $12,749 $12,749 $1,997 $195 $14,941 $3,633 2.5@55 $18,574 Average $11,980 $12,249 $14,353 $18,138 % +/-6.0%3.9%3.9%2.3% Median $11,713 $11,713 $14,062 $16,903 12 % +/-8.1%8.1%5.9%9.0% 75th Percenile $12,694 $13,529 $15,654 $19,778 12 % +/-0.4%-6.1%-4.8%-6.5% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%-2.2%3.1% Park District range max uses Step F.B-31 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Police Captain 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Police Captain $17,461 $1,048 $18,509 $1,750 $166 $20,426 $7,049 2@50 $27,474 Alameda County Captain $16,285 $16,285 $1,751 $124 $18,160 $9,712 3@55 $27,872 Contra Costa County Captain $14,749 $1,032 $40 $15,822 $1,809 $76 $17,707 $10,577 N $28,283 Marin County Sheriff's Captain $15,181 $15,181 $1,786 inc inc $16,966 $5,626 3@50 $22,592 San Mateo County Sheriff's Captain $16,319 $326 $16,646 $1,650 $127 $16 $18,439 $10,449 ($816)Y $28,073 Santa Clara County Captain $17,638 $17,638 $2,785 $118 $10 $20,550 $8,077 3@50 $28,627 Sonoma County Sheriff's Captain $14,312 $644 $14,956 $1,779 $90 $15 $16,841 $4,126 ($429)3@50 $20,538 City of Oakland Captain of Police $17,391 $156 $17,547 $1,997 $187 $19,732 $3,232 ($522)3@55 $22,442 City of Fremont Police Captain $19,843 $456 $20,299 $2,230 $128 $30 $22,688 $11,430 ($595)3@55 $33,523 City of Berkeley Police Captain $16,858 $843 $54 $17,755 $2,066 $170 $19,991 $11,229 ($337)3@55 $30,882 City of Hayward Police Captain $17,680 $17,680 $2,889 $185 $29 $20,783 $10,345 ($1,061)3@50 $30,067 City of Pleasanton Police Captain $16,475 $330 $16,805 $2,078 $141 $23 $19,046 $3,161 3@55 $22,207 City of San Jose Police Captain $16,975 $679 $17,654 $1,761 $101 $19,515 $16,559 2.5/4@50 $36,074 East Bay MUD No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Police Captain $16,851 $16,851 $2,037 $195 $19,083 $3,438 ($506)3@55 $22,016 Average $16,705 $17,137 $19,296 $27,589 % +/-0.9%-1.7%-1.1%-25.3% Median $16,858 $17,547 $19,515 $28,073 13 % +/-0.0%-4.1%-2.3%-27.5% 75th Percenile $17,461 $17,680 $20,426 $30,067 15 % +/--3.6%-4.9%-7.0%-36.6% Median Gain/Loss -4.1%1.9%-25.2% Park District range max uses Step F.B-32 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Police Lieutenant 13 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Police Lieutenant $13,819 $829 $14,648 $1,750 $166 $16,565 $5,578 2@50 $22,143 Alameda County Lieutenant $14,161 $14,161 $1,751 $124 $16,036 $8,446 3@55 $24,482 Contra Costa County Lieutenant $12,514 $876 $40 $13,430 $1,809 $76 $15,315 $8,974 N $24,288 Marin County Sheriff's Lieutenant $13,132 $13,132 $1,786 inc inc $14,918 $4,867 ($341)3@50 $19,443 San Mateo County Sheriff's Lieutenant $14,101 $282 $14,383 $1,650 $127 $16 $16,176 $9,029 ($705)Y $24,500 Santa Clara County Sheriff's Lieutenant $12,929 $12,929 $2,785 $118 $10 $15,842 $5,921 3@50 $21,762 Sonoma County Sheriff's Lieutenant $12,467 $561 $13,028 $1,779 $90 $15 $14,912 $3,594 ($374)3@50 $18,132 City of Oakland Lieutenant of Police $14,417 $156 $14,573 $1,997 $187 $16,758 $2,679 ($433)3@55 $19,004 City of Fremont Police Lieutenant $17,228 $396 $17,625 $2,230 $128 $30 $20,013 $9,924 ($517)3@55 $29,421 City of Berkeley Police Lieutenant $14,706 $735 $54 $15,495 $2,066 $170 $17,731 $9,795 ($294)3@55 $27,231 City of Hayward Police Lieutenant $13,499 $13,499 $2,889 $185 $29 $16,602 $7,899 ($810)3@50 $23,691 City of Pleasanton Police Lieutenant $14,030 $281 $14,311 $2,078 $141 $23 $16,553 $2,692 3@55 $19,244 City of San Jose Police Lieutenant $14,673 $587 $15,260 $1,761 $101 $17,121 $14,313 2.5/4@50 $31,434 East Bay MUD No Comparable Class East Bay Regional Park District Police Lieutenant $14,019 $14,019 $2,037 $195 $16,251 $2,860 ($421)3@55 $18,690 Average $13,975 $14,344 $16,503 $23,444 % +/-0.3%-2.3%-1.6%-25.4% Median $14,030 $14,311 $16,553 $23,691 13 % +/--0.1%-2.1%-1.9%-26.8% 75th Percenile $14,417 $14,648 $16,758 $24,500 15 % +/--2.8%-4.5%-3.1%-31.1% Median Gain/Loss -2.0%0.2%-24.9% Park District range max uses Step F.B-33 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates Data Effective December 2019 East Bay Regional Park District Risk Manager 11 Cash Supplements Insurance Benefits Retirement Benefits Survey Agency Comparable Class Range Max.Long.Def. Comp. Ret. Pickup Base + Cash Health Dental Vision Base + Cash + Ins. Emp. Ret.EE Cont to ER Ret. Form. Base + Cash + Ins. + Ret. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No Comparable Class Livermore Area Recreation and Park District No Comparable Class City and County of San Francisco Safety Officer $12,747 $12,747 $1,750 $166 $14,663 $2,520 2.3@62 $17,183 Alameda County Director, Risk Management $13,125 $394 $13,519 $1,854 $124 $15,497 $2,831 2.09@62 $18,328 Contra Costa County Risk Manager $11,179 $559 $235 $11,973 $1,825 $77 $13,875 $3,257 2@55 $17,132 Marin County Risk Manager $12,083 $12,083 $1,786 inc inc $13,869 $2,775 2@61.25 $16,644 San Mateo County No Comparable Class Santa Clara County Occupational Safety Environmental Compliance Program Manager $13,029 $13,029 $2,785 $118 $10 $15,941 $3,064 ($1,044)2.5@55 $17,961 Sonoma County Risk Manager $10,900 $436 $11,336 $1,779 $90 $15 $13,220 $2,071 ($330)3@60 $14,961 City of Oakland Claims and Risk Manager $14,392 $14,392 $1,997 $106 $22 $16,518 $6,077 2.5@55 $22,595 City of Fremont Risk Manager $14,366 $287 $14,654 $2,230 $128 $30 $17,042 $4,486 2@60 $21,528 City of Berkeley Occupational Health & Safety Officer $10,179 $305 $181 $814 $11,480 $2,066 $151 $13,696 $3,306 ($814)2.7@55 $16,188 City of Hayward No Comparable Class City of Pleasanton No Comparable Class City of San Jose Risk Manager $12,360 $12,360 $1,602 $150 $16 $14,128 $12,256 2.5@55 $26,384 East Bay MUD Risk Manager $15,128 $15,128 $1,891 $214 $24 $17,256 $5,546 2.6@62 $22,802 East Bay Regional Park District Risk and Safety Manager $11,067 $11,067 $1,997 $195 $13,260 $3,154 2.5@55 $16,414 Risk ManagerAvg Average $12,681 $12,973 $15,064 $19,246 % +/--14.6%-17.2%-13.6%-17.3% Median $12,747 $12,747 $14,663 $17,961 11 % +/--15.2%-15.2%-10.6%-9.4% 75th Percenile $13,746 $13,955 $16,229 $22,061 13 % +/--24.2%-26.1%-22.4%-34.4% Median Gain/Loss 0.0%4.6%1.2% Park District range max uses Step F.B-34 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ap p e nd ix APPENDIX C MANAGEMENT SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates East Bay Regional Park District Salary Recommendations Same as current salary if less than 8.0% above market LineRecommended Job Classification Title Current Job Classification Title Current Step F Recomm. Range Recomm. Step F Percent Change 1 General Manager General Manager 27,290$ MG11 $27,290 0.0% 2 3 Deputy General Manager Deputy General Manager 23,572$ MG10 $23,572 0.0% 4 5 AGM, Legal and Risk/District Counsel AGM, District Counsel 20,400$ MG09 $20,400 0.0% 6 AGM, Operations AGM, Operations 20,400$ MG09 $20,400 0.0% 7 AGM, Public Safety/Chief of Police AGM, Public Safety 20,400$ MG09 $20,400 0.0% 8 9 AGM, Acquis/Stew/Development AGM, Acquis/Stew/Development 18,547$ MG08 $18,547 0.0% 10 AGM, Finance & Management Svcs AGM, Finance & Management Svcs 18,547$ MG08 $18,547 0.0% 11 12 Fire Chief Fire Chief 16,851$ MG07 $16,851 0.0% 13 AGM, Public Affairs/Exec Dir of the Reg Parks Found AGM, Public Affairs 16,851$ MG07 $16,851 0.0% 14 Assistant District Counsel II Assistant District Counsel II 16,851$ MG07 $16,851 0.0% 15 Chief, Human Resources Officer Chief, Human Resources Officer 16,851$ MG07 $16,851 0.0% 16 Police Captain Police Captain 16,851$ MG07 $16,851 0.0% 17 18 Chief, Park Operations Chief, Park Operations 15,441$ MG06 $15,441 0.0% 19 Assistant District Counsel I Assistant District Counsel I 15,441$ MG06 $15,441 0.0% 20 21 Assistant Finance Officer Assistant Finance Officer 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 22 Chief Information Officer Chief Information Officer 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 23 Chief, Design & Construction Chief, Design & Construction 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 24 Chief, Interp & Rec Svcs Chief, Interp & Rec Svcs 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 25 Chief, Land Acquisition Chief, Land Acquisition 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 26 Chief, Maint & Skilled Trades Chief, Maint & Skilled Trades 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 27 Chief, Planning, Trails & GIS Chief, Planning & GIS 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 28 Chief, Stewardship Chief, Stewardship 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 29 Land Acquisition Manager Land Acquisition Manager 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 30 Regional Parks Foundation Chief Administrative Officer New Class 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 31 Police Lieutenant Police Lieutenant 14,019$ MG05 $14,019 0.0% 32 33 Assistant Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief 12,749$ MG04 $12,749 0.0% 34 Business Services Manager Business Services Manager 12,749$ MG04 $12,749 0.0% 35 Maintenance Superintendent Maintenance Superintendent 12,749$ MG04 $12,749 0.0% 36 Park Unit Manager Park Unit Manager 12,749$ MG04 $12,749 0.0% 37 Reg Interp & Rec Svcs Manager Reg Interp & Rec Svcs Manager 12,749$ MG04 $12,749 0.0% 38 39 Aquatics Manager Aquatic Manager 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 40 Communications, Records & Property Manager Communications And Records Mgr 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 41 Capital Program Manager Capital Program Manager 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 42 Survey & Construction Inspection Manager Construction Manager 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 43 Design Manager Design Manager 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 44 Ecological Services Manager Environmental Services Manager 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 45 Facilities Manager Facilities Manager 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 46 Fleet Manager Fleet Manager 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 47 Chief, Government & Legislative Affairs New Class 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 48 Risk and Safety Manager Risk Manager 11,067$ MG03 $11,591 4.7% 49 Talent Development Manager Human Resources Analyst, Principal 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 50 Trades Manager Trades Manager 11,591$ MG03 $11,591 0.0% 51 52 Accounting Manager Accounting Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 53 Administrative Support Manager Administrative Support Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 54 Audit Manager Audit Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 55 Benefits Manager Benefits Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 56 Budget Manager Budget Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 57 Clerk of the Board Clerk of the Board 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 58 Community Relations Manager Community Relations Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 59 Creative Design Manager Creative Design Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 60 Restoration Projects Manager Environmental Program Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 61 Fisheries Program Manager Fisheries Program Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 62 Grants Manager Grants Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 63 Information Services Systems Manager Info Svcs Network Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 64 Learning and Development Manager Human Resources Analyst, Senior (Training Manager)11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 65 Trails Program Manager Trails Develop Program Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% Changes in salary range highlighted in blue.C-1 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93 Ralph Andersen & Associates East Bay Regional Park District Salary Recommendations Same as current salary if less than 8.0% above market LineRecommended Job Classification Title Current Job Classification Title Current Step F Recomm. Range Recomm. Step F Percent Change 66 Wildland Veg Program Manager Wildland Veg Program Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 67 Wildlife Program Manager Wildlife Program Manager 11,067$ MG02 $11,067 0.0% 68 69 Development Officer Development Officer 10,542$ MG01 $10,542 0.0% 70 Foundation Finance Manager Management Analyst 10,542$ MG01 $10,542 0.0% 71 Legislative Policy Management Analyst New Class 10,542$ MG01 $10,542 0.0% 72 Senior Human Resources Analyst Human Resources Analyst II 10,542$ MG01 $10,542 0.0% 73 Management Analyst Management Analyst 10,542$ MG01 $10,542 0.0% 74 75 Human Resources Analyst Human Resources Analyst I 8,249$ MG00 $9,093 10.2% 76292 Changes in salary range highlighted in blue.C-2 Print Date: 11/17/2020SAMPLEDocuSign Envelope ID: D670E9F1-26DC-4385-9BD6-2863EB3EF52FDocuSign Envelope ID: 3D145F66-FFC3-4858-B968-F2E92CD0CC93