Agenda_2015_5_12_Meeting Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District AGENDA Michael Scheafer President Arthur Perry Vice President Robert Ooten Secretary Arlene Schafer Assistant Secretary James Ferryman Director Public Comments. Any member of the public may address the Board. Sp eakers on agenda items should identify themselves to the Depu ty Clerk before the meeting so that their input can be provided at the time the item is considered. Speakers on non-agenda items will be heard under Public Comments. Pursuan t to State law, the Board may not discuss or take action on non-agenda items except u nder special circumstances. Speakers must limit their remarks to three minutes or as decided upon by the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer reserves the right to declare any speaker out of order . Obtaining Agenda Materials: The public is entitled to copies of all documents t hat are made part of the agenda packet. If any documen t or other writing pertaining to an agenda item is distributed to all or a majority of the Board after the packet is prepared, a copy of that writing may be obtained at the Distr ict offices at 628 W. 19 th Street, Costa Mesa, California. The Deputy Clerk of the Di strict may be contacted at (949) 645-8400. In Compliance with ADA: Contact Noelani Middenway, (949) 645-8400, 48 hour s prior to meeting if assistance is needed (28 CFR 35.102.3 5.104 ADA Title II). Study Session - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 I.CALL TO ORDER II.ROLL CALL (If absences occur, consider whether to deem those absences excused based on facts presented for the absence - such determinatio n shall be the permission required by law.)III.PUBLIC COMMENTS This time has been set aside for persons in the aud ience to make comments on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District that are not listed on this agenda . Members of the public will have the opportunity to address the Board of Directors about all other items on this agenda at the time those items are considered.
Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from taking action on oral requests but may refer the ma tter to staff or to a subsequent meeting. The Board of Directors will respond after public comment has been received. Please state your name. Each speaker wi ll be limited to four (4) continuous minutes.IV.ITEMS OF STUDY 1.Recycling & Waste Diversion Reports - April 2015 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. 2.Code Enforcement Officer Report - April 2015 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. 3.Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement Recommendation: That the Board of Directors direct staff to bring this item back to the May 28, 2015 Board of Directors regular meeting for approval consideration. 4.OCC Recycling Center Expansion Update - Oral Repo rt Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e an oral report from Mike Carey. 5.Draft Reports of the Classification and Compensat ion Study Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e the reports from Koff & Associates and provide direction to staff for the FY 2015-16 & 16-17 Budget.6.Trash Carts Stored in Alleys - Update Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report.7.Alkaline Battery Recycling Program - Final Result s Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the re port.8.OC Waste & Recycling Coordinator's Meeting - Upda te Recommendation: That the Board of Directors oppose AB 45 (Mullin) and direct staff to formally oppose this bill with Stat e legislators. 9.Organics Ad Hoc Committee Update - Oral Report Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e an oral report from Secretary Ooten. 10.Project #101 Westside Pump Station Abandonment D esign and Engineering Phase - Oral Report Recommendation: That the Board of Directors consid er options for the design and engineering phase of Project #101 - West side Pump Station Abandonment.11.Future Study Session Items Recommendation: That the Board of Directors provid e staff with direction on items to be placed on future study session agendas. V.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND DIRECTOR COMMENTS VI.ADJOURNMENT
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Recycling & Waste Diversion Reports - April 2015 Item Number:1. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Recycling & Waste Diversion Report Cover Memo
CR Transfer CR Transfer To:Javier Ochiqui To:Javier Ochiqui From: CR Transfer Inc.From: CR Transfer Inc.Jurisdiction:Costa Mesa Sanitary District (9)Jurisdiction:Costa Mesa Sanitary District Santa Ana Heights (11)Month/Year:Apr-15 Month/Year:Apr-15 Recycling Report Recycling Report Recycle Tons Recycle Tons Commodity Percentage Recycled Commodity Percentage Recycled Paper(cardboard+mixed paper)9.50%316.50 Green Waste 20.50%43.84 Plastics(mixed plastic+HDPE+PET)2.73%90.95 GW Fines 6.99%14.95 Metal(metal+aluminum+alum. Cans)3.91%130.27 Fines 9.99%21.36 Wood 2.92%97.28 Textiles 0.17%0.37 Greenwaste 34.77%1,158.39 Glass 1.89%4.04 Liquids 0.37%12.33 Paper 4.29%9.17 Fines 0.52%17.32 Plastic 5.58%11.93 Glass(bottles)2.03%67.63 Food Waste 0.00%- Concrete 0.33%10.99 Metal 1.20%2.57 Concrete 0.51%1.10 Wood 0.86%1.83 Totals 57.08%1,901.67 Totals 51.97%111.16 Total Tonnage 3,331.59 Total Tonnage 213.89 Recycled Tonnage 1,901.67 Recycled Tonnage 111.16 Landfill Tonnage 1,429.92 Landfill Tonnage 102.73
JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE TOTAL 3,906.93 3,403.96 3,461.33 3,577.08 3,144.65 3,685.73 3,483.11 3,181.54 3,560.85 3,545.48 34,950.66 2,218.01 1,936.10 1,969.05 2,030.68 1,785.99 2,092.55 1,979.46 1,807.01 2,023.75 2,012.83 19,855.43 1,688.92 1,467.86 1,492.28 1,546.40 1,358.66 1,593.18 1,503.65 1,374.53 1,537.10 1,532.65 15,095.23 56.77%56.88%56.89%56.77%56.79%56.77%56.83%56.80%56.83%56.77%#DIV/0!#DIV/0!56.81%Recycled %CMSD WASTE DIVERSION REPORT FY 2014-2015 Total Tonnage Recycled Tonnage Landfilled Tonnage
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Code Enforcement Officer Report - April 2015 Item Number:2. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Code Enforcement Officer Report Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via : Scott Carroll , General Manager From: Edward Roberts, Code Enforcement Officer Date: May 12 , 201 5 Subject: Code Enforcement Officer Report – April 2015 This report summarizes major points for three ordinan ce enforcement topics covering scavenging, graffiti, and trash container e nforcement . For the month of April , the CMS D Code Enforcement Officer foc us ed his efforts on patrols in various parts of the community . The goal was identify and deter in stances of scavenging and residential trash carts left within the public view . I n the month of April we saw a reduced number of complaints filed with CMSD Co de Enforcement staff regarding scavenging activity in the city. As with most scavenging complaints, the alleged violations take place in the early morning hours. In order to address resident concerns, t he Code Enforcement Officer investigate d all complaint s and adjusted his sche dule to accommodate request s for early morning or weekend enforcement. Included below are instances of scavenging that were detected while the Officer was investigating specific complaints. Proactive Scavenging Investigations: 890 Capitol Street - While conducting regular patrol in the 800 block of Capitol Street, Officer Rob erts observed a female, later identified as Marla Sutton riding on a bicycle. Officer Roberts observed that Marla had a clear trash bag with her that contained s everal plastic bottles and was stopping at CMSD carts and opening the lids . While in front of the residence at 890 Capitol Street, Officer Roberts observed that Marla opened the lid of a CMSD trash cart and began to rummage through the interior. Officer R oberts approached Marla and made contact with her from the driver side window of his CMSD vehicle and did not exit his vehicle. Officer Roberts advised Marla
Board of Directors May 2015 that scavenging is a prohibited activity and directed her to return all recyclable material to the CMSD cart. Marla was advised of CMSD code and sent on her way. 332 Flower Street - As Officer Roberts was patrolling the 300 block of Flower Street, he observed a male subject rummaging through a CMSD cart that was placed in front of the above location. Officer Roberts contacted the male from his driver side window and asked him what he was doing. The male stated that he was looking for recyclables in order to make some money . Officer Roberts directed the male to cease rummaging through the cart and lea ve CMSD carts alone. The male subject was advised that he would be subject to citation if seen scavenging though CMSD carts. The male stated that he understood and was sent on his way. 2256 Fordham Drive - While on patrol in the 2200 block of Fordham Driv e , Officer Rober ts observed a male subject, later id entified himself as Steven Londe, rummaging through a CMSD trash cart located in front of 2256 Fordham Drive . Officer Roberts observed Steven removing what appeared to be recyclable it ems from the CMSD tr ash cart and ba sed on the observed violation decided to contact Steven to investigate further. During th e course of the contact, Steven admitted that he regularly obtains recyclable m aterial from CMSD carts and recycles items in order to support himself. Of ficer Roberts explain ed to Steven that CMSD ordinances prohibit scavenging and future instances of that nature would result in citation. Offi cer Roberts directed Steven to return all recyclable material obtained from the CMSD carts. Steven was sent on h is way with no further incident. 712 Hamilton Street –Officer Roberts observed a male subject walking through the residential street and noted that he had numerous plastic bottles in a plastic bag suspended from his belt . Officer Roberts did not observe t he male scavenging; however formed the opinion that the subject may have violated CMSD ordinances by being in possession of the plastic bottles and the presence of numerous CMSD carts in the area . Officer Roberts contacted the male subject and let him kn ow that scavenging is prohibited and enforced . T he male subject became belligerent and verbally abusive. Based on the subject’s aggressive demeanor and lack of probable cause, Officer R oberts reminded the subject that scavenging is prohibited and discontin ued the contact . 791 Scott Place -Offic er Roberts contacted an elderly male subject who identified himself verbally as Sergio Calles on the sidewalk in front of the above listed residence. Officer Roberts noted that Sergio had a sm all plastic bag with him and had observed
Board of Directors May 2015 him removing recyclable material from within a CMSD trash cart. Due to Sergio’s advanced age and cooperative demeanor, Officer Roberts dire cted Sergio to return to all recyclable material to the trash cart and sent him on his way with a v erbal admonishment. END OF SCAVENGING ENFORCEMENT REPORT Trash Container Enforcement : In the month of April , there were a few customer complaints reported to the District Headquarters rega rding trash carts in public view. The following is a list of locations where trash cart violations were found and addressed by the Courtesy Notice process. Total Cases: 35 The following locations received w arnings: (1) American Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (2 ) College Avenue -Storage of carts in p ublic view (1) Congress Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Dogwood Street - Storage of carts in public view. (2 ) Fullerton Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (2 ) Governor Street - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Joann Street - S torage of carts in public view. (1) Jefferson Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (2 ) Maple Street - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Monrovia Avenue -Storage of carts in public view (2) National Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (2 ) Orange Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (3) Pomona Avenue - Storage of carts in public view.
Board of Directors May 2015 (1) Republic Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (2 ) Rutgers Drive - Storage of cart s in public view. (1) Samar Drive - Storage of carts in p ublic view. (2) Santa Ana Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (1) Seal Street - Storage of carts in public view. (1 ) Senate Street - Storage of carts in public view. (2 ) Wallace Avenue - Storage of carts in public view. (3 ) Victoria Street - S torage of carts in the public view . (1) 18 th Street - Storage of carts in public view. END OF TRASH CONTAINER ENFORCEMENT REPORT Alley Trash Cart Enforcement: In the month of April, there were a few customer complaints reported to the District He adquarters rega rding trash carts left out in various alley right -of -way s . The following is a list of locations where trash cart violations were found and addressed by the Courtesy Notice process. (26 ) 200 block of Flower Street - Storage of carts in publi c view due to being left in the public right -of -way. Out of the 26 homes observed, two residences were tagged for leaving trash carts on the public right -of -way. The remainder of the homes stored their respective carts on private property.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Scavenging Report – April 2015 Locations: • 890 Capitol St. • 332 Flower St. • 2256 Fordham Dr. • 712 Hamilton St. • 791 Scott Place
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement Item Number:3. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors direct staff to bring this item back to the May 28, 2015 Board of Directors regular meeting for app roval consideration. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager From: Elizabeth Pham , Management Assistant Date: May 1 2 , 201 5 Subject: Amen dment to Waste Disposal Agreement Summary The majority of Orange County cities, Midway City Sanitary District and the County have collectively reached an agreement for an amendment to the 2009 Waste Disposal Agreement (WDA). The amendment will provide for the continuation of solid waste importati on at the County landfills, allocation of future importation revenues to each agency and to extend terms of the WDA through June 30, 2025. This action will maintain stable County disposal rates and continuity of se rvice for residents while ensuring continued partnership between cities, special districts and the C ounty. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District has an executed WDA with the County and needs to consider approving the amendment, which is attached hereto. Staff Recommendation That the Board of Directors direct staff to bring this item back to the May 28, 2015 Board of Directors regular meeting for approval consideration. Analysis The disposal of solid waste at Orange Cou nty landfills is govern ed by a Waste Disposal Agreement that was established in 2009, in which cities , as well as certain sanitary districts located in the County , have agreed to deposit their solid waste at the County’s three landfill facilities in return for low and stable dis posal rates. The term of the current WDA began on July 1, 2010 and continues through June 30, 2020 with importation of waste from outside the County at County landfills set to expire on June 30, 2016.
Board of Directors Study Session May 12 , 201 5 Page 2 of 3 Th e WDA is an example of County , cities and sanitar y districts collaborating to strategically leverage a countywide asset. The solid waste revenues are utilized by the County: to maintain the landfill system; to preserve funds for landfill closure costs; to address post -closure maintenance , and to mitigate long -term risk and environmental liabilities. The District and other cities in Orange County have benefit ted from additional services provided by the County that include: permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities; green waste acceptance at no charge to cities to assist with compliance with state recycling mandates; and support of programs to meet state diversion requirements. In 2004, a convergence of several factors resulted in drastic declines to in -County tonnage (more than 30 percent ). Successful waste diversion and recycling programs, the economic downturn and increased legislative requirements were contributing factors to this decline. A committee of City Managers representing Orange County cities participated with the County in pre paring a framework to address the reduction in revenues and to ensure rate stabilization for local residents and businesses. The proposed Amendment to the WDA sets forth the continuation of future importation to offset the revenue reduction and establish es a fair -share allocation of net importation revenues to cities and s anitary d istricts . An in -depth review of County resources concluded the amount of imported waste combined with in -County waste will remain below total disposal tonnage projections indica ted in the current WDA. The proposed 5 -year extension of the WDA to 2025 will provide additional stability to the system in light of more stringent legislative and regulatory requirements such as AB 1826, AB 1594, and the 75% recycling target of AB 341. S trategic Plan Element & Goal This item complies with the objective and strategy of Strategic Element 2.0, Solid Waste, which states: “Objective: Our objective is to manage the collection and recycling of residential trash in the most economical and enviro nmentally friendly way.” “Strategy : We will do this by looking for ways to improve efficiencies, achieve high customer satisfaction, and considering prudent new recycling methods.” Legal Review Not applicable Environmental Review The amendment of the Wa ste Disposal Agreement is not a disturbance of the environment similar t o grading or construction and do es not constitute a s a project under CEQA or the District’s CEQA Guidelines. Financial Review
Board of Directors Study Session May 12 , 201 5 Page 3 of 3 The District would receive 1.48 percent of the allocatio n pursuant to Section 3.6 (Attachment D), which is approximately $79,976 annually . The allocation amount of $79,976 can fluctuate and varies upon the amount of waste imported. The initial allocation to the District will be made by September 30, 2016. Pub lic Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the complete agenda packet for the Ma y 1 2 , 201 5 , Board of Directors Study Session meeting at District Headquarters and posted on the District’s website. Alternative Actions 1. Di rect staff to re port back with more information Attachments B . Importation for Amendment Presentation C . WDA Background D . 2015 WDA Final Amendment
Proposed Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement Council Briefing Sheet March 2015
•Through the 2009 Waste Disposal Agreements (WDA), Cities and County have had a successful partnership since 1997 which has resulted in low, predictable disposal rates for Orange County residents and businesses. •Since FY 2004 -05, in -County tonnage has declined by over 30% due to successful diversion programs and economy . •Continued decline of in -County tonnage projected due to legislative and regulatory requirements (AB 341, AB 1826, AB 1594) •Tonnage declines have resulted in revenue shortfalls. •Absent action, rate and/or service level impacts will result. Current Tonnage vs WDA Projections Time Period (since 7/1/10) WDA Minimum Tonnage Commitment Actual / Projected Tonnage Shortfall (Tons) % Shortfall June 30, 2014 13.5 million 10.7 million (2.8 million) -21% June 30, 2020 35.0 million 26.6 million (8.4 million) -24%
System Capacity and Importation •Disposal System has significant capacity. •Importation will use no more capacity than previously anticipated in WDA. •6.24 million tons (approximately 1.5 years of system life). •Even with importation, disposal system has system life until approximately the year 2100.
Historic WDA Tipping Fee per Ton Description 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 WDA Fee per Ton $29.95 $30.30 $31.37 $32.05 $32.36 Percent Increase 1.17% 3.53% 2.17% 0.97%
Terms of Amendment to WDA Terms Proposed 2015 Tentative Agreement Goal WDA Term Five -year extension from 2020 to 2025 •Maintain long -term partnership •Facilitate long -range capital planning Importation Term Remove expiration date of 2016 •Stabilize rates •Maintain long -term partnership Importation Revenues Fund disposal system operations, pays off County Bankruptcy and equitable sharing of net importation revenues •Ensure long -term viable Countywide asset •Maintain stable rates for residents •Continue high service levels •Mitigate long -term risk and environmental liabilities •Helps address legislative mandates
2015 Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement AMENDMENT TO WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT Between THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA and the CITY OF ______________ _______ __, 2015 County Amendment Authorization Date: City Amendment Authorization Date: ________ __, 2015 ______ __, 2015 County Notice Address: City Notice Address Director OC Waste and Recycling 300 N. Flower, Suite 400 Santa Ana, CA 92703 __________________ City of ____________ __________________ __________________
2015 Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement AMENDMENT TO WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT TO WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and dated as of the date indicated on the cover page hereof between the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California (the “County”), and the City designated on the cove r page of this Amendment, a general law or charter city and political subdivision of the State of California (the “City”). RECITALS The County owns, manages and operates a sanitary landfill system for the disposal of municipal solid waste generated by the cities and the unincorporated area within the County (the “Disposal System”). The Disposal System includes three active landfills and four regional household hazardous waste collection centers. The Disposal System is used for the disposal of municipal soli d waste which is not reused, recycled or otherwise diverted from landfill disposal, pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Division 30 of the California Public Resources Code) (the “Act”). T he County has entered into waste disp osal agreements in 2009 (the “Original Waste Disposal Agreements”) with all of the cities in the County , including the City , as well as certain sanitary districts located in the County (the “Participating Cities ”), pursuant to which the County agreed to pr ovide disposal capacity for waste generated in or under the control of the Participating Cities , and the Participating Cities agreed to deliver or cause the delivery of waste generated in or under the control of the Participating Cities to the Disposal Sys tem, as more specifically set forth in, and subject to the terms and conditions of, the Original Waste Disposal Agreements. The City has determined that the execution of this Amendment by the City is in the best interest of the City and will serve the public health, safety and welfare by providing greater disposal rate stability, more predictable and reliable long -term disposal service, and sound environmental management. The County has determined that the execution by the County of this A mendment will serve the public health, safety and welfare by providing a more stable, predictable and reliable supply of municipal solid waste and the resulting service payment revenue to the Disposal System, thereby enabling the County to plan, mana ge, operate and finance improvements to the Disposal System on a more prudent and sound long term, businesslike basis consistent with its obligations to the State and the holders of obligations secured by its Disposal System. Official action approving this Amendment and determining it to be in the public interest and authorizing its execution and delivery was duly taken by the County on the County authorization date indicated on the cover page hereof. Official action approving this Amendment and determining it to be in the public interest and authorizing its execution and delivery was duly taken by the City on the City authorization date indicated on the cover page hereof. It is, therefore, agreed as follows:
2015 Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement Section 1. Amendment to Original Waste Disposal Agreement. (a ) Sections 3.6(C) and 3.6(E ) of the Original Waste Disposal Agreement are deleted and replaced in their entirety , as set forth below : “(C) Receipt of Imported Acceptable Waste on a Contract Basis . Throughout the Term hereof, t he County shall have the right to enter into a contract or other agreement with any municipal or private non -County entity for the delivery of Imported Acceptable Waste on terms and conditions that the County determines to be necessary to ensure and enhance the viability of the Disposal System for the benefit of the County and the Participating Cities and to generate Net Import Revenues. The County certifies that in its good faith judgment the contract or other agreement for the delivery of such waste will not materially and adversely affect the ability of the County to receive and dispose of Acceptable Waste from the Participating Cities in accordance with the applicable Disposal Agreements throughout the Term thereof. “ “(E) Application and Use of Revenues From Other Use rs . (1) Throughout the term hereof, a ll revenues received by the County from the disposal of County Acceptable Waste by the Disposal System, and all revenues received by the County from the disposal of Imported Acceptable Waste by the Disposal System (inc luding amounts received by the County as a result of the failure of contract counterparties to deliver minimum required amounts of Imported Acceptable Waste) , shall be deposited by the County in the County OC Waste & Recycling Enterprise Fund and shall co nstitute revenues of the Disposal System. Pursuant to the County ’s Plan of Adjustment, the County is entitled to receive net revenues (after payment of all costs attributable to the acceptance of such Imported Acceptable Waste at the Disposal System) (“Net Import Revenues”) from the disposal of Imported Acceptable Waste by the Disposal System . Costs attributable to the disposal of Imported Acceptable Waste include deposits to the Environmental Fund, deposits to closure and postclosure reserves, City host fe es (if applicable), operating costs (such as manpower expenditures, equipment, services and supplies expenditures), state surcharges, and a pro rata share of capital project costs. Net Import Revenues shall be used for the payment of bankruptcy related obligations until payment in full of such bankruptcy related obligations required to be paid from such Net Import Revenues pursuant to the Plan of Adjustment . It is estimated that pay ment in full of such bankruptcy related obligations required to be paid from such Net Import Revenues pursuant to the Plan of Adjustment will occur by the end of Fiscal Year 2017 -18 . (2) Until the County’s obligation to apply Net Import Revenues for the pa yment of bankruptcy related obligations in accordance with the Plan of Adjustment has been satisfied in full, Net Import Revenues shall be calculated as provided in Section (3.6)(E)(1). For any period after the County’s obligation to apply Net Import Reve nues for the payment of bankruptcy related obligations in accordance with the Plan of Adjustment has been satisfied in full, Net Import Revenues shall be calculated as follows: (i) in Fiscal Year 2017 -18, Net Import Revenues for each ton of Imported Accept able Waste received shall be equal to the revenues received for the disposal of such ton of Imported Acceptable Waste (excluding any newly established per -ton fees or increases to existing per -ton fees with respect to Imported Acceptable Waste payable to t he State, other regulatory agencies or cities in which facilities in the Disposal System are located ) in excess of $1 7.57 per ton ; (ii) in Fiscal Year 201 8 -1 9 , Net Import Revenues for each ton of Imported Acceptable Waste received shall be equal to the rev enues received for the disposal of such ton of Imported
2015 Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement Acceptable Waste (excluding any newly established per -ton fees or increases to existing per -ton fees with respect to Imported Acceptable Waste payable to the State, other regulatory agencies or cities in which facilities in the Disposal System are located ) in excess of $1 8 .01 per ton ; (iii) in Fiscal Year 2019 -20, Net Import Revenues for each ton of Imported Acceptable Waste received shall be equal to the revenues received for the disposal of such ton of Imported Acceptable Waste (excluding any newly established per -ton fees or increases to existing per -ton fees with respect to Imported Acceptable Waste payable to the State, other regulatory agencies or cities in which facilities in the Disposal System are located ) in excess in excess of $1 8 .4 6 per ton ; and (iv) thereafter, Net Import Revenues shall be equal to 3 0% of the revenues received by the County from the disposal of Imported Acceptable Waste (excluding any newly established per -ton fees or increases to existing per -ton fees with respect to Imported Acceptable Waste payable to the State, other regulatory agencies or cities in which facilities in the Disposal System are located ). (3) After the County’s obligation to apply Net Import Revenues for the payment of bankruptcy related obligations in accordance with the Plan of Adjustme nt has been satisfied in full (i ) 50% of any Net Import Revenues (as calculated pursuant to Section 3.6(E)(2)) shall be paid to the County General Fund; and (ii ) 50% o f such Net Import Revenues shall be paid to the Participating Cities (and to the County, with respect to the unincorporated area) listed in Appendix 5 for use for any purpose by the Participating City, including but not limited to state mandated solid wast e programs . Payments of such amounts to the County General Fund and the Participating Cities shall be made by the County within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year . T he portion of Net Import Revenues specified above payable to the Participating Citi es shall be apportioned in the percentages set forth in Appendix 5 . (4) T he percentages set forth in Appendix 5 with respect to each Participating City will be adjusted at the end of Fiscal Year 2019 -20 to reflect the percentage of actual deliveries of Acceptable Waste from each Participating City as compared to the total amount of actual deliveries from all of the Participating Cities during Fiscal Years 201 7 -18, 2018 -19, and 2019 -20. The County shall n otify each Participating City of the revised percentages in Appendix 5 within 120 days after the end of Fiscal Year 201 9 -20. The revised percentages will be used for the allocation of Net Import Revenues generated during Fiscal Year 2020 -21 and thereafter . (b) Section 4.2(A)(z) is added to the Original Waste Disposal Agreement (immediately following Section 4.2(A)(y)) as follows: “(z) decrease the amount of Net Import Revenues otherwise payable to the County General Fund and the Participating Cities pursua nt to Section 3.6(E)(2) and Section 3.6(E)(3) and use the amount of such decrease to pay costs of the Disposal System .” (c ) Section 6.1 (A) and Section 6.1(B) of the Original Waste Disposal Agreement are deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following:
2015 Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement “SECTION 6.1 EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM . (A) Initial Term . This Agreement shall continue in full force an d effect until June 30, 20 2 5, u nless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms, in which event the Term shall be de emed to have expired as of the date of such termination. (B) Option to Renew . This Agreement shall be subject to renewal by mutual agreement of the parties, on or before June 30, 2023 , for an additional term of ten years (the “Renewal Term”) on the same te rms and conditions as are applicable during the Initial Term hereof. The City shall give the County written notice of its irrevocable election to renew this Agreement on or before June 30, 2022. If the parties do not renew this Agreement by June 30, 2023 , the Agreement shall expire on June 30, 2025.” (c ) The first sentence of Section 6.1(C) of the Original Waste Disposal Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: “In connection with the parties’ right to renew this Agreement fo r an additional ten -year term pursuant to Section 6.1(B), the parties shall, on or before June 30, 2023, negotiate an applicable change in the Contract Rate for such renewal term.” (d ) Appendix 2 of the Original Waste Disposal Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replace d with the form attached hereto. (e ) Appendix 5 shall be added to the Original Waste Disposal Agreement as a new appendix, in the form attached hereto. (f) All other terms and conditions of the Original Waste Disposal Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Section 2. Initial Payment . A s consideration for the execution of th is Amendment by all of the P articipating Cities, and subject to the occurrence of the Amendment Effective Date pursuant to Section 3, the County agrees to pay, from the County OC Waste & Recycling Enterprise Fund, the Amendment Payment to the Participating Cities listed in Appendix 5. The aggregate Amendment Payment shall be $5 ,4 00,000 , and shall be distributed to the individual Participating Cities (including the City) in the percentages set forth in Appendix 5 by September 30, 2016 . Section 3 . Effectiveness of Amendment . Th e provisions of this Amendment shall not become effective unle ss and until the Amendment has been executed by the County and all of the Participating Cities . The date on which all of the Participating Cities have executed the Amendment shall be the “Amendment Effective Date.” T he County shall give written notice of the Amendment Effective Date to the City . In the event that the Amendment Effective Date does not occur by June 30 , 2015, this Amendment shall be automatically terminated and the County shall have no obligation to make the Amendment Payment; provided, howe ver that the County Board of Supervisors may extend such automatic termination date to a date no later than September 30 , 2015.
2015 Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement Section 4 . REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF THE PARTIES . Each of the parties to this Amendment represent and warrant that it is a political subdivision of the State of California validly existing under the Constitution and laws of the S t ate and (ii) it has duly authorized the execution and delivery of this Amendment, and has duly executed and delivered the Amendment. All other terms and conditions of the 2009 Original Waste Disposal Agreement not specifically changed by this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, COUNTY and CITY have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized o fficers or representatives as of the day and year first above written. Date __________________________ COUNTY OF ORANGE By _________________________________ Director, OC Waste & Recycling Date __________________________ By _________________________________ [NAME] City Representative City of [CITY] Date __________________________ By _________________________________ [NAME] City Representative City of [CITY] APPROVED AS TO FORM: COUNTY COUNSEL ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By _____________________________ Date ____________________________
2015 Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement APPENDIX 2 County Acceptable Waste Tonnage Target to be Used for Purposes of Section 4.2(b) Fiscal Year Tonnage Cumulative FY 2015 -16 2,724,250 2,724,250 FY 2016 -17 2,681,153 5,405,403 FY 2017 -18 2,638,746 8,044,149 FY 2018 -19 2,597,017 10,641,166 FY 2019 -20 2,558,522 13,199,688 FY 2020 -21 2,520,605 15,720,293 FY 2021 -22 2,483,256 18,203,549 FY 2022 -23 2,483,256 20,686,805 FY 2023 -24 2,483,256 23,170,061 FY 2024 -25 2,483,256 25,653,317
2015 Amendment to Waste Disposal Agreement APPENDIX 5 PARTICIPATING CITY ALLOCATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.6 City Allocation Percentage for Purposes of Section 3.6 Allocation of Initial Payment Anaheim 13.18% $711,509 Aliso Viejo 0.67 36,416 Buena Park 2.34 126,275 Brea 2.28 123,085 Costa Mesa Costa Mesa Sanitary District 2.18 1.48 117,936 79,976 Cypress 2.56 138,115 Dana Point 0.99 53,278 Fullerton 4.10 221,271 Fountain Valley 1.76 95,217 Garden Grove/ GG Sanitary District 7.17 387,197 Huntington Beach 6.13 330,807 Irvine 8.22 444,036 Laguna Beach 1.14 61,796 Laguna Hills 0.74 40,098 Laguna Niguel 1.36 73,341 Laguna Woods 0.41 22,274 La Habra 1.69 91,431 Lake Forest 2.45 132,214 La Palma 0.32 17,325 Los Alamitos 0.58 31,362 Mission Viejo 2.42 130,902 Newport Beach 3.68 198,946 Orange 4.90 264,468 Placentia 1.58 85,116 Rancho Santa Margarita 1.11 60,009 Santa Ana 10.60 572,184 San Clemente 1.40 75,728 San Juan Capistrano 1.23 66,420 Seal Beach 0.82 44,292 Stanton 1.62 87,287 Tustin 1.42 76,648 Villa Park 0.21 11,081 Westminster/Midway Sanitation District 2.13 114,893 Yorba Linda 1.78 96,344 County Unincorporated 3.35 180,723 Totals 100% $5,400,000
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District OCC Recycling Center Expansion Update - Oral Report Item Number:4. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e an oral report from Mike Carey.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Draft Reports of the Classification and Compensatio n Study Item Number:5. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e the reports from Koff & Associates and provide direction to staff for the FY 2015-16 & 16-17 Budget.ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Class & Comp Study Outcome Report Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via : Scott Carroll, General Manager From: Denise Martinez, Interim Administrative Manager Date: May 1 2 , 2015 Subject: Job & Salary Survey Findings & Recommendations Summary In February 2015, the District contracted with Koff & Associates to conduct a classification and compensation study . The study support s the District’s Strategic Plan objective of employing and retaining a highly qualified and motivated workforce by identifying the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to conduct District business and assessing the value of salaries and benefits in relation to the labor market. The study consist ed of t wo phases : classification and compensation. The classification phase involve d revising job description s /classification s to ensure legal compliance and an accurate description of duties . This phase also include d the develop ment of a classification plan th at provides for career growth and flexibility. The compensation phase was comprised of identifying comparison agencies (a topic that was presented at the last two study sessions ) and assessing salaries and benefits with the labor market. As a result of the classification phase , Koff recommend ed position title changes that align better with the market and r eclassifications that allocate staff to more applicable position s . In the compensation phase, Koff found that District salaries are generally comparab le with the market, except for a few anomalies; and benefits are below market . These study outcomes are explained in more detail in the enclosed reports, which are being submitted as drafts to enable the District to update the information, as needed,
Board of Directors May 1 2 , 201 5 Page 2 of 7 per Board direction and employee feedback. The final report versions will be submitted at a later date. Staff Recommendation That the Board of Directors accept the reports from Koff & Associates and provide direction to staff for the FY 2015 -16 & 2016 -17 Budget. Analysis In alignment with the Strategic Plan, specific goals of the classification and compensation study included ensuring that : • Job descriptions are accurate and up -to -date; • District classifications and compensation meet the unique needs of the District; • S alar ies and benefits are competitive for attracting and retaining staff; and • Salaries are based on o bjective and equitable factors. Accurate & Up -to -Date Job D escriptions In order to ensure that the job descriptions are accurate and up -to -date, each employee completed a detailed questionnaire about their duties and responsibilities. Interviews were also held with employees and management ; then follow -up document s were review ed and discussions took place to finalize the information . As a result, Koff develop ed more accurate and comprehensive job descriptions that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and serve as basis for recruitment and selection procedures, employee performance and discipline, training and succession pla nning, and the salary structure. Recommend ation 1: Title Changes. For the classification plan, Koff recommended that the District change the following titles to align better with the market: • Sewer Maintenance Workers I, II & III Wastewater Maintenan ce Workers I, II & III • Sewer Maintenance Supervisor Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor • Executive Assistant to the Board Executive Assistant Cost: There is no cost to apply this change. Recommend ation 2: Reclassifications. Koff also recommended that th e following employees be reclassified to different positions that are more applicable to the work they perform : • Dyana Wick – Administrative Assistant I I to Management Analyst I • Elizabeth Pham – Management Assistant to Management Analyst II • Javier Ochiqu i – Management Analyst to Senior Management Analyst
Board of Directors May 1 2 , 201 5 Page 3 of 7 • Steve Cano – Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor to Wastewater Maintenance Superintendent Cost: The cost to apply this change is approximately $13,500 : $340 to adjust Dyana Wick’s salary to the minimum of the proposed classification salary range and $13,100 to do the same for Elizabeth Pham. No adjustments are necessary for Steve Cano or Javier Ochiqui because their current salaries fall within the salary ranges of the proposed classifications. Unique Dis trict Needs Table 1 shows all the active classifications for the District that can be used for staffing purposes except for the two classifications highlighted in gray, which will be deleted upon incumbent reclassification. The table includes four new c lassifications (identified in bold) proposed by Koff to serve the unique staffing needs of the District, primarily being a small agency. These classifications provide for development and growth, which promotes attraction and retention efforts; and staffin g flexibility because the scope of duties for management analyst is broad and can be applied to multiple areas. The table also shows the job families for the different work areas based on current organizational needs; however, some positions could be allo cated to different areas, as needed. Each series also includes an entry -level position, which can yield larger applicant pools for recruitment and selection purposes then higher -level positions. When possible, higher -level positions can be filled by qu alified internal candidates to increase morale and retention. The fiscal year 20 14 -15 budgeted positions (positions authorized to be filled by incumbents) are identified by asterisks . Table 1 . District Classifications & Sample Job Families Wastewater Finance Board Services Administration Maintenance Superintendent Finance Manager * District Clerk* Administrative Services Manager* Senior Management Analyst Maintenance Supervisor * Senior Accountant Exe cutive Assistant / Deputy Cle rk Management Analyst I & II SCADA Tech/Electrician * Accountant * Administrative Assistant I & II * Management Analyst * Maintenance Worker III * Part -time Account ing Clerk Code Enforcement Officer* Maintenan ce Worker II * Permit Technician * Management Assistant * Maintenance Worker I * Maintenance Assistant * Recommendation 3: Classifications. Staff is recommending that the Board authorize the new classification noted in Table 1 : Maintenance Superintende nt, Senior Management Analyst, Management Analyst I and Management Analyst II .
Board of Directors May 1 2 , 201 5 Page 4 of 7 Cost: There is no cost to apply this change. Costs occur when the District fills active classifications with incumbents. Please note that for fiscal year 20 15 -16 staff has recommended that the Board authorize the following additional positions . The costs were noted in the proposed budget. • Maintenance Worker I (2 positions) • Administrative Assistant I or II (1 position) • Part -time Accounting Clerk (1 position) Competitiv e Salaries & B enefits With regards to a compensation survey, t here are two components of compensation: salaries and benefits ; combined together these items are referred to as total compensation . To assess these items with comparable agencies, Koff matched classifications with similar duties and responsibilities. Not all classifications were match ed ; only those that are most common in the market, also known as benchmarks. Using benchmarks is a typical practice and it enables agenc ies to determine pay fo r non -matched classifications using benchmark salary findings . S ee Table 2 for salary and total compensation findings. The median is equivalent to the market. Table 2 . Salary & Total Compensation Findings Top Monthly Salary Data Total Monthly Compensation Data Classification CMSD Top Monthly Salary Median % above or below CMSD Total Monthly Comp Median % above or below Accountant II $6,769 $6,369 5.9% $8,793 $9,166 -4.2% Administrative Assistant I $4,628 $4,167 10.0% $6,3 95 $6,860 -7.3% Administrative Manager $9,369 $9,339 0.3% $11,884 $13,116 -10.4% Code Enforcement Officer $5,056 $5,542 -9.6% $6,874 $7,838 -14.0% District Clerk $7,761 $7,960 -2.6% $10,053 $10,304 -2.5% Executive Assistant $6,729 $6,278 6.7% $8,748 $8,949 -2.3% Finance Manager $9,369 $10,222 -9.1% $11,884 $13,691 -15.2% Maintenance Assistant $2,864 $2,166 24.4% $4,419 $3,752 15.1% Management Analyst II $7,392 $7,024 5.0% $9,490 $9,793 -3.2% Permit Technician $5,383 $5,108 5.1% $7,240 $7,733 -6.8% SCADA Technician/ Industrial Electrician $6,921 $6,608 4.5% $8,963 $9,392 -4.8% Senior Accountant $8,069 $7,668 5.0% $10,248 $10,452 -2.0% Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor $8,122 $8,109 0.2% $10,308 $11,495 -11.5% Wastewater Maintenance Worker II $5,270 $5,190 1.5% $7,114 $7,873 -10.7%
Board of Directors May 1 2 , 201 5 Page 5 of 7 Top Monthly Salary Data Total Monthly Compensation Data Classification CMSD Top Monthly Salary Median % above or below CMSD Total Monthly Comp Median % above or below AVG: 3.4% AVG: -5.7% As shown in Table 2 , District salaries are generally competitive with the market; however, the salaries for Code Enforcement Officer, District Clerk and Finance Manager were found to be below market. For total compensation, the addition of benefits to salaries, District classifications fall below market on average by 5.7%. Recommendation 4: Increase “Benefits Bucket”. To align salaries with the market, staff is recommending that the Board of Directors adopt the new salary range structure described below, in Recommendation 5. To align total compensation with the market, staff is recommending that the Board approve an increase to the District’s “benefit bucket” of 15% since this benefit was found to be substantially less (40% for management and 22% for employees) than what comparable agencies offer (See Table 3). This increase will not impact Cadillac Tax obligations. Table 3 . Proposed "Benefits Bucket Increase" Plan Tier Current Amount Proposed Amount Employee Only $799 $919 Employee + One $999 $1,149 Employee + Two or More $1,199 $1,379 Cost. The annual cost to implement this change for the District is $32,369. Objective & Equitable Salary Structure To a lign District salaries with the market, Koff developed a new salary structure. It includes ranges that are based on the market findings of the benchmark classifications like higher ranges for the Code Enforcement Officer, District Clerk and Finance Manage r classifications and for consistency/objectivity, the following standards are incorporated: • 10 -15% difference between lower level and lead staff or trainee and fully experienced employees ; and • 10 -25% difference between supervisor and highest level super vised. The structure is based on pay ranges instead of steps because ranges provide greater flexibility for the District such as with salary offers and align with the pay -for -performance merit program.
Board of Directors May 1 2 , 201 5 Page 6 of 7 Recommendation 5 : Salary Ranges . Staff is recomm ending that the Board approve a salary range versus a step pay system structure . Cost: There is no cost to apply this change . For salary ranges that were increased , employee earning potential increases ; however, t he actual c osts occur over time when emp loyees advance through the salary ranges via promotion and merit increase. Strategic Plan Element & Goal This item complies with the objective and strategy of Strategic Plan Element 6.0, Personnel/Organizational Management , which states as follows: Obje ctive: To employ and retain a high quality motivated workforce . Strategy: We will do this by utilizing sound policies and personnel practices, offering competitive compensation and benefits, providing opportunities for training, development and professio nal growth, while ensuring a safe and secure workplace.” Legal Review Not applicable Environmental Review A compensation and classification study is an administrative matter and is not a disturbance of the environment similar to grading or construction and is not a project under CEQA or the District’s CEQA Guidelines. Financial Review If the Board approves the recommendations, the total annual cost is $45,869, which w ill go in effect the 2015 -16 Fiscal Year. Staff will provide a long range cost (five years) at the study session meeting. Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the entir e agenda packet for the April 14 , 2015 Bo ard of Directors study session meeting at District Headquarters and on District’s website. Alternative Actions 1. Refer the matter back to staff Enclosure s 1. DRAFT Final Report of the Classification and Compensation Study, Volume I 2. DRAFT Final Report of the Classification and Compensation Study, Volume II Reviewed by:
Board of Directors May 1 2 , 201 5 Page 7 of 7 Wendy Davis Finance Manager
COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION STUDY May 2015
STUDY GOALS •Concern of management that employees should be recognized for the level and scope of work performed. •Employees be paid on a fair and competitive basis. •Recruit and retain a high -quality, motivated staff. •Strategic Element 6, Personnel/Organizational Management, Strategic Plan. •Ensure class descriptions current. •Establish classification & compensation plan to meet the needs of the District and its unique services. •Equity across whole District.
CLASSIFICATION STUDY
PURPOSE OF A CLASS STUDY •What is a Job Classification? •Up -to -Date & Current Class Descriptions •Enhance Recruitment Process •Objective Appraisals •Career Paths •Training Opportunities •Ensure Legal Compliance •Fair Compensation System
CLASS STUDY METHODOLOGY •Initial Meeting with Project Team •Orientation Meetings •PDQ Completion & Review •Employee & Supervisor Interviews •Develop Draft Class Concepts •Classification Description Development •Employee and Supervisor Review
RECOMMENDATIONS •16 positions studied in 16 classifications •6 title changes to more clearly reflect level/ scope performed and establish consistency with labor market and industry standards •4 reclassifications of positions working out of class due to level and scope of work and/or job functions added to the positions over time
TITLE CHANGES Current Class Title Proposed Class Title Associate Accountant Accountant Executive Assistant to the Board Executive Assistant Sewer Maintenance Supervisor Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor Sewer Maintenance Worker I Wastewater Maintenance Worker I Sewer Maintenance Worker II Wastewater Maintenance Worker II Sewer Maintenance Worker III Wastewater Maintenance Worker III
RECLASSIFICATIONS Current Class Title Proposed Class Title Administrative Assistant I Management Analyst I Management Analyst Senior Management Analyst Management Assistant Management Analyst II Sewer Maintenance Supervisor Wastewater Maintenance Superintendent
COMPENSATION STUDY
SURVEY ELEMENTS Comparator Agencies Benefit Data Benchmark Classifications
COMPARATOR AGENCIES 1. City of Costa Mesa 2. City of Fountain Valley (Public Works) 3. City of Huntington Beach (Public Works) 4. City of Newport Beach (Public Works) 5. City of Santa Ana (Public Works) 6. City of Tustin (Public Works) 7. El Toro Water District 8. Mesa Water District 9. Midway City Sanitary District 10. Moulton Niguel Water District 11. Santa Margarita Water District 12. Yorba Linda Water District 13. East Orange County Water District
DATA COLLECTION •Job/Class Descriptions •MOU’s •Organizational Charts •Salary Information •Description -to -Description •70% Match •Follow -Up
MARKET FINDINGS •Base salary market results are 3.4% above market, overall •Range from ~24.4% above to ~9.6% below market •Total compensation results are 5.8% below market, indicating benefits are significantly less than the market •Actual employee salaries may be different from the range maximum that was compared to the market
BENEFIT FINDINGS •Pension: 3 comparators have 2%@60, 5 have 2%@55, 1 has 2.5%@55, and 2 have 2.7%@55; 1 has 401K plan to which the agency contributes 15%. •8 agencies pay 0% of EE contribution, 2 pay 1%; one requires employees to pay portion of ER rate. •District’s contributions towards insurance plans: –40% less than market for management –22% less than market for rank -and -file. •Vacation: 5% below market. •Holidays: 8% less than the market. •5 comparators offer small deferred compensation benefits; 6 comparators for management.
COMPENSATION STRUCTURE AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT •Market data provides reference point •Step 1: Decide compensation philosophy •Step 2: Design compensation structure •Step 3: Place job classes within structure •Step 4: Determine actual employee pay •Continued maintenance & administration
COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY •Consider market data as reference point •Consider recruiting and retention issues •Consider performance management •Consider median vs. different percentile
COMPENSATION STRUCTURE •Salary range matrix with ranges tied together by formula for clear structure (2.5% differentials) •No steps – minimum, mid -point, maximum •35% differential btw. min and max •Maximum set to market median (or other percentile?)
IMPLEMENTATION •Align salaries with compensation philosophy (median vs. other percentile) •Place positions within structure accordingly •Move positions below market to the market •No adjustments to ranges above market •Determine employees’ actual pay •Address shortfall of benefit program •Be aware of distinction between equity adjustments and COLAs
Questions Comments THANK YOU!
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff Associates Page 1 DRAFT Final Report of the Classification and Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District VOLUME I – CLASSIFICATION May 2015 Koff & Associates Georg Krammer CEO 2835 7 th Street Berkeley, CA 94710 www.koffassociates.com E: gkrammer @koffassociates.com P: 510.658.5633 F: 510.652.5633
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates May 4 , 2015 Mr. Scott C. Carroll General Manager Costa Mesa Sanitary District 628 W. 19th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 -2716 Dear Mr. Carroll : Koff & Associates is pleased to present the final classification and compensation report for the study of all positions at the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (“the District ”). Volume I documents the classification study process and provides recommendations for the classification plan, allocations of individual positions for all District staff, and clas s specifications. Volume II, to be sent under separate cover, documents the market compensation survey, findings, and recommendations. This first volume incorporates a summary of the study’s multi -step process, which included results of written Position Description Questionnaires, interviews with employees, and employee review and comments in the form of draft class descriptions, and class allocation recommendations. We would like to thank you , Denise Martinez , and other staff for your assistance and c ooperation, without which this study could not have been brought to its successful completion. We will be glad to answer any questions or clarify any points as you are implementing the findings and recommendations. It was a pleasure working with the Dist rict and we look forward to future opportunities to provide you with professional assistance. Very truly yours, Georg S. Krammer Chief Executive Officer
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Background .................................................................................................. 1 Classification Study Goals ............................................................................ 1 Classification Study Process ......................................................................... 2 Classification Concepts ................................................................................ 2 Classification Findings and Recommendations ............................................ 6 Maintaining the Classification Plan .............................................................. 7 Appendix I – Recommended Position Allocations
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 1 B ACKGROUND In February 2015 , the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (“the District ”) contracted with Koff & Associates to conduct a classification and compensation study for all District staff. This study was precipitated by several factors: The concern of management that employees should be recognized for the level and scope of work performed and that they be paid on a fair and competitive basis that allows the District to recruit and retain a high -quality staff; To ensure that class descriptions reflect current programs, responsibilities, and technol ogy; The desire to have a classification and compensation p lan that can meet the needs of the District and the unique services it provides for the community that may require specialized and technical skills sets of its workforce (including new services, such as bringing the CCTV -ing of wastewater collection system lines in -house ); and The desire to ensure that internal relationships of salaries are based upon objective, non -quantitative evaluation factors, resulting in equity across all departments. A total of sixteen (16 ) authorized positi ons (with one being vacant at the time) were studied in sixteen (16 ) classifications. In addition, we reviewed the District’s class series and career progressions, which led to modifying and adding to those. C LASSIFICATION S TUDY G OALS The goals and objectives of the classification portion of the study were to: Obtain detailed information regarding each position through a variety of techniques, including written Position Description Questionnaires (PDQs) and interviews with employees and management; Prepare an updated classification plan, including recommended class descriptions, position allocations, and career ladders for individual job categories, that recognizes the scope and lev el of the various classes and positions, and is perceived equitable by management and employees alike; Provide class descriptions and other documentation that includes information required for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and appropriate qualifications, including knowledge, abilities , and other requirements that are job -related and meet other legal guidelines; and Provide sufficient documentation to allow the District to maintain the classification system on a regular basis.
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 2 C LASSIFICATION S TUDY P ROCESS The classification study procedures were as follows: An initial meeting was held with District management to clarify study scope, objectives, processes, and deliverables. An orientation meeting was held to which all emplo yees were invited, to meet consultant staff involved with the project, clarify study objectives and procedures, answer questions, and distribute Position Description Questionnaires (PDQs ). After the PDQs were completed by employees and reviewed by supervisors and consultant staff, interviews were conducted with all employees and management. Following the analysis of the classification information gathered, draft class concepts, specifications, and position allocations were developed for management and employee review. After resolution of issues, wherever possible, including additional contacts with employees and management to gain details and clarification, appropriate modifications were made to the draft specifications and allocations and this final report was prepared. C LASSIFICATION C ONCEPTS The Difference between Positions and Classifications “Position” and “Classification” are two terms that are often used interchangeably, but have very different meanings. As used in this report: A position is an assigned group of duties and responsibilities performed by one person. A position can be full -time, part -time, regular or temporary, filled or vacant. Often the word “job” is used in place of the word “position.” A classification or class may contain only one position or may consist of a number of positions. When you have several positions assigned to one class, it means that the same title is appropriate for each position; that the scope, level, duties, and responsibilities of each posit ion assigned to the class are sufficiently similar (but not identical) that the same core knowledge, skills, abilities, and other requirements are appropriate for all positions, and that the same salary range is equitable for all positions in the class. The description of a position often appears as a working desk manual, going into detail regarding work process steps, while a class description emphasizes the general scope and level of responsibilities, plus the knowledge, skills , abilities, and other req uirements for successful performance. When positions are classified, the focus is on assigned job duties and the job related requirements for successful performance, not on individual employee capabilities or amount of work performed.
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 3 Positions are thu s evaluated and classified on the basis of such factors as knowledge , skill s, and abilities required to perform the work, the complexity of the work, the authority delegated to make decisions and take action, the responsibility for the work of others and/o r for budget expenditures, contacts with others (both inside and outside of the organization), the impact of the position on the organization , and working conditions. The Relationship of Classification and Compensation Classification and the description of the work and the requirements to perform the work are separate and distinct from determining the worth of that work in the labor market and to the organization. While recommending the appropriate compensation for the work of a class depends upon an understanding of what that work is and what it requires (as noted above), compensation levels are often influenced by two factors: The external labor market; and Internal relationships within the organization. Compensation findings and recommendations are c overed in Volume II of this report. The Purpose of Having a Classification Plan A job classification plan provides an appropriate basis for making a variety of human resources decisions such as the: Development of job -related recruitment and selection procedures; Clear and objective appraisal of employee performance; Development of training plans and succession planning; Design of an equitable and competitive salary structure; Organizational development and the management of change; and Provision of an equitable basis for discipline and other employee actions. In addition to providing this basis for various human resources management and process decisions, a position classification plan can also effectively support systems of administrative and fiscal c ontrol. Grouping of positions into an orderly classification system supports planning, budget analysis and preparation, and various other administrative functions. Within a position classification plan, job classifications can either be broad (containing a number of positions) or narrow (emphasizing individual job characteristics). Broad job classifications are indicated when: Employees can be hired with a broad spectrum of knowledge, skill, and/or academic preparation and can readily learn the details of the organization , the department, and the position on -the -job; or There is a need for flexibility of the assignment within a department or an organization due to changing programs, technologies, or workload.
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 4 Individualized job classifications are indic ated when: There is an immediate need to recruit for specialty knowledge and skills; There is a minimum of time or capability for on -the -job training; or There is an organizational need to provide for specific job recognition and to highlight the differen ces between jobs. Most classification plans are a combination of these two sets of factors and we have chosen the middle ground in this study as being most practicable in the District ’s changing environment and service delivery expectations, as well as being in line with the organization ’s strategic plan. Class Descriptions In developing the new and revised classification descriptions for all positions, the basic concepts outlined in the previous pages were utilized. The recommended class descriptions will be submitted under separate cover . As mentioned previously , the cl ass descriptions are based upon the information from the written PDQs completed by each employee, the individual job audit interviews, and from information provided by employees and managers during the review processes. These descriptions provide: A writ ten summary documenting the work performed and/or proposed by the incumbents of these classifications; Distinctions among the classes; and Documentation of requirements and qualifications to assist in the recruitment and selection process. Just as there is a difference between a position and a class, there is also a difference between a position description and a class description. A position description, often known as a “desk manual”, generally lists each duty an employee performs and may also have information about how to perform that duty. A class description normally reflects several positions and is a summary document that does not list each duty performed by every employee. The class description, which is intended to be broader, mor e general and informational, is intended to indicate the general scope and level of responsibility and requirements of the class, not detail -specific position responsibilities. The sections of each class description are as follows: Title : This should be brief and descriptive of the class and consistent with other titles in the classification plan and the occupational area. The title of a classification is normally used for organization, classification, and compensation purposes within the organization . Often working titles are used within a department to differentiate an individual. All positions have a similar level of scope and responsibility; however, the working titles may give assurance to a member of the public
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 5 that they are dealing with an appropriate individual. Working titles should be authorized by Human Resources to ensure consistency within the organization and across departmental lines. Definition : This provides a capsule description of the job and should give an indication of the type of supervision received, the scope and level of the work and any unusual or unique factors. The phrase “performs related work as required” is not meant to unfairly expand the scope of the work performed, but to acknowledge that jobs change and that not all duties are included in the class specification. Supervision Received and Exercised : This section specifies which class or classes provide supervision to the class being described and the type and level of work direction or supervision provided to this class. The section also specifies what type and level of work direction or supervision the class provides to other classes. This assists the reader in defining where the class “fits” in the organization and alludes to possible career advancement opportun ities. Class Characteristics : This can be considered the “editorial” section of the specification, slightly expanding the Definition, clarifying the most important aspects of the class and distinguishing this class from the next higher -level in a class series or from a similar class in a different occupational series. Examples of Typical Job Functions : This section provides a list of the major and typical duties, intended to define the scope and level of the class and to support the Qualifications, includ ing Knowledge and Abilities . This list is meant to be illustrative only. It should be emphasized that the description is a summary document, and that duties change depending upon program requirements, technology, and organizational needs. Qualifications : This element of the description has several sections: A listing of the job -related knowledge and abilities required to successfully perform the work. They must be related to the duties and responsibilities of the work and capable of being validated under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Uniform Guidelines on Selection Procedures. Knowledge (intellectual comprehension) and Abilities (acquired proficiency) should be sufficiently detailed to provide the basis for selection of qualified employ ees. A listing of educational and experience requirements that outline minimum and alternative ways of gaining the knowledge and abilities required for entrance into the selection process. These elements are used as the basic screening technique for job applicants. Licenses and/or certifications identify those specifically required in order to perform the work. These certifications are often required by an agency of higher authority than the District (i.e., the State), and can therefore be appropriately included as requirements.
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 6 Physical Demands : This section identifies the basic physical skills required for performance of the work. These are not presented in great detail (although they are more specifically covered for documentation purposes in the PDQs) but are designed to indicate the type of pre -employment physical examination (lifting requirements and other unusual characteristics are included, such as “finger dexterity needed to access, enter, and retrieve data using a computer keyboard”) and to provide an initial basis for determining reasonable accommodation for ADA purposes. Working Con ditions : These can describe certain outside influences and circumstances under which a job is performed; they give employees or job applicants an idea of certain risks involved in the job and what type of protective gear may be necessary to perform the job . Examples are loud noise levels, cold and/or hot temperatures, vibration, confining workspace, chemicals, mechanical and/or electrical hazards, and other job conditions. C LASSIFICATION F INDINGS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS All class descriptions were updated in order to ensure that the format is consistent, and that the duties and responsibilities are current and properly reflect the required knowledge, abilities, and skills. When conducting job analysis, our methodology is to analyze position s according to the following factors: Education and experience requirements; Knowledge, abilities, and skills required to perform the work; The scope and complexity of the work; The independence exercised when making decisions; The responsibility for the work of others, program administration, and for budget dollars; Problem solving/ingenuity; Contacts with others (both inside and outside of the organization); Consequences of action and decisions; and Working conditions. Our job analysis process concluded with the following recommendations: Classification Title Changes One change in the classification plan, was the title change for six (6) classifications detailed in the table below : Current Class Title Proposed Class Title Associate Accountant Accountant Executive Assistant to the Board Executive Assistant Sewer Maintenance Supervisor Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor Sewer Maintenance Worker I Wastewater Maintenance Worker I Sewer Maintenance Worker II Wastewater Maintenance Worker II
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 7 Sewer Maintenance Worker III Wastewater Maintenance Worker III Title changes are recommended to more clearly reflect the level and scope being performed, as well as establish consistency with the labor market and industry standards. Any compensation recommendations (detailed in Volume II) are not dependent upon a new title, but upon the market value as defined by job scope, level and responsibilities, and the qualifications required for successful job performance. All recommended position allocations in Appendix I and class d escriptions will be submitted u nder separate cover . Reclassification of Classifications We found four (4) positions allocated to four (4) classifications working out of class due to level and scope of work and/or job functions that have been added to the position s over tim e , as follows: Current Class Title Proposed Class Title Administrative Assistant I Management Analyst I Management Analyst Senior Management Analyst Management Assistant Management Analyst II Sewer Maintenance Supervisor Wastewater Maintenance Superintendent M AINTAINING THE C LASSIFICATION P LAN A classification plan is not a stable, unchanging system . Positions may grow and change depending upon technology, service delivery requirements, and a number of other factors. As mentioned above, a “snapshot in time” may become outdated quickly in some areas. We are therefore including this final section to this report, which will assist the District in identifying appropriate placement of new and/or realigned positions within the recommended classification structure. By utilizing this process, the organization will be able to change and grow the organization while maintaining the classification structure. In considering whether a position should be placed in a higher/lower class ification or where a new classification should be placed within the plan, the following factors should be examined. Although they are not quantified, as requests for reclassification occur, each of the following factors should be addressed. These will provide guidance for maintenance of the classification and compensation plans. 1. Type and Level of Knowledge and Skill Required This factor defines the level of job knowledge and skill, including those attained by formal education, technical training, on -the job experience, and required certification or professional registration. The varying levels are as follows:
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 8 A. The basic or entry -level into any occupational field This entry -level knowledge may be attained by obtaining a high school diploma, completin g specific technical course work, or obtaining a four -year or advanced college or university degree. B. The experienced or journey -level in any occupational field This knowledge and skill level recognizes a class that is expected to perform the day -to -day f unctions of the work independently, but with guidelines (written or oral) and supervisory assistance available. This level of knowledge is sufficient to provide on -the -job instruction to a fellow employee or an assistant when functioning in a lead capacity. Certifications may be required for demonstrating possession of the required knowledge and skills. C. The advanced level in any occupational field This knowledge and skill level is applied in situations where an employee is required to perform or deal with virtually any job situation that may be encountered. Guidelines may be limited and creative problem solving may be involved. Supervisory knowledge and skills are considered in a separate factor and should not influence any assessment of this factor. D. Total mastery of one or more occupational fields This level normally requires an advanced level of college or university education and is normally found in a research, educational, or product development situation. 2. Supervisory/Management Responsibility T his factor defines the supervisory and managerial responsibility, including short and long -range planning, budget development and administration, resource allocation, policy and procedure development, and direction of staff. A. No ongoing direction of progra ms or staff The employee is responsible for the performance of his or her own work and may provide side -by -side instruction to a co -worker. B. Lead direction of staff or program coordination The employee plans, assigns, directs, and reviews the work of staff performing similar work to that performed by the employee on a day -to -day basis. Training in work procedures is normally involved. If staff direction is not involved, the employee must have responsibility for independently coordinating one or more program s or projects on a regular basis. C. Full first -line supervisor The employee performs the supervisory duties listed above, and, in addition, makes effective recommendation and/or carries out selection, performance evaluation, and disciplinary procedures. If staff supervision is not involved, the employee must have programmatic responsibility, including development and implementing goals, objectives, policies and procedures, and budget development and administration.
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 9 D. First full managerial level The employee is considered mid -management, often supervising through subordinate levels of supervision. In addition to the responsibilities outlined above, responsibilities include allocating staff and budget resources among competing demands and performing significa nt program and service delivery planning and evaluation. Normally, this level would be titled a program or division manager. E. Department managerial level The employee is the director of a specified department, normally reporting to the Chief Executive Off icer (i.e. General Manager). F. Chief Executive Officer level The employee has total administrative responsibility for the organization . 3. Supervision Received A. Direct Supervision Direct supervision is usually received by entry -level employees and trainees, i.e., employees who are new to the organization and/or position they are filling. Initially under close supervision, incumbents with basic related experience learn to perform the routine tasks and activities of the assigned classification. As experience is gained, assignments become more varied and are performed with greater independence. Positions receiving direct supervision usually perform most of the duties required of the positions at the next higher level (i.e., the journey -level in a class series), but are not expected to function at the same skill level and usually exercise less independent discretion and judgment in matters related to work procedures and methods. Work is usually supervised while in progress and fits an established structure or p attern. Exceptions or changes in procedures are explained in detail as they arise. Since this class is often used as a training class, employees may have only limited or no directly related work experience. B. General Supervision General supervision is usually received by journey -level and experienced employees, i.e., employees who have been in a position for a period of time and have had the opportunity to be trained and learn most, if not all, duties and responsibilities of the assigned classification. I ncumbents are cross -trained to perform the full range of technical work in all of the areas of assignment . Positions at this level are distinguished from the next lower level (i.e., the entry -level in a class series) by the performance of the full range o f duties as assigned, working independently, and exercising judgment and initiative. Positions at this level receive only occasional instruction or assistance as new or unusual situations arise and are fully aware of the operating procedures and policies of the work unit. C. General Direction General direction is usually received by supervisory or managerial employees, or employees who are highly specialized and/or subject matter experts in a certain field, function, or program. Responsibilities include per forming diverse, specialized, and complex work involving significant
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 10 accountability and decision -making responsibility. The incumbent organizes and oversees day -to -day activities of a work unit, division, function, and/or program and is responsible for pr oviding professional -level support to the next higher classification level (often a Department Head or other executive manager) in a variety of areas. Successful performance of the work requires an extensive professional background as well as skill in coordinating the assigned work with other functional areas, work units, divisions, departments, and/or outside agencies. This class is often distinguished from the next higher classification level in that the latter has overall responsibility for all functio ns of the assigned department or division and for developing, implementing, and interpreting public policy. D. Administrative Direction Administrative direction is usually received by department heads or other executive management classifications. The class’ work provides for a wide variety of independent decision -making, within legal and general policy and regulatory guidelines. The class itself often exercises general direction and supervision over other management, supervisory, professional, technical, a nd administrative support staff through subordinate levels of supervision and oversees, directs, and participates in all activities of the assigned department or work section, including short - and long -term planning, development, and administration. This class often provides assistance to the chief executive officer of the organization in a variety of administrative, coordinative, analytical, and liaison capacities. Successful performance of the work requires knowledge of public policy, municipal function s and activities, including the role of the elected governing body, and the ability to develop, oversee, and implement projects and programs in a variety of areas. Responsibilities include coordinating the activities of the assigned department or work sec tion with those of other departments and outside agencies and managing and overseeing the complex and varied functions of the department. The incumbent is accountable for accomplishing departmental planning and operational goals and objectives and for fur thering organizational goals and objectives within general policy guidelines. E. Policy Direction Policy direction is received by the organization’s chief executive officer who is accountable to the governing body and responsible for enforcement of all codes and regulations, the conduct of all financial activities, and the efficient and economical performance of the organization’s operations. 4. Problem Solving This factor involves analyzing, evaluating, reasoning and creative thinking requirements. In a work environment, not only the breadth and variety of problems are considered, but also guidelines, such as supervision, policies, procedures, laws, regulations, and standards available to the employee. A. Structured problem solving Work situations normally involve making choices among a limited number of alternatives that are clearly defined by policies and procedures. Supervision, either on -site or through a radio or telephone, is readily available.
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 11 B. Independent, guided problem solving Work situations require making decisions among a variety of alternatives; however, policies, procedures, standards, and regulations guide the majority of the work. Supervision is generally available in unusual situations. C. Application of discriminating choices Work situa tions require searching for solutions and independently making choices among a wide variety of policies, procedures, laws, regulations, and standards. Interpretation and evaluation of the situation and available guidelines are required. D. Creative, evaluative, or analytical thinking Work situations require the analysis and application of organizational policies and goals, complex laws, and/or general business or ethical considerations. 5. Authority for Making Decisions and Taking Action This factor de scribes the degree to which employees have the freedom to take action within their job. The variety and frequency of action and decisions, the availability of policies, procedures, laws, and supervisory or managerial guidance, and the consequence or impact of such decisions are considered within this factor. A. Direct, limited work responsibility The employee is responsible for the successful performance of his or her own work with little latitude for discretion or decision -making. Direct supervision is readily available. B. Decision -making within guidelines The employee is responsible for the successful performance of their own work, but able to prioritize and determine methods of work performance within general guidelines. Supervision is available, although the employee is expected to perform independently on a day -to -day basis. Emergency or unusual situations may occur, but are handled within procedures and rules. Impact of decisions is normally limited to the department or function to which assig ned. C. Independent action with focus on work achieved The employee receives assignments in terms of long -term objectives, rather than day -to -day or weekly timeframes. Broad policies and procedures are provided, but the employee has latitude for choosing techniques and deploying staff and material resources. Impact of decisions may have significant department or Agency -wide service delivery and/or budgetary impact. D. Decisions made within general policy or elected official guidance The employee is subject only to the policy guidance of elected officials and/or broad regulatory or legal constraints. The ultimate authority for achieving the goals and objectives of the organization are with this employee.
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 12 6. Interaction with Others This factor includes the n ature and purpose of contacts with others, from simple exchanges of factual information to the negotiation of difficult issues. It also considers with whom the contacts are made, from co -workers and the public to elected or appointed public officials. A. Ex change of factual information The employee is expected to use ordinary business courtesy to exchange factual information with co -workers and the public. Strained situations may occasionally occur, but the responsibilities are normally not confrontational. B. Interpretation and explanation of policies and procedures The employee is required to interpret policies and procedures, apply and explain them and influence the public or others to abide by them. Problems may need to be defined and clarified and individuals contacted may be upset or unreasonable. Contacts may also be made with individuals at all levels throughout the organization . C. Influencing individuals or groups The employee is required to interpret laws, policies, and procedures to individual s who may be confrontational or to deal with members of professional, business, community, or other groups or regulatory agencies as a representative of the organization . D. Negotiation with organizations from a position of Authority The employee often deals with public officials, members of boards, councils, commissions, and others to provide policy direction, explain agency missions, and/or negotiate solutions to difficult problems. 7. Working Conditions/Physical Demands This factor includes specific physical, situational, and other factors that influence the employee’s working situation. A. Normal office or similar setting The work is performed in a normal office or similar setting during regular office hours (occasional overtime may be required, but compensat ed for). Responsibilities include meeting standard deadlines, using office and related equipment, lifting materials weighing up to 25 pounds, and communicating with others in a generally non -stressful manner. B. Varied working conditions with some physical or emotional demands The work is normally performed indoors, but may have some exposure to noise, heat, weather, or other uncomfortable conditions. Stand -by, call back, or regular overtime may be required. The employee may have to meet frequent deadlines , work extended hours, and maintain attention to detail at a computer or other machinery, deal with difficult people, or regularly perform moderate physical activity.
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 13 C. Difficult working conditions and/or physical demands The work has distinct and regular difficult demands. Shift work (24 -7 or rotating) may be required; there may be exposure to hazardous materials or conditions; the employee may be subject to regular emergency callback and extended shifts; and/or the work may require extraordinary physica l demands. Based on the above factors, in the maintenance of the classification plan when an employee is assigned an additional duty or responsibility and requests a change in classification, it is reasonable to ask: What additional knowledge and skills are required to perform the duty? How does one gain this additional knowledge and skills – through extended training, through a short -term seminar, through on -the -job experience? Does this duty or responsibility require new or additional supervisory respon sibilities? Is there a greater variety of or are there more complex problems that need to be solved as a result of the new duty? Does the employee have to make a greater variety of or more difficult decisions as a result of this new duty? Are the impacts of decisions greater because of this new duty (effects on staff, budget, department or Agency -wide activities, and/or relations with other agencies)? Are guidelines, policies, and/or procedures provided to the employee for the performance of this new duty? Is the employee interacting with the District workers, the public, or others differently as a result of this new assignment? Have the working or physical conditions of the job changed as a result of this new assignment? Application of these factors by asking the appropriate questions will enable the organization to maintain the classification and compensation system in a timely and consistent manner. Again, we want to thank the District for its time and cooperation in bringing this study to a successful conclusion. It has been a pleasure working with the organization on this critical project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any additional information or clarification regarding this report. Respectfully Submitted, Koff & Associates Georg S. Krammer Chief Executive Officer
Final Report – Volume I, Classification Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates Appendix I Recommended Employee Allocations
Volume I Appendix I Costa Mesa Sanitary District Employee Allocation Recommendations March 2015 Employee Current Classification Title Proposed Classification Title Action FLSA Status Supervisor Comments Steve Cano Sewer Maintenance Supervisor Wastewater Maintenance Superintendent Reclassification Exempt Scott Carroll Steve is not the typical "public works" supervisor who would normally spend 50% or more of their time on hands-on field work; Steve has assumed a greater level and scope of responsibility, administration-wise, budget-wise, and for overall day-to-day operations commensurate with a Superintendent.Joel Ortiz Sewer Maintenance Worker III Wastewater Maintenance Worker III Title Change Non-exempt Steve Cano The term "sewer" is not found in classification titles anymore; "wastewater" is more appropriate.Brandon Joseph Sewer Maintenance Worker I Wastewater Maintenance Worker I Title Change Non-exempt Steve Cano The term "sewer" is not found in classification titles anymore; "wastewater" is more appropriate.Dyana Wick Administrative Assistant II Management Analyst I Reclassification Exempt *Noelani Middenway Dyana has taken on many of the HR and risk management functions from the Interim Administrative Manager; the classification should be exempt but due to Dyana's current front desk and other administrative assignments, she should remain non-exempt until she no longer performs those functions that could take up more than 50% of her time.Wendy Davis Finance Manager Finance Manager No Change Exempt Scott Carroll Kaitlin Tran Accountant Accountant No Change Non-exempt Wendy Davis The Accountant series is being consolidated into Accountant and Senior Accountant.Javier Ochiqui Management Analyst Senior Management Analyst Reclassification Exempt Scott Carroll Javier has taken on the entire solid waste/trash function, in addition to several District-wide administrative and operational functions; considering that he also supervises other employees, including another professional-level classification (Elizabeth), the level and scope of responsibility and the complexity of his work are more in line with a Senior-level analyst.Elizabeth Pham Management Assistant Management Analyst II Reclassification Exempt Javier Ochiqui Based on the sheer variety and complexity of Liz' work, she performs at a Management Analyst level at this point, from managing the IT function, to managing several waste/trash-related programs, to her grant-related responsibilities, developing budgets, to her legislative analysis work.Alex Arreola Sewer Maintenance Worker II Wastewater Maintenance Worker II Title Change Non-exempt Steve Cano The term "sewer" is not found in classification titles anymore; "wastewater" is more appropriate.Jose (Tony) Gomez SCADA Technician/Industrial Electrician SCADA Technician/Industrial Electrician No Change Non-exempt Steve Cano Edward Roberts Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer No Change Non-exempt Javier Ochiqui Noelani Middenway District Clerk District Clerk No Change Exempt Scott Carroll Joshua Enriquez Permit Technician Permit Technician No Change Non-exempt Wendy Davis Scott Carroll General Manager General Manager No Change Exempt BOD Denise Martinez Administrative Manager, Interim Administrative Manager, Interim No Change Exempt Scott Carroll Vacant Maintenance Assistant Maintenance Assistant No Change Non-exempt Javier Ochiqui Vacant Administrative Assistant II Administrative Assistant II No Change Non-exempt N/A Vacant Associate Accountant Accountant Title Change Non-exempt N/A The Accountant series is being consolidated into Accountant and Senior Accountant.Vacant Executive Assistant to the Board Executive Assistant Title Change Non-exempt N/A We'd recommend making this a broader classification that would also assist the GM and other managers.Vacant Senior Accountant Senior Accountant No Change Exempt N/A
Volume I Appendix I Costa Mesa Sanitary District Employee Allocation Recommendations March 2015 Vacant Administrative Assistant I Administrative Assistant I No Change Non-exempt N/A Vacant Sewer Maintenance Supervisor Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor Title Change Non-exempt N/A No Change Reclassification Title Change
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff Associates Page 1 DRAFT Final Report of the Classification and Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District VOLUME II – COMPENSATION May 2015 Koff & Associates Georg Krammer CEO 2835 7 th Street Berkeley, CA 94710 www.koffassociates .com E: gkrammer@koffassociates .com P: 510.658.5633 F: 510.652.5633
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Background ......................................................................................................... 1 Study Process ...................................................................................................... 1 Market Compensation Findings .......................................................................... 7 Internal Salary Relationships .............................................................................. 9 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 11 Using the Market Data as a Tool ....................................................................... 12 Appendix I – Results Summary Appendix II – Market Base Salary, Benefit, and Total Compensation Findings Appendix III – Proposed Salary Range Schedule Appendix IV – Proposed Salary Range Placements Appendix V – Additional Benefits
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 1 B ACKGROUND In February 2015 , the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (“the District ”) contracted with Koff & Associates to conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study for all of its classifications. All classification findings and recommendations are contained in Volume I of this report; all compensation findings, recommendations, and options for implementation are in this report . This compensation review process was precipitated b y: The concern of management that employees should be recognized for the level and scope of work performed and that they be paid on a fair and competitive basis that allows the District to recruit and retain a high -quality staff; The desire to have a classification and compensation plan that can meet the needs of the District and the unique services it provides for the community that may require specialized and technical skills sets of its workforce (including new services, such as bringing the CCTV -in g of wastewater collection system lines in -house); and The desire to ensure that internal relationships of salaries are based upon objective, non -quantitative evaluation factors, resulting in equity across all departments. S TUDY P ROCESS Benchmarking Classifications The study included twenty -two (22 ) classifications (partly newly created during the classification study) and of those, fourteen (14 ) classifications were selected in order to collect compensation data within the defined labor market. Sur vey classes that had the most consistent and useful survey data were used as “benchmarks” in building the compensation plan. Benchmark classes are those classes that are tied directly to market salary data during the salary setting process. These classes are used as a means of anchoring the District’s overall compensation plan to the market. Other job classifications not surveyed are aligned i n the proposed compensation plan using internal equity principle s. Survey or benchmark classifications included classes that are reasonably well known, and clearly and concisely described. They are commonly used classes such that other similar classes may readily be found in other agencies in order to ensure that suffici ent market data will be compiled. These survey classifications included: Benchmark Classification Benchmark Classification Accountant Wastewater Maintenance Worker II Administrative Manager Administrative Assistant I
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 2 District Clerk Code Enforcement Officer Finance Manager Executive Assistant Maintenance Assistant Management Analyst II Permit Technician SCADA Technician/Electrician Senior Accountant Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor When we contact the comparator agencies to identify possible matches for each of the benchmarked classifications, there is an assumption that we will not be able to find comparators that are 100% equivalent to the classifications at the District . Therefore, we do not match based upon job titles, which can often be misleading, but we analyze each class description before we consider it as a comparator. Our methodology is to analyze each class description according to the following factors: Education and e xperience requirements; Knowledge, abilities, and skills required to perform the work; The scope and complexity of the work, which includes considering the comparator organization’s size; The independence exercised when making decisions; The responsibility for the work of others, program administration, and for budget dollars; Problem solving/ingenuity; Contacts with others (both inside and outside of the organization); Consequences of action and decisions; and Working conditions. When we do not find an appropriate match with one class, we often use “brackets” which can be functional or represent a span in scope of responsibility. A functional bracket means that the job of one classification at the District is performed by two or more classifications at a comparator agency. A “bracket” representing a span in scope means that the comparator agency has one class that is “bigger” in scope and responsibility and one position that is “smaller,” where the District’s class falls in the middle. O f the fourteen (14 ) benchmarked classifications identified, we were able to collect sufficient data from the comparator agencies for all of the benchmark ed classes . Benchmarking Comparator Agencies The second, most important step in conducting a market salary study is the determination of appropriate agencies for comparison. In considering the selection of valid agencies for salary comparator purposes, a number of factors should be taken into co nsideration: 1. Organizational type and structure – We generally recommend that agencies of a similar size, providing comparable services to those of the District be used as comparators. However, one must
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 3 also consider agencies that are in the District’s immediate labor market and geography. Therefore, some comparat ors were chosen that provide similar services but are significantly larger, organizationally . When it comes to the more tec hnical classes, such as those specializing in accounting, operations, and/or professional analysts, the size of an organization is not as critical, as these classes perform fairly similar work due to its technical /specialized nature regardl ess of an organization ’s size . The difference in s ize of organization becomes relevant when comparing classes at the management -level and above . The scope of work and responsibility for management classes becomes much greater the larger an organization is . Deter minants suc h as, the size of staff managed , consequence of error, the political nature of , and visibility in the public domain become important factors when identifying matches within larger organizations . In organizations, which are significantly larger than the District , we must also consider the factors mention ed above. For example, Manager -level classes in larger organizations may be responsible for large departments and staff, and manage through subordinate supe rvisory levels . To acknowledge and normalize the difference in organizational size, we may match to the next lower level within the organizational hierarchy or utilize the span of scope bracketing methodology detailed above. 2. Similarity of population served , staff, and operational budgets – These elements provide guidelines in relation to resources required (staff and funding) and available for the provision of services. Again, larger agencies were recommended as comparators, even though they serve larger populations and have larger budge ts. In those agencies, we focused on their Public Works and/or Utilities departments to identify appropriate comparisons to the District’s classifications. 3. Scope of services provided and geographic location – Organizations providing the same services are ideal for comparators and most comparator agencies recommended provide similar services to the District . The bottom line for any compensation study is to maximize the potential “matches” for each of the District’s job classifications to ensure that we can obtain a valid sample of market data. For management and executive classifications, the types of services provided by an agency become less important, as each agency still needs administrative, financial, and in most cases operations and program -related leadership classifications. At the management level, differences in size and scope of services are more critical and must be normalized when considering comparators, as explained above. 4. Labor market – In the reality that is today’s labor market, many ag encies are in competition for the same pool of qualified employees. Many i ndividuals often do not live in the communities they serve. As mentioned above, the geographic labor market area, where the District may be recruiting from or losing employees to, was taken into consideration when selecting comparator organizations. Furthermore, by selecting employers within a close geographic proximity to the District , the resulting labor market will be generally reflective of the region’s cost of living, housing costs, growth rate, and other demographic characteristics.
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 4 All agencies surveyed are located within Orange County, which is ideal in terms of representing the “true” labor market. 5. Compensation Philosophy – Does the organization regularly conduct a market survey, and, once completed, how is this information applied? Many agencies pay to the median, some pay to the average, others may pay to a higher percentile. In addition, salary ranges may be set strict ly upon market base salary values or may include the total value of salary and benefits when dev eloping a compensation policy. All of the above elements should be considered in selecting the group of comparator agencies. T he District agreed to a list of comparator agencies and the following thirteen (13) agencies were used as comparators for this market study: Comparator Agencies 1. City of Costa Mesa 2. City of Fountain Valley (Public Works) 3. City of Huntington Beach (Public Works) 4. City of Newport Beach (Public Works) 5. City of Santa Ana (Public Works) 6. City of Tustin (Public Works) 7. El Toro Water District 8. Mesa Water District 9. Midway City Sanitary District 10. Moulton Niguel Water District 11. Santa Margarita Water District 12. Yorba Linda Water District 13. East Orange County Water District It should be noted that East Orange County Water District only has about six or seven employees and did therefore not yield many comparison classifications. In addition, it, as well as El Toro Water District, were not responsive regarding most or all of their benefits and could not be included in our total compensation analysis. They are included in the base salary analysis.
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 5 Benchmarking Benefit Data Collection The last element requiring discussion prior to beginning a market survey is the specific benefit data that will be collected and analyzed. The following information was collected for each of the benchmarked classifications: 1. Monthly Base Salary: The top of the salary range and/or control point. All figures are presented on a monthly basis. 2. Employee Retirement – This includes several figures, 1) the amount of the employee’s State retirement contribution that is contributed by each agency , 2) the amount of the agency’s Social Security contribution, and 3) any alternative retirement plan, either private or public where the employee’s contribution is made by the agency on behalf of the employee. In addition to the amount of the empl oyer p aid member contribution , we collect ed information on enhanced benefits. The value for each enhanced benefit is based on the midpoint of the impact on total employer contribution rate. For example, the impact on total employer contribution rate for the en hanced benefit of final compensation based on single highest year (Section 20042) ranges from 0.9% to 1.8% for Miscellaneous employees. We report the value of single highest year as 1.35%. Below is a complete listing of the enhanced benefits and values reflected in the total compensation spreadsheets: Formulas (base formula is 2% at age 60): o 2% at age 55 (Section 21354): this formula provides to local miscellaneous members 2% of pay at age 55 for each year of eligible service credited with that employer ; midpoint of range = 3.05% o 2.5% at age 55 (Section 21354.4): this formula provides to local miscellaneous members 2.5% of pay at age 55 for each year of eligible service credited with that employer; midpoint of range = 4.95% o 2.7% at age 55 (Section 21354.5): this formula provides to local miscellaneous members 2.7% of pay at age 55 for each year of eligible service credited with that employer; midpoint of range = 8.05% o 3% at age 60 (Section 21354.3): this formula provides to local miscellaneous membe rs 3% of pay at age 60 for each year of eligible service credited with that employer; midpoint of range = 9.80%. Additional Optional Enhanced Benefit Provisions o One -Year Final Compensation (Section 20042): the period determining the average monthly pay rate when calculating retirement benefits; base period is thirty -six (36) highest paid consecutive months; one -year final compensation is based on twelve (12) months highest paid consecutive months; midpoint of range for miscellaneous = 1.35%.
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 6 o Employer Paid Member Contribution (Section 20636(c)(4)): the reporting of the value of the employer paid member contribution to CalPERS as special compensation; average value = employer paid member contribution multiplied by employer paid member contribution. 3. Insurance – This is the maximum amount paid by the agency for employees and dependents for a cafeteria or flexible benefit plan and/or health, dental, vision, life, long -term and short -term disability, and employee assistance insurance. 4. Leave – Other than sick lea ve, which is usage -based, the number of days off for which the agency is obligated. All days have been translated into direct salary costs. Vacation – The number of vacation days available to all employees after five years of employment. Holidays – The number of holidays (including floating) available to employees on an annual basis. Administrative/Personal Leave – Administrative leave is normally the number of days available to management to reward for extraordinary effort (in lieu of overtime). Personal leave may be available to other groups of employees to augment vacation or other time off. 5. Automobile – This category includes either the provision of an auto allowance or the provision of an auto for personal use. If a car is provided to any classification for commuting and other personal use, the average monthly rate is estimated at $450. 6. Deferred Compensation – We captured the maximum amount of deferred compensation provided by the agency to all members in a classification with or without the requirement for an employee to provide a matching or minimum contribution. 7. Other – This category includes any additional benefits available to all in the class. Please note that all of the above benefit elements are negotiated benefits provided to all members of each comparator class. As such, they represent an on -going cost for which an agency must budget. Other benefit costs, such as sick leave, tuition reimbu rsement, and reimbursable mileage are usage -based and cannot be quantified on an overall classification basis. In addition to the above list of benefits, the District was also interested in gathering information on the following: Board of Directors salaries and benefits Class B license pay and/or any other certification pay Compensation for degrees Safety shoe reimbursement Standby pay Appendix V contains the supplemental survey component and displays the pay practices of the comparator agencies for these benefit s.
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 7 Data Collection Data was collected during the month s of March and April 2015 , through websites, planned telephone conversations with human resources, accounting, and/or finance personnel at each comparator agency, and careful review of agency documentation of classification descriptions, memoranda of understanding, organization al charts, and other documents. We believe that the salary data collection step is the most critical for maintaining the overall credibility of any study. We rely heavily on the District classification descriptions developed and approved during the classification phase of the study, as they provide the foundation for our comparison. Personnel staff of the comparator agencies were interviewed by telephone, when ever possible, to understand their organizational structure and possible classification matches. A summary of the results c an be found in Appendix I and the salary survey and benefit information can be found in Appendix II. For each surveyed class, the re are three (3) information pages: Market Base (Top Step) Salary Summary Data Benefit Detail (Monthly Equivalent Values) Monthly Total Compensation Cost Summary Data Our analysis includes the mean (average), and median (midpoint), for each benchmarked classification (assuming we were able to identify at least four (4) matches). Our firm recommends reviewing the median , which represents the exact midpoint of the market data, with 50% of market data below and 50% of market data above. W hen evaluating th e data and making salary range recommendations , we typically utilize the median market data because unlike the statistical average , the median is not skewed by extremely high or low compensation values. M ARKET C OMPENSATION F INDINGS As mentioned above, the salary compensation data can be found in Appendix II of this report. The compensation salary findings for each class surveyed ar e listed below, using the median base salary market results, arranged in descending order from the most positive percentile (above market) to the most negative (below market). The percentile represents the difference between the District ’s current base salary/total compensation for each classification and the m edian base salary/total compensation of the all comparator agenc ies. Classification Top Monthly Salary Total Monthly Comp % above or below % above or below Maintenance Assistant 24.4% 15.1% Administrative Assistant I 10.0% -7.3%
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 8 Classification Top Monthly Salary Total Monthly Comp % above or below % above or below Executive Assistant 6.7% -2.3% Accountant 5.9% -4.2% Permit Technician 5.1% -6.8% Management Analyst II 5.0% -3.2% Senior Accountant 5.0% -2.0% SCADA Technician/Electrician 4.5% -4.8% Wastewater Maintenance Worker II 1.5% -10.7% Administrative Manager 0.3% -10.4% Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor 0.2% -11.5% District Clerk -2.6% -2.5% Finance Manager -9.1% -16.3 % Code Enforcement Officer -9.6% -14.0% Base Salaries Market base salary results display that three (3 ) benchmarked classifications are paid below the market median . One (1) classification is paid below the market by less than 5 % and the other two (2) are paid below market by more than 5% and less than 10%. Eleven (11 ) classes are pa id above the market m edian . Six (6 ) classes are paid above the market by 5% or less , four (4 ) are paid above the market by more than 5% but less or equal to 10%, and one (1) class is paid above the market by more than 10%. Generally, we consider a classification falling within 5% of the median or average to be competitive in the labor market for salary survey purposes because of the differences in compensation policy and actual scope of work and position requirements. However, the District can adopt a closer standard. T otal Compensation Market total compensation results show that thirteen (13 ) benchmarked classes a re paid below the market median . Six (6 ) classes are paid below the market by 5% or less, two (2 ) classes are paid below the market by more than 5% and less than 10 %, and five (5 ) classes are paid below the market by more than 10%. One (1) classification is paid above market by more than 10%.
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 9 Overall, these differences between market base salaries and total compensation indicate that the District ’s benefits package, in terms of cost, is significantly less than that of the market. F urther analysis indicates that the District classifications are , on average, 3.4 % above the market median for base salaries, w hile that figure changes to 5 .8 % below the market when we evaluate to t al compensation , i.e., the District “loses” 9 .2 % of competitive advantage . Benefits Further analysis of the market benefit data reveals that the pay practices of the District overall are less than the market. We found the following compared to the survey agencies (please keep in mind that two of the agencies were almost completely unresponsive regarding their benefits data): The District’s retirement formula is 2% at age 60; of the thirteen comparators, three have the same formula, five have 2% at age 55, one has 2.5% at age 55, and two have 2.7% at age 55; finally one has a 401K plan to which the agency contributes 15%. The District contributes 0% of the employee portion of PERS, i.e., employees are paying their full share; eight agencies also contribute 0%, two of the agencies contribute a portion of the employee contribution amount . The District’s contributions towards its various insurance plans (cafeteria, life, long -term disability, etc.) for both management and rank -and -file employees is significantly below the market, i.e., approximately 40 % and 22 % less , respectively. It is important to note that insurance costs are dependent on an agency’s broker, geographic area, employee population, and overall agency demographics, and that these differences in costs, while they do play a role in total compensation calculations, may not necessarily signify an inferior benefits package. Regarding vacation benefits, the District is fairly competitive with a few hours less for a five -year employee than the average of the comparator agencies, or 5% below market. The District has approximately 6.5 hours fewer (or about 8% less) holidays than the market. Regarding administrative leave, the District offers 40 hours, which three comparator agencies do as well; five comparators offer none; and three agencies offer more. Five of the comparator agencies offer small deferred compensation benefits for rank -and -file employees; one additional agency offers deferred co mpensation to management. Because the District’s benefits package is significantly less than that of the market, our salary recommendations would normally be based upon the market base salary survey results. However, because most classifications’ base salaries are above market and it is unlikely that the District will change its pension program, it would not make sense to freeze salaries but rather, we recommend a blended approach of addressing the District’s overall shortfall . I NTERNAL S ALARY R ELATION SHIPS Building from the salary levels established for identified benchmark classes, internal salary relationships were developed and consistently applied in order to develop specific salary recommendations for all
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 10 non -benchmark classes. Appendix IV prese nts the salary recommendations developed for the District including the internal salary relationship guidelines used. While analyzing internal relationships, the same factors were considered that we used in constructing the District’s classification plan, allocating positions to specific classifications within the plan, and comparing the District ’s current classifications to the labor market during the compensation study. In addition, when considering an appropriate salary range level, there are certain standard human resources practices that are normally applied, as follows: As mentioned above, a salary within 5% of the market average or median is considered to be competitive in the labor market for salary survey purposes because of the differences in c ompensation policy and actual scope of the position and its requirements. However, a closer standard can be adopted by an agency. Certain internal percentages are often applied. Those that are the most common are: The differential between a trainee and experienced class in a series (I/II or Trainee/Experienced) is generally 10% to 15%; A lead or advanced journey -level (III or Senior -level) position is generally placed 10% to 15% above the lower experienced level; and A full supervisory position is norma lly placed at least 10% to 25% above the highest level supervised, depending upon the breadth and scope of supervision. When a market or internal equity adjustment is granted to one class in a series, the other classes in the series are also adjusted accordingly to maintain internal equity. Internal equity between certain levels of classification is a fundamental factor to be considered when making salary decisions. When conducting a market compensation survey, results can often show that certain classif ications that are aligned with each other are not the same in the outside labor market. However, as an organization, careful consideration needs to be given to these alignments because they represent internal value of classifications within job families, as well as across the organization. There were seven (7 ) classifications that were not benchmarked for the study. For all classifica tions that were not benchmarked, internal alignments with other classifications will need to be considered, either in the same class series or those classifications that have similar scope of work, level of responsibility, and “worth” to the District . Where it is difficult to ascertain internal relationships due to unique qualifications and responsibilities, reliance can be placed on past internal relationships. It is important to analyze market data and internal relationships within class series as well as across the organization, and make adjustments to salary range placements as necessary based o n the needs of the organization.
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 11 R ECOMMENDATIONS Pay Philosophy T he District has many options regarding what type of compensation plan it wants to implement. This decision is based on what the District’s pay philosophy is, at which level it desires to pay its employees compared to the market, whether it is going to consider additional alternative compensation programs, and how great the competition is with other agencies over recruitment of a highly -qualified workforce. For example, does the District desire to peg its compensation system to the median of the market or a higher percentile? How does it wish to set salary ranges for its classifications? Will the maximum of the salary be set against the median of the market or is the agency interested in considering alternative compensation models. Proposed Monthly Salary Plan We recommend that the District consider changing its compensation structure to a model that consists of salary ranges that don’t have steps but that have a minimum, mid -point, and maximum. This type of compensation system gives the District more flexibility when it comes to incremental salary increases and it is not confined to the 5% increments that most step systems require. In addition, the District’s current practice is to not use the steps strictly but to implement salary increases of less than 5%, which often places current emplo yees in -between the steps of the District’s current salary ranges. We also recommend developing a salary range matrix with ranges that have a 2.5% differential between them and a differential between the minimum and maximum of the range of 35%, which is the approximate spread that is currently in place between steps 1 and 7. This matrix creates an important structure that will allow the District to establish relationships between classifications in mathematically sound and logical increments. The alternative option would to continue to utilize the current salary range model consisting of ranges with seven (7) steps, with each step 5% apart from the next. It is important to note that the salary range structure/matrix that K&A designed connects all salary ranges, and their minimum, mid -point, and maximum , by formula, thereby allowing for cost -of -living adjustments (COLAs) to be applied to only one dollar figure in the table/matrix, which then automatically updates the entire t able. Due to the formula that connects each range to the next (with 2.5% differentials between each range), there is a compounding effect when drawing relationships that span several ranges. For example, with 2.5% differentials between ranges, four range s should represent a 10% differential. However, because the compounding effect of 2.5%, on top of 2.5%, on top of 2.5%, and so on, the differential between Range 1 and Range 5 is not exactly 10%, but slightly greater. We point this out because our internal alignment and salary range recommendations will refer to 5%, 10%, 15%, etc. type of differentials and relationships between certain classifications when the actual percentages may be slightly greater .
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates 12 Proposed Salary Range Placements Appendix IV illustrates the proposed salary range placement for each classification based on the market data, the rationale for such a recommended placement, and the projected percentage change. We made the following calculation: for those classifications that were below market when looking at base salaries, we used the market base salary median findings and placed classifications into the proposed monthly salary schedule based on those findings, into the salary range whose maximum is closest to the market number. Fo r those classifications that were above market when looking at base salaries, we placed them into the salary range whose maximum is closes to their current range’s Step 7. In addition, we modified that placement in certain instances where it seemed warran ted based on internal relationships, market -supported grouping s , and/or compaction issues. Benefits Package As outlined above, the District falls below the market in most benefit components of its total compensation plan. While we understand that the pension program cannot be changed at this point, due to the Pension Reform, we recommend that the District consider increasing its benefits package otherwise. The most notable area is the District’s contribution to medical, dental, vision, life, long -term d isability, and other insurance plans. Bringing its contribution level to at least the market median would make up for a significant shortfall in the District’s total compensation package. U SING M ARKET D ATA AND T HIS R EPORT A S A T OOL We wish to reiterate that this report and our findings are meant to be a tool for the District to create and implement an equitable compensation plan. Compensation strategies are designed to attract and retain excellent staff. However, financial realitie s and the District’s expectations may also come into play when determining appropriate compensation philosophies and strategies. The collected data represents a market survey that will give the District an instrument to make future compensation decisions. It has been a pleasure working with the District on this critical project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any additional information or clarification regarding this report. Respectfully Submitted, Koff & Associates Georg S. Kra mmer Chief Executive Officer
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates Appendix I Results Summary
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates Appendix II Market Base Salary, Benefits Detail, and Total Compensation Findings
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates Appendix III Proposed Monthly Salary Plan
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates Appendix IV Proposed Salary Range Placement
Final Report – Volume II, Compensation Study Costa Mesa Sanitary District Koff & Associates Appendix V Additional Benefits
Costa Mesa Water District Results Summary May 2015 Page 1 of 1 Alpha ; CMSD Volume II Appendix I Results Summary 05 03 15 # of Classification CMSD Top Monthly Salary Average % above or below Median % above or below CMSD Total Monthly Comp Average % above or below Median % above or below Matches Accountant II $6,769 $6,468 4.5%$6,369 5.9%$8,793 $9,136 -3.9%$9,166 -4.2%9 Administrative Assistant I $4,628 $4,316 6.7%$4,167 10.0%$6,395 $6,709 -4.9%$6,860 -7.3%11 Administrative Manager $9,369 $9,177 2.0%$9,339 0.3%$11,884 $12,711 -7.0%$13,116 -10.4%8 Code Enforcement Officer $5,056 $5,716 -13.1%$5,542 -9.6%$6,874 $7,882 -14.7%$7,838 -14.0%6 District Clerk $7,761 $8,198 -5.6%$7,960 -2.6%$10,053 $11,123 -10.6%$10,304 -2.5%9 Executive Assistant $6,729 $6,247 7.2%$6,278 6.7%$8,748 $8,711 0.4%$8,949 -2.3%10 Finance Manager $9,369 $10,109 -7.9%$10,222 -9.1%$11,884 $13,523 -13.8%$13,691 -15.2%10 Maintenance Assistant $2,864 $2,339 18.3%$2,166 24.4%$4,419 $4,047 8.4%$3,752 15.1%4 Management Analyst II $7,392 $7,182 2.8%$7,024 5.0%$9,490 $9,841 -3.7%$9,793 -3.2%9 Permit Technician $5,383 $5,308 1.4%$5,108 5.1%$7,240 $7,620 -5.2%$7,733 -6.8%8 S CADA Technician/ Industrial Electrician $6,921 $6,608 4.5%$6,608 4.5%$8,963 $9,171 -2.3%$9,392 -4.8%5 Senior Accountant $8,069 $7,561 6.3%$7,668 5.0%$10,248 $10,400 -1.5%$10,452 -2.0%9 Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor $8,122 $8,193 -0.9%$8,109 0.2%$10,308 $11,324 -9.9%$11,495 -11.5%7 Wastewater Maintenance Worker II $5,270 $5,144 2.4%$5,190 1.5%$7,114 $7,554 -6.2%$7,873 -10.7%9 AVG:2.0%AVG:3.4%AVG:-5.3%AVG:-5.7%Top Monthly Salary Data Total Monthly Compensation Data
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 1a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Accountant II Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 Santa Margarita Water District Accountant $7,298 7/1/2016 2 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Accountant $7,174 3/7/2015 3 Mesa Water District a Senior Accounting Technician $6,834 2/7/2015 4 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Accountant $6,829 7/19/2014 5 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Accountant II $6,769 1/9/2015 6 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Accountant $6,551 3/3/2015 7 Moulton Niguel Water District Accountant $6,187 7/1/2014 8 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Accountant $6,170 10/1/2014 9 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Accountant $6,117 7/1/2014 10 City of Tustin (Public Works) Accountant $5,996 6/28/2013 11 El Toro Water District Accountant $5,521 1/1/2015 12 East Orange County Water District N/C 13 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 14 Yorba Linda Water District N/C Average of Comparators $6,468 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 4.5%Median of Comparators $6,369 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 5.9%Number of Matches 10 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 2a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Administrative Assistant $5,911 7/19/2014 2 Santa Margarita Water District Office Assistant $5,057 7/1/2016 3 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Administrative Assistant $4,952 3/3/2015 4 Moulton Niguel Water District Administrative Assistant I $4,914 7/1/2014 5 Mesa Water District a Office Assistant $4,837 2/7/2015 6 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Administrative Assistant I $4,628 7 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Administrative Assistant $4,609 3/7/2015 8 El Toro Water District Office Assistant $4,167 1/1/2015 9 Midway City Sanitary District Administrative Secretary/ Receptionist $3,951 7/1/2014 10 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Office Assistant $3,784 10/1/2014 11 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Office Specialist I $3,719 7/1/2014 12 City of Tustin (Public Works) Office Assistant $3,576 6/28/2013 13 Yorba Linda Water District Office Clerk $3,543 7/1/2014 14 East Orange County Water District Administrative Assistant $3,092 7/1/2014 Average of Comparators $4,316 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 6.7%Median of Comparators $4,167 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 10.0%Number of Matches 13 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 3a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Administrative Manager Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 City of Tustin (Public Works) Human Resources Manager $10,256 6/28/2013 7/1/2015 2 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Human Resources Supervisor $10,202 3/7/2015 3 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Executive Dir Personnel Services/Personnel Analyst 1 $9,723 10/1/2014 4 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Personnel Analyst Principal $9,540 12/20/2014 5 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Administrative Manager $9,369 6 Yorba Linda Water District Human Resources and Risk Manager/Human Resources Analyst 1 $9,339 7/1/2014 7 Mesa Water District a Sr. Human Resources Analyst $9,191 2/7/2015 12/31/2017 8 El Toro Water District Human Resources Manager $8,857 1/1/2015 6/30/2015 9 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Human Resources Administrator $8,362 7/1/2014 10 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Administrative Services Manager $7,127 3/3/2015 11 East Orange County Water District N/C 12 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 13 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C 14 Santa Margarita Water District N/C Average of Comparators $9,177 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 2.0%Median of Comparators $9,339 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 0.3%Number of Matches 9 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 4a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Code Enforcement Officer Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Code Enforcement Officer $6,923 3/7/2015 2 City of Tustin (Public Works) Code Enforcement Officer $5,892 6/28/2013 3 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Code Enforcement Officer $5,655 3/3/2015 4 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Code Enforcement Officer $5,428 7/1/2014 5 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Code Enforcement Officer $5,375 7/19/2014 6 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Code Enforcement Officer $5,056 7 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Sanitation Inspector I $5,026 10/1/2014 8 East Orange County Water District N/C 9 El Toro Water District N/C 10 Mesa Water District N/C 11 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 12 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C 13 Santa Margarita Water District N/C 14 Yorba Linda Water District N/C Average of Comparators $5,716 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -13.1%Median of Comparators $5,542 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -9.6%Number of Matches 6 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 5a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 District Clerk Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 Santa Margarita Water District Secretary to the Board/ District Clerk $9,620 7/1/2016 2 Yorba Linda Water District Executive Secretary $9,400 7/1/2014 3 Mesa Water District a Executive Assistant to the General Manager $9,191 2/7/2015 4 Moulton Niguel Water District Board Secretary/ Executive Assistant $8,374 7/1/2014 5 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk 1 $7,960 7/1/2014 6 Costa Mesa Sanitary District District Clerk $7,761 7 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk 1 $7,732 3/3/2015 8 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Assistant City Clerk $7,516 3/7/2015 9 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Senior Deputy City Clerk $7,039 12/20/2014 10 City of Santa Ana (Public Works) b Secretary to the City Manager $6,955 10/1/2014 11 City of Tustin (Public Works) N/C 12 East Orange County Water District N/C 13 El Toro Water District N/C 14 Midway City Sanitary District N/C Average of Comparators $8,198 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -5.6%Median of Comparators $7,960 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -2.6%Number of Matches 9 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset b- Includes 1.25% City RHS payment added to base 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 6a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Executive Assistant Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 El Toro Water District Executive Assistant $7,202 7/1/2015 2 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Executive Assistant, City Manager's Office $7,127 3/7/2015 3 Moulton Niguel Water District Board Secretary-Executive Assistant/Administrative Assistant II 1 $6,958 7/1/2014 4 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Executive Assistant $6,795 7/19/2014 5 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Executive Assistant $6,729 6 Santa Margarita Water District Executive Assistant $6,704 7/1/2016 7 City of Santa Ana (Public Works) b Executive Assistant $6,278 10/1/2014 8 Mesa Water District a Department Assistant $6,040 2/7/2015 9 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Executive Assistant to the City Manager $5,947 3/3/2015 10 City of Tustin (Public Works) Executive Assistant $5,453 5/22/2014 11 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Executive Secretary Administration $5,125 7/1/2014 12 Midway City Sanitary District Executive Secretary / Board Secretary $5,089 7/1/2014 13 East Orange County Water District N/C 14 Yorba Linda Water District N/C Average of Comparators $6,247 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 7.2%Median of Comparators $6,278 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 6.7%Number of Matches 11 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset b- Includes 1.25% City RHS payment added to base 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 7a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Finance Manager Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 Yorba Linda Water District Finance Manager $11,997 7/1/2014 2 Moulton Niguel Water District Finance Manager $10,757 7/1/2014 3 Mesa Water District a Controller $10,659 2/7/2015 12/31/2017 4 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Accounting Manager/Senior Accountant 1 $10,387 3/7/2015 5 El Toro Water District Controller $10,257 1/1/2015 6/30/2015 6 City of Tustin (Public Works) Finance Manager $10,256 6/28/2013 7 Santa Margarita Water District Senior Financial Analyst $10,189 7/1/2016 8 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Finance Manager/Principal Accountant 1 $10,005 12/20/2014 9 Midway City Sanitary District Finance-HR Director $9,915 7/1/2014 10 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Assistant Finance Director/Accounting Supervisor 1 $9,646 7/1/2014 11 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Finance Manager $9,369 12 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Supervising Accountant $8,641 10/1/2014 13 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Accounting Manager $8,598 3/3/2015 14 East Orange County Water District N/C Average of Comparators $10,109 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -7.9%Median of Comparators $10,222 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -9.1%Number of Matches 12 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 8a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Management Analyst II Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 Yorba Linda Water District Management Analyst $7,733 7/1/2014 2 Santa Margarita Water District Administrative Analyst $7,728 7/1/2016 3 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Administrative Analyst $7,713 3/7/2015 4 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Administrative Analyst $7,659 12/20/2014 5 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Management Analyst II $7,392 1/9/2015 6 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Management Analyst $7,024 10/1/2014 7 City of Tustin (Public Works) Management Analyst $6,776 6/28/2013 8 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Management Analyst $6,770 3/3/2015 9 Moulton Niguel Water District Administrative Analyst $6,736 7/1/2014 10 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Management Analyst $6,496 7/1/2014 11 East Orange County Water District N/C 12 El Toro Water District N/C 13 Mesa Water District N/C 14 Midway City Sanitary District N/C Average of Comparators $7,182 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 2.8%Median of Comparators $7,024 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 5.0%Number of Matches 9 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 9a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Permit Technician Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 Santa Margarita Water District Engineering Technician I $6,515 7/1/2016 2 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Permit Technician $6,140 10/1/2014 3 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Permit Technician I $5,971 3/7/2015 4 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Permit Technician $5,383 5 Yorba Linda Water District Engineering Technician I $5,234 7/1/2014 6 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Engineering Technician I $4,981 3/3/2015 7 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Permit Technician $4,863 9/27/2014 8 City of Tustin (Public Works) Building Permit Technician $4,567 6/28/2013 9 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Permit Processing Specialist $4,193 7/1/2014 10 East Orange County Water District N/C 11 El Toro Water District N/C 12 Mesa Water District N/C 13 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 14 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C Average of Comparators $5,308 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 1.4%Median of Comparators $5,108 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 5.1%Number of Matches 8 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 10a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 SCADA Tech Electrician Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 Costa Mesa Sanitary District SCADA Technician/ Industrial Electrician $6,921 1/9/2015 2 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Security Electronics Technician $6,869 10/1/2014 3 Yorba Linda Water District Instrumentation Technician $6,680 7/1/2014 4 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Electronics Technician $6,608 7/1/2014 5 Santa Margarita Water District Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) Technician $6,515 7/1/2016 6 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)SCADA Technician $6,368 9/27/2014 7 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)N/C 8 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)N/C 9 City of Tustin (Public Works) N/C 10 East Orange County Water District N/C 11 El Toro Water District N/C 12 Mesa Water District N/C 13 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 14 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C Average of Comparators $6,608 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 4.5%Median of Comparators $6,608 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 4.5%Number of Matches 5 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 11a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Senior Accountant Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 Yorba Linda Water District Senior Accountant $8,526 7/1/2014 2 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Senior Accountant $8,254 3/3/2015 3 Santa Margarita Water District Senior Accountant $8,181 7/1/2016 4 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Senior Accountant $8,069 5 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Senior Accountant $7,852 7/19/2014 6 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Senior Accountant $7,761 10/1/2014 7 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Accounting Manager/Accountant 1 $7,575 3/3/2015 8 City of Tustin (Public Works) Senior Accountant $7,195 6/28/2013 9 Moulton Niguel Water District Senior Accountant $6,960 7/1/2014 10 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Senior Accountant $6,725 7/1/2014 11 El Toro Water District Senior Accountant $6,585 1/1/2015 12 East Orange County Water District N/C 13 Mesa Water District N/C 14 Midway City Sanitary District N/C Average of Comparators $7,561 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 6.3%Median of Comparators $7,668 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 5.0%Number of Matches 10 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 12a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Maintenance Assistant Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Maintenance Aide $3,110 3/3/2015 2 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Maintenance Assistant $2,864 1/9/2015 3 City of Tustin (Public Works) Maintenance Aide $2,167 6/28/2013 4 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Temporary Laborer $2,165 ?5 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Maintenance Aide I $1,914 10/1/2014 6 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)N/C 7 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)N/C 8 East Orange County Water District N/C 9 El Toro Water District N/C 10 Mesa Water District N/C 11 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 12 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C 13 Santa Margarita Water District N/C 14 Yorba Linda Water District N/C Average of Comparators $2,339 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 18.3%Median of Comparators $2,166 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 24.4%Number of Matches 4 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 13a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Wastewater Maintenance Worker II Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 El Toro Water District Maintenance Worker II $5,682 1/1/2015 2 Moulton Niguel Water District Maintenance Worker II Facilities 2 $5,590 7/1/2014 3 Mesa Water District a Water Maintenance Worker II $5,339 2/7/2015 4 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Wastewater Maintenance Worker II $5,270 5 Yorba Linda Water District Maintenance Distribution Operator II 3 $5,234 7/1/2014 6 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Wastewater Supervisor $5,234 9/27/2014 7 Santa Margarita Water District Maintenance Mechanic/Maintenance Technician 1 $5,147 7/1/2016 8 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Maintenance Worker II $5,093 3/7/2015 9 City of Tustin (Public Works) Water Distribution Operator II 3 $4,997 6/28/2013 10 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Water Services Worker II $4,764 10/1/2014 11 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Maintenance Worker II - Sewers/Storm Drains 2 $4,358 3/3/2015 12 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)N/C 13 East Orange County Water District N/C 14 Midway City Sanitary District N/C Average of Comparators $5,144 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 2.4%Median of Comparators $5,190 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 1.5%Number of Matches 10 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.2 Grade 1 Certificate Distribution/Collections 3 D2 Distribution Systems Certification
Top Monthly Salary Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 14a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIa Top Monthly Salary Data 05 01 15 Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor Top Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Date Increase Increase 1 Mesa Water District a Water Operations Supervisor $9,898 2/7/2015 2 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Wastewater Operations Leadworker/Maintenance Worker 1 $8,767 12/20/2014 3 Yorba Linda Water District Water Maintenance Superintendent $8,526 7/1/2014 4 Moulton Niguel Water District Water Distribution Supervisor $8,225 7/1/2014 5 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor $8,122 6 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Water Production Supervisor $7,992 3/7/2015 7 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Sewer/Storm Drain Supervisor $7,783 3/3/2015 8 El Toro Water District Crew Chief $7,418 1/1/2015 9 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Water Services Supervisor $6,937 10/1/2014 10 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)N/C 11 City of Tustin (Public Works) N/C 12 East Orange County Water District N/C 13 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 14 Santa Margarita Water District N/C Average of Comparators $8,193 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -0.9%Median of Comparators $8,109 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 0.2%8 Number of Matches 8 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Accountant II A g enc y Class Title Accountant II Accountant Accountant Accountant Accountant Accountant Accountant N/CN/R Senior Accounting Technician N/CAccountant Accountant N/C Top Monthly Salary$6,769 $6,117$6,551$6,829$7,174$6,170$5,996$6,834$6,187$7,298 Employee Retirement PERS -$353 $68 Enhanced PERS Formula $338$219$497$183$208$189$587 12 Month Highest Salar y $91 $92 Social Securit y $424 Other 1,2 $120 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $919$1,406$1,549$1,125$1,400$1,380 Health $1,297$1,139 $1,945 Dental $135$90 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2$5 Life$14 $5$5$9$2$2$50 LTD$3 $34$22$25$74 STD/SDI $117 Other Leave V acation$456 $412$378$657$552$356$600$455$357$674 Holidays$260 $282$277$263$359$285$254$292$214$295 Administrative $151$59 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $124$145 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$2,024$1,260$2,219$2,955$2,692$2,392$2,281N/CN/R $2,972N/C$2,979$3,322N/C Total Monthly Comp.$8,793$7,377$8,770$9,784$9,866$8,562$8,277N/CN/R $9,806N/C$9,166$10,620N/C Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District 3 Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District 3 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 1b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Administrative Assistant I A g enc y Class Title Administrative Assistant I Office Specialist I Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant Office Assistant Office Assistant N/RN/ROffice Assistant A dministrative Secretary/ Receptionist Administrative Assistant IOffice Assistant Office Clerk Top Monthly Salary$4,628 $3,719$4,952$5,911$4,609$3,784$3,576$4,837$3,951$4,914$5,057$3,543 Employee Retirement PERS -$215 $48$40 Enhanced PERS Formula $293$141$305$109$148$121$150$407 12 Month Highest Salar y $62 $65$48 Social Securit y $300 Other 1,2 $72 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $919$1,406$1,549$1,125$1,400$1,425$1,380$2,064 Health $1,297$1,139 $1,945 Dental $135$90 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2$5$2 Life$14 $5$5$9$2$2$50$7 LTD$2 $30$13$17$52$12 STD/SDI $81$7 Other Leave V acation$312 $250$286$568$381$218$358$322$228$284$467$204 Holidays$178 $172$210$227$230$175$151$207$137$170$204$150 Administrative $51 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $98$145$71 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$1,767$1,126$1,908$2,773$2,314$1,943$1,814N/R N/R $2,515$1,950$2,797$2,786$2,565 Total Monthly Comp.$6,395$4,845$6,860$8,684$6,923$5,727$5,390N/R N/R $7,352$5,901$7,711$7,843$6,108 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 2b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Administrative Manager A g enc y Class Title Administrative Manager Human Resources Administrator Administrative Services Manager Personnel A nalyst Principal Human Resources Supervisor Executive Dir Personnel Services/Person nel Analyst Human Resources ManagerN/CN/R Sr. Human Resources Analyst N/CN/CN/C HR & Risk Manager/HR Analyst Top Monthly Salary$9,369 $8,362$7,127$9,540$10,202$9,723$10,256$9,191$9,339 Employee Retirement PERS -$84 $92 Enhanced PERS Formula $472$311$783$313$280 12 Month Highest Salar y $126 $124$126 Social Securit y $612 Other 1,2 $205 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $1,792$2,255$1,549$1,125$1,400$2,064 Health $1,297$1,567 $1,945 Dental $135$90 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2$5$2 Life$14 $5$11$9$31$2$20 LTD$5 $48$34$33$30 STD/SDI $34 $19 Other Leave V acation$631 $563$411$991$1,118$561$1,026$612$539 Holidays$360 $386$302$367$510$449$434$393$395 Administrative$180 $322$229$392$187$197 $180 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $230$187 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$2,515$2,979$2,975$3,717$3,894$3,738$3,300N/CN/R $3,784N/CN/CN/C$3,561 Total Monthly Comp.$11,884$11,341$10,102$13,257$14,097$13,461$13,556N/CN/R $12,975N/CN/CN/C$12,900 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 3b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Code Enforcement Officer A g enc y Class Title Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer Sanitation Inspector I Code Enforcement OfficerN/CN/CN/CN/CN/CN/CN/C Top Monthly Salary$5,056 $5,428$5,655$5,375$6,923$5,026$5,892 Employee Retirement PERS -$313 Enhanced PERS Formula $266$211$405$180 12 Month Highest Salar y $68 Social Securit y Other 1,2 $118 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $919$1,406$1,549$1,125 Health $1,297$1,139 Dental $135$90 V ision $22 EAP $2$2$2$2 Life$14 $5$5$9$2 LTD$3 $27$18 STD/SDI Other Leave V acation$340 $365$326$517$572$290$589 Holidays$194 $251$239$207$346$232$249 Administrative $47 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$1,818$1,221$1,978$2,667$2,691$2,177$2,261N/CN/CN/CN/CN/CN/CN/C Total Monthly Comp.$6,874$6,649$7,633$8,042$9,614$7,203$8,153N/cN/CN/CN/CN/CN/CN/C Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 4b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 District Clerk A g enc y Class Title District Clerk City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk Senior Deputy City Clerk Assistant City Clerk Secretary to the City Manager N/CN/CN/C Executive Assistant to the General Manager N/C Board Secretary/ Executive Assistant Secretary to the Board/ District Clerk Executive Secretary Top Monthly Salary$7,761 $7,960$7,732$7,039$7,516$6,955$9,191$8,374$9,620$9,400 Employee Retirement PERS -$460 $92 Enhanced PERS Formula $348$229$560$280$255$774 12 Month Highest Salar y $105 $124$127 Social Securit y $570 Other 1,2 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $919$1,406$1,549 $1,400$1,380$2,064 Health $1,297$1,527 $1,945 Dental $135$80 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2$5$2 Life$14 $5$5$9$2$2$50$20 LTD$4 $35$24$33$98$31 STD/SDI $154$19 Other Leave V acation$522 $536$446$677$621$401$612$483$888$542 Holidays$299 $367$327$271$376$321$393$290$389$398 Administrative$149 $61 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $167$145$188 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$2,292$1,362$2,186$2,996$2,788$2,918N/CN/CN/C$3,512N/C$3,291$3,878$3,390 Total Monthly Comp.$10,053$9,322$9,918$10,035$10,304$9,873N/CN/CN/C$12,703N/C$11,665$13,498$12,790 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works) b Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 5b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Executive Assistan t A g enc y Class Title Executive Assistant Executive Secretary Administration Executive Assistant to the City Manager Executive Assistant Executive Assistant, City Manager's Office Executive Assistant Executive AssistantN/CN/R Department Assistant Executive Secretary / Board Secretary Board Secretary-Executive Assistant/Admin Assistant II Executive AssistantN/C Top Monthly Salary$6,729 $5,125$5,947$6,795$7,127$6,278$5,453$6,040$5,089$6,958$6,704 Employee Retirement PERS -$296 $60$51 Enhanced PERS Formula $336$217$505$166$184$155$212$540 12 Month Highest Salar y $91 $82 Social Securit y $374 Other 1,2 $109 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $919$1,406$1,549$1,125$1,400$1,425$1,380 Health $1,297$1,527 $1,945 Dental $135$80 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2$5 Life$14 $5$5$9$2$2$50 LTD$3 $34$22$22$68 STD/SDI $107 Other Leave V acation$453 $345$343$653$589$362$545$402$294$401$619 Holidays$259 $237$252$261$356$290$231$258$176$241$271 Administrative $59 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $139$145 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$2,019$1,205$2,008$2,948$2,725$2,791$2,176N/CN/R $2,790$2,101$3,089$3,180N/C Total Monthly Comp.$8,748$6,330$7,955$9,743$9,852$9,069$7,629N/CN/R $8,830$7,190$10,047$9,884N/C Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works) b Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 6b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Finance Manage r A g enc y Class Title Finance Manager A sst Finance Director/ Accounting Supervisor Accounting Manager Finance Manager / Principal Accountant Accounting Manager/Sr Accountant Supervising Accountant Finance Manager N/CN/RController Finance-HR Director Finance Manager Senior Financial Analyst Finance Manager Top Monthly Salary$9,369 $9,646$8,598$10,005$10,387$8,641$10,256$10,659$9,915$10,757$10,189$11,997 Employee Retirement PERS -$96 $107$99 Enhanced PERS Formula $495$317$696$313$325$302$328$820 12 Month Highest Salar y $126 $144$162 Social Securit y $612 Other 1,2 $205 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $1,792$2,255$1,549$1,125$1,400$1,425$1,380$2,064 Health $1,297$1,567 $1,945 Dental $135$90 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2$5$2 Life$14 $5$12$9$2$2$50$25 LTD$5 $50$30$38$104$39 STD/SDI $163$24 Other Leave V acation$631 $649$496$1,039$858$499$1,026$710$572$621$941$692 Holidays$360 $445$364$385$519$399$434$456$343$372$411$508 Administrative$180 $371$241$400$166$197$57$231 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $266$215$145$240 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$2,515$3,161$3,122$3,821$3,656$3,450$3,300N/CN/R $4,066$2,799$3,631$4,014$3,987 Total Monthly Comp.$11,884$12,807$11,720$13,825$14,043$12,091$13,556N/CN/R $14,725$12,714$14,388$14,203$15,984 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 7b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Maintenance Assistan t A g enc y Class Title Maintenance Assistant N/C Temporary Laborer N/C Maintenance Aide Maintenance Aide I Maintenance Aide N/CN/CN/RN/CN/CN/CN/C Top Monthly Salary$2,864 $2,165$3,110$1,914$2,167 Employee Retirement PERS Enhanced PERS Formula $95$154$66 12 Month Highest Salar y $39 Social Securit y Other 1,2 $43 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $1,406$1,549$1,125 Health $1,139 Dental $90 V ision EAP $2$2$2 Life$14 $5$9$2 LTD$1 $7 STD/SDI Other Leave V acation$193 $125$257$110$217 Holidays$110 $92$155$88$92 Administrative Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $3 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$1,556N/C$1,629N/C$2,069$1,592$1,543N/CN/CN/R N/CN/CN/CN/C Total Monthly Comp.$4,419N/C$3,794N/C$5,179$3,506$3,710N/CN/CN/R N/CN/CN/CN/C Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 8b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Management Analys t A g enc y Class Title Management Analyst II Management Analyst Management Analyst A dministrative Analyst A dministrative Analyst Management Analyst Management Analyst N/CN/CN/CN/C A dministrative Analyst A dministrative Analyst Management Analyst Top Monthly Salary$7,392 $6,496$6,770$7,659$7,713$7,024$6,776 $6,736$7,728$7,733 Employee Retirement PERS -$375 Enhanced PERS Formula $379$235$565$207 $205$622 12 Month Highest Salar y $100 $104 Social Securit y Other 1,2 $136 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $919$1,406$1,549$1,125 $1,380$2,064 Health $1,297$1,139 $1,945 Dental $135$90 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2 $2 Life$14 $5$5$9$2 $50$16 LTD$4 $38$25 $79$25 STD/SDI $124$15 Other Leave V acation$498 $437$391$736$637$405$678 $389$713$446 Holidays$284 $300$286$295$386$324$287 $233$312$327 Administrative $66 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $135$145$155 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$2,098$1,281$2,090$3,119$2,820$2,552$2,431N/CN/CN/CN/C$3,057$3,425$3,156 Total Monthly Comp.$9,490$7,777$8,860$10,778$10,533$9,576$9,207N/CN/CN/CN/C$9,793$11,153$10,889 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 9b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Permit Technician A g enc y Class Title Permit Technician Permit Processing Specialist Engineering Technician I Permit Technician Permit Technician I Permit Technician Building Permit TechnicianN/CN/CN/CN/CN/C Engineering Technician I Engineering Technician I Top Monthly Salary$5,383 $4,193$4,981$4,863$5,971$6,140$4,567 $6,515$5,234 Employee Retirement PERS -$242 Enhanced PERS Formula $241$182$494$139 $524 12 Month Highest Salar y $73 $71 Social Securit y Other 1,2 $91 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $919$1,406$1,549$1,125 $1,380$2,064 Health $1,297$1,139 $1,945 Dental $135$90 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2 $2 Life$14 $5$5$9$2 $50$11 LTD$3 $24$22 $66$17 STD/SDI $104$10 Other Leave V acation$362 $282$287$468$493$354$457 $601$302 Holidays$207 $194$211$187$299$283$193 $263$221 Administrative $42 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $145$105 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$1,857$1,153$1,911$2,566$2,536$2,386$2,006N/CN/CN/CN/CN/C$3,135$2,804 Total Monthly Comp.$7,240$5,346$6,892$7,429$8,507$8,526$6,573N/CN/CN/CN/CN/C$9,650$8,038 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 10b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 SCADA Tech Electrician A g enc y Class Title SCADA Technician/ Industrial Electrician Electronics TechnicianN/C SCADA TechnicianN/C Security Electronics Technician N/CN/CN/CN/CN/CN/C Supv Control & Data Acquisition (SCADA) Tech Instrumentation Technician Top Monthly Salary$6,921 $6,608$6,368$6,869 $6,515$6,680 Employee Retirement PERS -$382 Enhanced PERS Formula $315$553 $524 12 Month Highest Salar y $93 $90 Social Securit y Other 1,2 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $919 $1,380$2,064 Health $1,297$1,139 Dental $135$90 V ision $22 EAP $2$2 $2 Life$14 $5$2 $50$14 LTD$3 $32$24 $66$22 STD/SDI $104$13 Other Leave V acation$466 $445$612$396 $601$385 Holidays$266 $305$245$317 $263$283 Administrative $55 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143 $145$134 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$2,042$1,287N/C$2,864N/C$2,523N/CN/CN/CN/CN/CN/C$3,135$3,007 Total Monthly Comp.$8,963$7,895N/C$9,232N/C$9,392N/CN/CN/CN/CN/CN/C$9,650$9,687 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 11b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Senior Accountan t A g enc y Class Title Senior Accountant Senior Accountant A ccounting Manager/ Accountant Senior Accountant Senior Accountant Senior Accountant Senior Accountant N/CN/RN/CN/C Senior Accountant Senior Accountant Senior Accountant Top Monthly Salary$8,069 $6,725$7,575$7,852$8,254$7,761$7,195 $6,960$8,181$8,526 Employee Retirement PERS -$388 Enhanced PERS Formula $389$252$625$219 $212$659 12 Month Highest Salar y $109 $115 Social Securit y Other 1,2 $144 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $919$1,406$1,549$1,125 $1,380$2,064 Health $1,297$1,139 $1,945 Dental $135$90 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2 $2 Life$14 $5$5$9$2 $50$18 LTD$4 $39$27 $83$28 STD/SDI $131$17 Other Leave V acation$543 $453$437$755$635$448$719 $402$755$492 Holidays$310 $310$320$302$413$358$304 $241$330$361 Administrative $68 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $139$145$171 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$2,179$1,294$2,170$3,157$2,862$2,691$2,512N/CN/R N/CN/C$3,089$3,533$3,267 Total Monthly Comp.$10,248$8,019$9,745$11,009$11,116$10,452$9,707N/CN/R N/CN/C$10,049$11,714$11,793 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 12b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Wastewater Maint. Supervisor A g enc y Class Title Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor N/C Sewer/Storm Drain Supervisor WW Operations Leadworker/ Maint Worker Water Production Supervisor Water Services SupervisorN/CN/CN/R Water Operations SupervisorN/C Water Distribution Supervisor N/C Water Maintenance Superintendent Top Monthly Salary$8,122 $7,783$8,767$7,992$6,937$9,898$8,225$8,526 Employee Retirement PERS $99 Enhanced PERS Formula $434$244$558$302$251 12 Month Highest Salar y $110 $134$115 Social Securit y $614 Other 1,2 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $1,406$1,549 $1,400$2,064 Health $1,297$1,139 $1,945 Dental $135$90 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2$5$2 Life$14 $5$5$9$2$2$18 LTD$4 $44$24$36$28 STD/SDI $17 Other Leave V acation$547 $449$843$660$400$659$475$492 Holidays$312 $329$337$400$320$424$285$361 Administrative $76 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $165$171 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$2,186N/C$2,191$3,338$2,866$2,536N/CN/CN/R $3,674N/C$3,270N/C$3,267 Total Monthly Comp.$10,308N/C$9,974$12,105$10,858$9,473N/CN/CN/R $13,572N/C$11,495N/C$11,793 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District El Toro Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 13b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Costa Mesa Sanitary District Benefits Detail April 2015 Wastewater Maint. Worker II A g enc y Class Title Wastewater Maintenance Worker II N/C Maint Worker II - Sewers/Storm Drains Wastewater Supervisor Maintenance Worker II Water Services Worker II Water Distribution Operator II N/CN/R Water Maintenance Worker II N/C Maintenance Worker II Facilities Maint Mechanic/ Maint Tech Maintenance Distribution Operator II Top Monthly Salary$5,270 $4,358$5,234$5,093$4,764$4,997$5,339$5,590$5,147$5,234 Employee Retirement PERS $53 Enhanced PERS Formula $259$155$384$152$163$170$414 12 Month Highest Salar y $71 $72$71 Social Securit y $331 Other 1,2 $100 Insurance Cafeteria$1,199 $1,406$1,549$1,125$1,400$1,380$2,064 Health $1,297$1,139 $1,945 Dental $135$90 $133 V ision $22 $17 EAP $2$2$2$2$5$2 Life$14 $5$5$9$2$2$50$11 LTD$3 $26$17$19$52$17 STD/SDI $82$10 Other Leave V acation$355 $251$503$421$275$500$356$323$475$302 Holidays$203 $184$201$255$220$211$228$194$208$221 Administrative $45 Auto Allowance Uniform Allowance Deferred Compensation $143$3 $112$145$105 Other Longevity Benefit Cost$1,844N/C$1,849$2,639$2,393$2,128$2,088N/CN/R $2,630N/C$2,893$2,807$2,804 Total Monthly Comp.$7,114N/C$6,207$7,873$7,486$6,892$7,085N/CN/R $7,969N/C$8,483$7,954$8,038 Note: Total Monthly Compensation number may vary slightly from the sum of its components due to cell formulas & roundin g 1- City of Tustin provides 2% in lieu of Social Security .2 - El Toro provides defined contribution plan as substitute for other retirement plan .3 - El Toro and East Orange County salaries were collected but NR on many benefits. Yorba Linda Water District City of Tustin (Public Works) El Toro Water District Mesa Water District Midway City Sanitary District Moulton Niguel Water District Santa Margarita Water District East Orange County Water District City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Costa Mesa Sanitary District City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Page 14b of 14 5/8/2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIb Benefits Detail 05 03 15
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 1a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Accountant II Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Santa Margarita Water District Accountant $10,620 2 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Accountant $9,866 7/1/2014 3 Mesa Water District Senior Accounting Technician $9,806 7/1/2014 4 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Accountant $9,784 7/19/2014 5 Moulton Niguel Water District Accountant $9,166 6 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Accountant II $8,793 7/1/2016 7 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Accountant $8,770 2/7/2015 8 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Accountant $8,562 1/9/2015 9 City of Tustin (Public Works) Accountant $8,277 3/3/2015 10 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Accountant $7,377 3/7/2015 11 East Orange County Water District 3 N/C 12 El Toro Water District 3 N/R 13 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 14 Yorba Linda Water District N/C Average of Comparators $9,136 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -3.9%Median of Comparators $9,166 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -4.2%Number of Matches 9 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset b - El Toro WD and East Orange County WD were non-responsive regarding all or the majority of their benefits.N/C - Non Comparator
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 2a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Administrative Assistant $8,684 2/7/2015 2 Santa Margarita Water District Office Assistant $7,843 3 Moulton Niguel Water District Administrative Assistant I $7,711 7/1/2014 4 Mesa Water District Office Assistant $7,352 10/1/2014 5 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Administrative Assistant $6,923 3/7/2015 6 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Administrative Assistant $6,860 7/1/2014 7 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Administrative Assistant I $6,395 7/19/2014 8 Midway City Sanitary District Administrative Secretary/ Receptionist $5,901 6/28/2013 9 Yorba Linda Water District Office Clerk $6,108 10 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Office Assistant $5,727 3/3/2015 11 City of Tustin (Public Works) Office Assistant $5,390 12 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Office Specialist I $4,845 7/1/2016 13 East Orange County Water District N/R 14 El Toro Water District N/R Average of Comparators $6,668 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -4.3%Median of Comparators $6,860 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -7.3%Number of Matches 11 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset b - El Toro WD and East Orange County WD were non-responsive regarding all or the majority of their benefits.N/C - Non Comparator
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 3a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Administrative Manager Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Human Resources Supervisor $14,097 2/7/2015 12/31/2017 2 City of Tustin (Public Works) Human Resources Manager $13,556 3 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Executive Dir Personnel Services/Personnel Analyst $13,461 7/1/2014 4 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Personnel Analyst Principal $13,257 12/20/2014 5 Mesa Water District Sr. Human Resources Analyst $12,975 6 Yorba Linda Water District HR & Risk Manager/HR Analyst $12,900 7 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Administrative Manager $11,884 3/7/2015 8 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Human Resources Administrator $11,341 6/28/2013 7/1/2015 9 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Administrative Services Manager $10,102 10/1/2014 10 East Orange County Water District N/C 11 El Toro Water District N/R 12 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 13 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C 14 Santa Margarita Water District N/C Average of Comparators $12,711 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -7.0%Median of Comparators $13,116 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -10.4%Number of Matches 8 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 4a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Code Enforcement Officer Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Code Enforcement Officer $9,614 10/1/2014 2 City of Tustin (Public Works) Code Enforcement Officer $8,153 7/1/2014 3 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Code Enforcement Officer $8,042 3/3/2015 4 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Code Enforcement Officer $7,633 7/19/2014 5 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Sanitation Inspector I $7,203 6 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Code Enforcement Officer $6,874 3/7/2015 7 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Code Enforcement Officer $6,649 6/28/2013 8 East Orange County Water District N/C 9 El Toro Water District N/C 10 Mesa Water District N/C 11 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 12 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C 13 Santa Margarita Water District N/C 14 Yorba Linda Water District N/C Average of Comparators $7,882 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -14.7%Median of Comparators $7,838 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -14.0%Number of Matches 6 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 5a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 District Clerk Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Santa Margarita Water District Secretary to the Board/ District Clerk $13,498 2 Yorba Linda Water District Executive Secretary $12,790 3 Mesa Water District Executive Assistant to the General Manager $12,703 7/1/2014 4 Moulton Niguel Water District Board Secretary/ Executive Assistant $11,665 5 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Assistant City Clerk $10,304 3/7/2015 6 Costa Mesa Sanitary District District Clerk $10,053 7/1/2016 7 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Senior Deputy City Clerk $10,035 7/1/2014 8 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk $9,918 2/7/2015 9 City of Santa Ana (Public Works) b Secretary to the City Manager $9,873 10 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)City Clerk/Deputy City Clerk $9,322 7/1/2014 11 City of Tustin (Public Works) N/C 12 East Orange County Water District N/C 13 El Toro Water District N/C 14 Midway City Sanitary District N/C Average of Comparators $11,123 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -10.6%Median of Comparators $10,304 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -2.5%Number of Matches 9 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset b- Includes 1.25% City RHS payment added to base N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 6a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Executive Assistant Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Moulton Niguel Water District Board Secretary-Executive Assistant/Admin Assistant II $10,047 2 Santa Margarita Water District Executive Assistant $9,884 3 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Executive Assistant, City Manager's Office $9,852 10/1/2014 4 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Executive Assistant $9,743 7/19/2014 5 City of Santa Ana (Public Works) b Executive Assistant $9,069 2/7/2015 6 Mesa Water District Department Assistant $8,830 5/22/2014 7 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Executive Assistant $8,748 7/1/2014 8 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Executive Assistant to the City Manager $7,955 3/7/2015 9 City of Tustin (Public Works) Executive Assistant $7,629 10 Midway City Sanitary District Executive Secretary / Board Secretary $7,190 7/1/2014 11 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Executive Secretary Administration $6,330 7/1/2016 12 East Orange County Water District N/C 13 El Toro Water District N/R 14 Yorba Linda Water District N/C Average of Comparators $8,653 1.1% % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 1.1%Median of Comparators $8,949 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -2.3%-2.3%Number of Matches 10 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset b- Includes 1.25% City RHS payment added to base c - El Toro WD and East Orange County WD were non-responsive regarding all or the majority of their benefits.N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 7a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Finance Manager Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Yorba Linda Water District Finance Manager $15,984 2/7/2015 12/31/2017 2 Mesa Water District Controller $14,725 3 Moulton Niguel Water District Finance Manager $14,388 4 Santa Margarita Water District Senior Financial Analyst $14,203 5 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Accounting Manager/Sr Accountant $14,043 12/20/2014 6 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Finance Manager / Principal Accountant $13,825 3/7/2015 7 City of Tustin (Public Works) Finance Manager $13,556 7/1/2014 8 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Asst Finance Director/ Accounting Supervisor $12,807 7/1/2014 9 Midway City Sanitary District Finance-HR Director $12,714 3/3/2015 10 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Supervising Accountant $12,091 6/28/2013 11 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Finance Manager $11,884 7/1/2014 12 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Accounting Manager $11,720 7/1/2016 13 East Orange County Water District N/C 14 El Toro Water District N/R Average of Comparators $13,641 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -14.8%Median of Comparators $13,825 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -16.3%Number of Matches 11 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset b - El Toro WD and East Orange County WD were non-responsive regarding all or the majority of their benefits.N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 8a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Maintenance Assistant Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Maintenance Aide $5,179 10/1/2014 2 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Maintenance Assistant $4,419 3/3/2015 3 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Temporary Laborer $3,794 ?4 City of Tustin (Public Works) Maintenance Aide $3,710 5 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Maintenance Aide I $3,506 6 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)N/C 1/9/2015 7 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)N/C 6/28/2013 8 East Orange County Water District N/C 9 El Toro Water District N/C 10 Mesa Water District N/R 11 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 12 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C 13 Santa Margarita Water District N/C 14 Yorba Linda Water District N/C Average of Comparators $4,047 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 8.4%Median of Comparators $3,752 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below 15.1%Number of Matches 4 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 9a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Management Analyst II Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Santa Margarita Water District Administrative Analyst $11,153 2 Yorba Linda Water District Management Analyst $10,889 3 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Administrative Analyst $10,778 3/7/2015 4 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Administrative Analyst $10,533 7/1/2014 5 Moulton Niguel Water District Administrative Analyst $9,793 6 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Management Analyst $9,576 10/1/2014 7 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Management Analyst II $9,490 7/1/2016 8 City of Tustin (Public Works) Management Analyst $9,207 1/9/2015 9 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Management Analyst $8,860 12/20/2014 10 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Management Analyst $7,777 7/1/2014 11 East Orange County Water District N/C 12 El Toro Water District N/C 13 Mesa Water District N/C 7/1/2014 14 Midway City Sanitary District N/C Average of Comparators $9,841 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -3.7%Median of Comparators $9,793 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -3.2%Number of Matches 9 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 10a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Permit Technician Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Santa Margarita Water District Engineering Technician I $9,650 2 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Permit Technician $8,526 3 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Permit Technician I $8,507 9/27/2014 4 Yorba Linda Water District Engineering Technician I $8,038 5 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Permit Technician $7,429 7/1/2014 6 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Permit Technician $7,240 7/1/2016 7 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Engineering Technician I $6,892 3/7/2015 8 City of Tustin (Public Works) Building Permit Technician $6,573 3/3/2015 9 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Permit Processing Specialist $5,346 10/1/2014 10 East Orange County Water District N/C 11 El Toro Water District N/C 12 Mesa Water District N/C 13 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 14 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C Average of Comparators $7,620 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -5.2%Median of Comparators $7,733 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -6.8%Number of Matches 8 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 11a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 SCADA Tech Electrician Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Yorba Linda Water District Instrumentation Technician $9,687 2 Santa Margarita Water District Supv Control & Data Acquisition (SCADA) Tech $9,650 3 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Security Electronics Technician $9,392 7/1/2014 4 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)SCADA Technician $9,232 9/27/2014 5 Costa Mesa Sanitary District SCADA Technician/ Industrial Electrician $8,963 7/1/2014 6 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Electronics Technician $7,895 7/1/2016 7 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)N/C 10/1/2014 8 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)N/C 1/9/2015 9 City of Tustin (Public Works) N/C 10 East Orange County Water District N/C 11 El Toro Water District N/C 12 Mesa Water District N/C 13 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 14 Moulton Niguel Water District N/C Average of Comparators $9,171 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -2.3%Median of Comparators $9,392 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -4.8%Number of Matches 5 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District N/C - Non Comparator
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 12a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Senior Accountant Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Yorba Linda Water District Senior Accountant $11,793 2 Santa Margarita Water District Senior Accountant $11,714 3 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Senior Accountant $11,116 10/1/2014 4 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Senior Accountant $11,009 7/19/2014 5 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Senior Accountant $10,452 6 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Senior Accountant $10,248 7/1/2014 7 Moulton Niguel Water District Senior Accountant $10,049 8 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Accounting Manager/ Accountant $9,745 3/3/2015 9 City of Tustin (Public Works) Senior Accountant $9,707 7/1/2014 10 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)Senior Accountant $8,019 7/1/2016 11 East Orange County Water District N/C 12 El Toro Water District N/R 13 Mesa Water District N/C 7/1/2014 14 Midway City Sanitary District N/C Average of Comparators $10,400 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -1.5%Median of Comparators $10,452 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -2.0%Number of Matches 9 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District b - El Toro WD and East Orange County WD were non-responsive regarding all or the majority of their benefits.N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 13a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Mesa Water District Water Operations Supervisor $13,572 2 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)WW Operations Leadworker/ Maint Worker $12,105 7/1/2014 3 Yorba Linda Water District Water Maintenance Superintendent $11,793 4 Moulton Niguel Water District Water Distribution Supervisor $11,495 5 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Water Production Supervisor $10,858 3/7/2015 6 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor $10,308 2/7/2015 7 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Sewer/Storm Drain Supervisor $9,974 7/1/2014 8 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Water Services Supervisor $9,473 9 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)N/C 12/20/2014 10 City of Tustin (Public Works) N/C 11 East Orange County Water District N/C 12 El Toro Water District N/R 13 Midway City Sanitary District N/C 14 Santa Margarita Water District N/C Average of Comparators $11,324 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -9.9%Median of Comparators $11,495 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -11.5%Number of Matches 7 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset b - El Toro WD and East Orange County WD were non-responsive regarding all or the majority of their benefits.N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.
Total Monthly Compensation Data Costa Mesa Sanitary District April 2015 Page 14a of 14 CMSD Volume II Appendix IIc Total Comp Data SORTED 05 04 15 Wastewater Maintenance Worker II Total Next Next Monthly Effective Salary Percentage Rank Comparator Agency Class Title Comp Date Increase Increase 1 Moulton Niguel Water District Maintenance Worker II Facilities $8,483 2 Yorba Linda Water District Maintenance Distribution Operator II $8,038 3 Mesa Water District Water Maintenance Worker II $7,969 3/3/2015 4 Santa Margarita Water District Maint Mechanic/ Maint Tech $7,954 5 City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)Wastewater Supervisor $7,873 7/1/2016 6 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)Maintenance Worker II $7,486 9/27/2014 7 Costa Mesa Sanitary District Wastewater Maintenance Worker II $7,114 7/1/2014 8 City of Tustin (Public Works) Water Distribution Operator II $7,085 9 City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Water Services Worker II $6,892 3/7/2015 10 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)Maint Worker II - Sewers/Storm Drains $6,207 2/7/2015 11 City of Costa Mesa (Public Works)N/C 7/1/2014 12 East Orange County Water District N/C 13 El Toro Water District N/R 14 Midway City Sanitary District N/C Average of Comparators $7,554 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -6.2%Median of Comparators $7,873 % Costa Mesa Sanitary District Above/Below -10.7%Number of Matches 9 NOTE: All calculations exclude Costa Mesa Sanitary District a - Salary shown includes 6.2% Social Security offset b - El Toro WD and East Orange County WD were non-responsive regarding all or the majority of their benefits.N/C - Non Comparator 1 - CMSD's classification is bracketed by two classifications at the comparator agency to represent span in scope; the average of the two salaries is represented.2 - Grade 1 Certificate Distribution/Collections 3 - D2 Distribution Systems Certification
Appendix III Costa Mesa Sanitary District Salary Schedule May 2015 Salar y Ran g e #MinimumMid-PointMaximum 1 $11.09$13.03$14.97 2 $11.36$13.35$15.34 3 $11.65$13.69$15.72 4 $11.94$14.03$16.12 5 $12.24$14.38 $16.52 6 $12.54$14.74$16.93 7 $12.86$15.11$17.36 8 $13.18$15.48$17.79 9 $13.51$15.87$18.23 10 $13.85$16.27$18.69 11 $14.19$16.67$19.16 12 $14.55$17.09$19.64 13 $14.91$17.52$20.13 14 $15.28$17.96$20.63 15 $15.66$18.41$21.15 16 $16.06$18.87$21.68 17 $16.46$19.34$22.22 18 $16.87$19.82$22.77 19 $17.29$20.32$23.34 20 $17.72$20.82$23.93 21 $18.17$21.34$24.52 22 $18.62$21.88$25.14 23 $19.09$22.43$25.77 24 $19.56$22.99$26.41 25 $20.05$23.56$27.07 26 $20.55$24.15$27.75 27 $21.07$24.75$28.44 28 $21.59$25.37$29.15 29 $22.13$26.01$29.88 30 $22.69$26.66$30.63 31 $23.25$27.32$31.39 32 $23.84$28.01$32.18 33 $24.43$28.71$32.98 34 $25.04$29.42$33.81 35 $25.67$30.16$34.65 36 $26.31$30.91$35.52 37 $26.97$31.69$36.41 38 $27.64$32.48$37.32 39 $28.33$33.29$38.25 40 $29.04$34.12$39.21 41 $29.77$34.98$40.19 42 $30.51$35.85$41.19 43 $31.27$36.75$42.22 44 $32.06$37.67$43.28 45 $32.86$38.61$44.36 46 $33.68$39.57$45.47 47 $34.52$40.56$46.60 48 $35.38$41.58$47.77 49 $36.27$42.62$48.96 50 $37.17$43.68$50.19 51 $38.10$44.77$51.44 52 $39.06$45.89$52.73 53 $40.03$47.04$54.05 54 $41.03$48.22$55.40 55 $42.06$49.42$56.78 56 $43.11$50.66$58.20 57 $44.19$51.92$59.66 58 $45.29$53.22$61.15 59 $46.43$54.55$62.68 60 $47.59$55.91$64.24 61 $48.78$57.31$65.85 62 $50.00$58.75$67.49 63 $51.25$60.21$69.18 64 $52.53$61.72$70.91 65 $53.84$63.26$72.68 66 $55.19$64.84$74.50 67 $56.57$66.47$76.36 68 $57.98$68.13$78.27 69 $59.43$69.83$80.23 70 $60.92$71.58$82.24 71 $62.44$73.37$84.29 72 $64.00$75.20$86.40 Hourly Salary Rang e
Appendix III Costa Mesa Sanitary District Salary Schedule May 2015 Salar y Ran g e #MinimumMid-PointMaximum 1 $1,921.60$2,257.88$2,594.16 2 $1,969.64$2,314.33$2,659.01 3 $2,018.88$2,372.18$2,725.49 4 $2,069.35$2,431.49$2,793.63 5 $2,121.09$2,492.28 $2,863.47 6 $2,174.11$2,554.58$2,935.05 7 $2,228.47$2,618.45$3,008.43 8 $2,284.18$2,683.91$3,083.64 9 $2,341.28$2,751.01$3,160.73 10 $2,399.81$2,819.78$3,239.75 11 $2,459.81$2,890.28$3,320.74 12 $2,521.31$2,962.53$3,403.76 13 $2,584.34$3,036.60$3,488.86 14 $2,648.95$3,112.51$3,576.08 15 $2,715.17$3,190.32$3,665.48 16 $2,783.05$3,270.08$3,757.12 17 $2,852.63$3,351.83$3,851.04 18 $2,923.94$3,435.63$3,947.32 19 $2,997.04$3,521.52$4,046.00 20 $3,071.97$3,609.56$4,147.15 21 $3,148.76$3,699.80$4,250.83 22 $3,227.48$3,792.29$4,357.10 23 $3,308.17$3,887.10$4,466.03 24 $3,390.88$3,984.28$4,577.68 25 $3,475.65$4,083.89$4,692.12 26 $3,562.54$4,185.98$4,809.43 27 $3,651.60$4,290.63$4,929.66 28 $3,742.89$4,397.90$5,052.90 29 $3,836.46$4,507.85$5,179.23 30 $3,932.38$4,620.54$5,308.71 31 $4,030.69$4,736.05$5,441.42 32 $4,131.45$4,854.46$5,577.46 33 $4,234.74$4,975.82$5,716.90 34 $4,340.61$5,100.21$5,859.82 35 $4,449.12$5,227.72$6,006.31 36 $4,560.35$5,358.41$6,156.47 37 $4,674.36$5,492.37$6,310.38 38 $4,791.22$5,629.68$6,468.14 39 $4,911.00$5,770.42$6,629.85 40 $5,033.77$5,914.68$6,795.59 41 $5,159.62$6,062.55$6,965.48 42 $5,288.61$6,214.11$7,139.62 43 $5,420.82$6,369.47$7,318.11 44 $5,556.34$6,528.70$7,501.06 45 $5,695.25$6,691.92$7,688.59 46 $5,837.63$6,859.22$7,880.81 47 $5,983.57$7,030.70$8,077.83 48 $6,133.16$7,206.47$8,279.77 49 $6,286.49$7,386.63$8,486.77 50 $6,443.66$7,571.30$8,698.93 51 $6,604.75$7,760.58$8,916.41 52 $6,769.87$7,954.59$9,139.32 53 $6,939.11$8,153.46$9,367.80 54 $7,112.59$8,357.29$9,602.00 55 $7,290.40$8,566.23$9,842.05 56 $7,472.66$8,780.38$10,088.10 57 $7,659.48$8,999.89$10,340.30 58 $7,850.97$9,224.89$10,598.81 59 $8,047.24$9,455.51$10,863.78 60 $8,248.42$9,691.90$11,135.37 61 $8,454.63$9,934.20$11,413.76 62 $8,666.00$10,182.55$11,699.10 63 $8,882.65$10,437.11$11,991.58 64 $9,104.72$10,698.04$12,291.37 65 $9,332.33$10,965.49$12,598.65 66 $9,565.64$11,239.63$12,913.62 67 $9,804.78$11,520.62$13,236.46 68 $10,049.90$11,808.64$13,567.37 69 $10,301.15$12,103.85$13,906.55 70 $10,558.68$12,406.45$14,254.22 71 $10,822.65$12,716.61$14,610.57 72 $11,093.21$13,034.53$14,975.84 Hourly Salary Rang e
Appendix III Costa Mesa Sanitary District Salary Schedule May 2015 Salar y Ran g e #MinimumMid-PointMaximum 1 $23,059.20$27,094.55$31,129.91 2 $23,635.68$27,771.92$31,908.16 3 $24,226.57$28,466.22$32,705.87 4 $24,832.23$29,177.87$33,523.51 5 $25,453.04$29,907.32 $34,361.60 6 $26,089.36$30,655.00$35,220.64 7 $26,741.60$31,421.38$36,101.16 8 $27,410.14$32,206.91$37,003.68 9 $28,095.39$33,012.08$37,928.78 10 $28,797.78$33,837.39$38,877.00 11 $29,517.72$34,683.32$39,848.92 12 $30,255.66$35,550.40$40,845.14 13 $31,012.05$36,439.16$41,866.27 14 $31,787.36$37,350.14$42,912.93 15 $32,582.04$38,283.90$43,985.75 16 $33,396.59$39,240.99$45,085.40 17 $34,231.51$40,222.02$46,212.53 18 $35,087.29$41,227.57$47,367.85 19 $35,964.47$42,258.26$48,552.04 20 $36,863.59$43,314.71$49,765.84 21 $37,785.18$44,397.58$51,009.99 22 $38,729.81$45,507.52$52,285.24 23 $39,698.05$46,645.21$53,592.37 24 $40,690.50$47,811.34$54,932.18 25 $41,707.76$49,006.62$56,305.48 26 $42,750.46$50,231.79$57,713.12 27 $43,819.22$51,487.58$59,155.95 28 $44,914.70$52,774.77$60,634.85 29 $46,037.57$54,094.14$62,150.72 30 $47,188.51$55,446.50$63,704.49 31 $48,368.22$56,832.66$65,297.10 32 $49,577.43$58,253.48$66,929.53 33 $50,816.86$59,709.81$68,602.76 34 $52,087.28$61,202.56$70,317.83 35 $53,389.47$62,732.62$72,075.78 36 $54,724.20$64,300.94$73,877.67 37 $56,092.31$65,908.46$75,724.61 38 $57,494.61$67,556.17$77,617.73 39 $58,931.98$69,245.08$79,558.17 40 $60,405.28$70,976.20$81,547.13 41 $61,915.41$72,750.61$83,585.81 42 $63,463.30$74,569.37$85,675.45 43 $65,049.88$76,433.61$87,817.34 44 $66,676.13$78,344.45$90,012.77 45 $68,343.03$80,303.06$92,263.09 46 $70,051.61$82,310.64$94,569.67 47 $71,802.90$84,368.40$96,933.91 48 $73,597.97$86,477.61$99,357.26 49 $75,437.92$88,639.55$101,841.19 50 $77,323.86$90,855.54$104,387.22 51 $79,256.96$93,126.93$106,996.90 52 $81,238.39$95,455.10$109,671.82 53 $83,269.34$97,841.48$112,413.62 54 $85,351.08$100,287.52$115,223.96 55 $87,484.86$102,794.71$118,104.55 56 $89,671.98$105,364.57$121,057.17 57 $91,913.78$107,998.69$124,083.60 58 $94,211.62$110,698.65$127,185.69 59 $96,566.91$113,466.12$130,365.33 60 $98,981.08$116,302.77$133,624.46 61 $101,455.61$119,210.34$136,965.08 62 $103,992.00$122,190.60$140,389.20 63 $106,591.80$125,245.37$143,898.93 64 $109,256.60$128,376.50$147,496.41 65 $111,988.01$131,585.91$151,183.82 66 $114,787.71$134,875.56$154,963.41 67 $117,657.40$138,247.45$158,837.50 68 $120,598.84$141,703.64$162,808.43 69 $123,613.81$145,246.23$166,878.64 70 $126,704.16$148,877.38$171,050.61 71 $129,871.76$152,599.32$175,326.88 72 $133,118.55$156,414.30$179,710.05 Hourly Salary Rang e
Appendix IV Costa Mesa Sanitary District Proposed Range Placement Recommendations May 2015 Page 1 of 1 5/8/2015 Proposed Salary Max Accountant $6,769 5.91%$6,369 40 $6,796 0.39%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.Accounting Clerk Proposed N/A N/A 30 $5,309 N/A Proposed Internal alignment: 25% below Accountant.Administrative Assistant I $4,628 9.97%$4,167 25 $4,692 1.38%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.Administrative Assistant II Proposed N/A N/A 31 $5,441 N/A Proposed Internal alignment: 10% above Administrative Assistant I.Administrative Manager $9,369 0.33%$9,339 53 $9,368 -0.02%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.Code Enforcement Officer $5,056 -9.61%$5,542 30 $5,309 5.00%Adjust Range Range placement 5% below market median, due to comparator matches being City Code Enforcement Officers whose job is more complex.District Clerk $7,761 -2.56%$7,960 46 $7,881 1.54%Adjust Range Market and range placement.Executive Assistant $6,729 6.70%$6,278 40 $6,796 0.99%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.Finance Manager $9,369 -9.11%$10,222 57 $10,340 10.36%Adjust Range Market and range placement.Maintenance Assistant $2,864 24.36%$2,166 5 $2,863 0.00%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.Management Analyst II $7,392 4.98%$7,024 44 $7,501 1.47%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.Permit Technician $5,383 5.11%$5,108 31 $5,441 1.09%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.SCADA Technician/ Industrial Electrician $6,921 4.52%$6,608 41 $6,965 0.64%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.Senior Accountant $8,069 4.97%$7,668 47 $8,078 0.11%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.Wastewater Maintenance Supervisor $8,122 0.17%$8,109 46 $7,881 -2.97%Adjust Range Internal alignment: 25% above Maintenance Worker III (which is best practice, even though slightly below market median)Wastewater Maintenance Worker II $5,270 1.52%$5,190 30 $5,309 0.73%New Range - No Adjustment Range placement based on current range.Wastewater Maintenance Worker I $4,439 N/A N/A 24 $4,578 3.14%Adjust Range Internal alignment: 15% below Maintenance Worker II.Wastewater Maintenance Worker III $5,679 N/A N/A 36 $6,156 8.40%Adjust Range Internal alignment: 15% above Maintenance Worker II.Wastewater Maintenance Superintendent Proposed N/A N/A 53 $9,368 N/A Proposed Internal alignment: approximately 15%-17.5% above Maintenance Supervisor, and anchored to Administrative Services Manager.Management Analyst I $5,754 N/A N/A 36 $6,156 7.00%Adjust Range Internal alignment: 20% below Management Analyst II (which is slightly more than best practice but based on current salary).Senior Management Analyst Proposed N/A N/A 48 $8,280 N/A Proposed Internal alignment: 10% above Management Analyst II.Legend for columns:1- Classification title.2- Current Maximum Monthly Salary 3- % from Base Salary Median: Percent the District's total compensation is above/below base salary market median.4- Market Placement: Market median base salary results.5- Proposed Salary Range: The salary range closest to the market placement or to current salary, if current salary is above market median.6- Proposed Maximum Monthly Salary: The salary is the maximum monthly salary (based on proposed salary schedule) of the recommended range.7- Percent Difference: Percent the District's current maximum monthly salary is above/below proposed salary.8- Proposed Action: Action recommended based on recommended range placement.9- Rationale: The rationale expresses how the consultant arrived at each recommendation (i.e., the proposed placement within the newly proposed salary range schedules).Percent Difference Proposed Action Rationale C lassification Title Current Maximum Monthly Salary % from Base Salary Median Market Placement Proposed Salary Range Proposed Maximum Monthly Salary
Appendix V Costa Mesa Sanitary District Additional Benefits Detail May 2015 CMSD Volume II Appendix V Additional Benefit Data 05 04 15 Comparison Insurances Agency Class A/B" Lic. or Other Certificate Pay Compensation for Degrees Standby Pay Shoes Tutition Reimbursement City of Costa Mesa Class A or B: $700 incentive bonus with daily operation and "meets standard" evaluation.No 13 hours per week extra pay.Fully paid by City.$1,250.00 City of Fountain Valley (Public Works)2½% of employee base rate of pay for any special license used on the job (including "A" or "B"). No $125 per week $130 Case by Case City of Huntington Beach (Public Works)None No 18% of base pay Up to $450 per year $5,250 City of Newport Beach (Public Works)None No 1 hour per 8 worked No $1,500 max City of Santa Ana (Public Works)Class "A" or "B" License = 2.5% above base. No $200 per week confidential; $300 SEIU $200 per year $1,575 staff $2,000 management $2,500 Conf.City of Tustin (Public Works) Will pay difference between "C" license and Commercial Driver's License - plus cost of physical for Water Distribution, Treatment and Equipment Operators and Maintenance Workers. AA=$175; BA/BS = 325; Masters = $375 per year 1 hour per 8 hours on standby No $2,000 East Orange County Water District NR NR NR NR NR El Toro Water District NR NR NR NR NR Mesa Water District None No $350 per week District Paid Cal State Level Midway City Sanitary District 3% for CWEA Grade I; 1.5% for CWEA Grade 2; 1% for Grade III; 1% for CWEA Grade IV.No $125 per week 2 pairs per year for Utility Manager $2,000 per year Moulton Niguel Water District None No $300 per week District Paid (own supplier) $2,000 staff; $2,500 conf and Management Santa Margarita Water District 1. Up to $150 per month for two certificates above minimum required for class. 2. Class A Driver License =$1,500 per year, Class B = $500 per year. 3. License fees paid by District.No $500 Paid by District $3,500 Yorba Linda Water District 1. Certificate beyond those required for class and relevant to "principle duties." 2. T,D or C I = $150 per year; Grade II $175; Grade III $200; Grade 4 $225; Gfrade 5 $250 3. Limit on max. 2 certificates $500 max. No $55 per day Cost paid by Districtt $5,250
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Trash Carts Stored in Alleys - Update Item Number:6. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e and file the report.ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Trash Carts Stored in Alleys Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via : Scott Carroll , General Manager From: Javier Ochiqui, Management Analyst Date: May 12, 2015 Subject: Tras h Carts Stored in Alleys - Update Summary On December 10, 2013, staff provided the Board of Direc tors with an update of the pilot program regarding trash carts stored in alleys. The pilot program indicated that overall, 70 percent of the residents res ponded favorably; however, 30 percent continued to remain non -compliant. At that time, the Board of Directors had no more interest in going beyond the pilot program that was conducted in 2013. Staff Recommendation That the Board of Directors receive an d file the report. Analysis The pilot program focused on 7 alleys with approximately 150 homes (including multi -family dwelling). Overall, 70 percent of the residents responded favorably but 30 percent did not comply with our courtesy notice s (Attachment A). Staff informed the Board that a District -wide notice was also published in the CMSD newsletter illustrating proper placement of trash carts in the alleys. The Board was pleased with the pilot program results and stated that they had no more intere st in going beyond the pilot program. The Board did not approve erecting permanent signs at the beginning and end of each a lley . The Board clearly stated that they did not support spending more time and mo ney and suggested partneri ng up with the City since it was also a fire -safety and Fire Department access issue (Attachment B ).
Board of Directors May 12 , 201 5 Page 2 of 2 Staff will print another story in the CMSD newsletter and staff will be working with City staff to have this issue mentioned in their Costa Mesa Minute Video, on their CMTV , a nd on the ir Fire Department’s website. The District’s current Code Enforcement Officer knows the City very well and is familiar with the 129 alleys in Costa Mesa. Per the Board’s direction, staff will continue to use the soft approach of educating the resi dents of the District’s requirements to keep trash carts out of public view and off the public right -of -way . Strategic Plan Element & Goal This item complies with the objective and strategy of Strategic Element 2.0, Solid Waste, which states: “Objective : Our objective is to manage the collection and recycling of residential trash in the most economical and environmentally friendly way.” “Strategy : We will do this by looking for ways to improve efficiencies, achieve high customer satisfaction, and consid ering prudent new recycling methods.” Legal Review Not applicable at this time. Environmental Review The requirement to place trash containers out of view to improve aesthetics and prevent scavenging is not a disturbance of the environment directly or indirectly similar to grading or construction and is not a project under CEQA or the District’s CEQA Guidelines. Financial Review None at this time; however, if the Board decides to expand the program, there may be additional costs associated . Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the complete a genda packet for the May 12 , 2015 , Board of Directors Study Session meeting at District Headquarters and posted on the District’s website . Attachments: A – 12/10/13 Staff Report B – 12/10/13 Minutes of the Board of Directors Study Session
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via : Scott Carroll , General Manager From: Javier Ochiqui, Management Analyst Date: December 10, 2013 Subject: Trash Cans in Alley (Update) Summary On August 20, 2012, the Board of Directors directed Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) staff to start enforcing trash cans that are left out in the alleys, espec ially left i n the public right away. Staff is providin g the Board of Directors with a program update. Staff Recommendation That the Board of Directors receive and file the report. Analysis There are approximately 129 alleys in the City of Costa Mesa and about 2,150 homes with alleys. So far, CMSD’s part -t ime Ordinance Enforcement Officer has inspected 7 alleys which is approximately 150 homes (including multi -dwellings). Overall, 70 percent of the residents have responded favorably, however, 30 percent hav e gone back to their old habits of leaving residen tial trash cans out in the alleys and i n public right away . Below is a graph illustrating the effectiveness of the program: Attachment A
Board of Directors December 1 0 , 201 3 Page 2 of 3 CMSD’s Enforcement Office r will continue to monitor the alleys. However, at the current pace, it will take a very long time to enforce all 129 alleys. Also, without constant enforcement on the previous alleys, staff believes that most of the residents will eventually go back to their old ways and leave residential trash cans on the alleys and on the public right away. Strategic Plan Element & Goal This item complies the with objective and strategy of Strategic Element 2.0, Solid Waste, which states: “Objective: Our objective is to manage the collection and recycling of residential trash in the most economical and environmentally friendly way.” “Strategy : We will do this by looking for ways to improve efficiencies, achieve high customer satisfaction, and considering prudent new recycling methods.” Legal Review Not applicable at this time . Environmental Review The requirement to place trash containers out of view to improve aesthetics and prevent scavenging is not a disturbance of the environment directly or indirectly similar to grading or construction and is not a project under CEQA or the District’s CEQA Guidelines. Attachment A
Board of Directors December 1 0 , 201 3 Page 3 of 3 Financial Review None at this time; however, if the Boards decides to expand the program, there may be additional costs associated. However, the exact cost is unknown at this time. Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the complete agenda packet for the December 10, 2013 Board of Directors Study Session meeting at District Headquarters and posted on the District’s website . Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment B
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Alkaline Battery Recycling Program - Final Results Item Number:7. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receive and file the re port.ATTACHMENTS:Description Type Alkaline Batter Recycling Program - Final Report Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via : Scott Carroll , General Manager From: Javier Ochiqui, Management Analyst Date: May 12, 2015 Subject: Alka line Battery Recycling Program – Final Report Summary The F iscal Y ear 20 14 -20 15 Alkaline Battery Recycling P rogram began in September 201 4 and ended in April 201 5 . A total of eleven schools signed up to participate , but only eight schools actually collect ed batteries. The eight schools that participate d collected over 5,300 pounds of batteries. Staff is providing the Board of Directors with a final program report. Staff Recommendation Staff recom mends that the Board of Directors receive and file th is re port. Analysis The Costa Mesa Sanitary District provides Cost a Mesa schools with the opportunity to participate in the Alkaline Battery Recycling Program as a way to earn extra money. The program allows children of all ages to continue to learn about recy cling and conservation efforts in school . CMSD hopes that these principl e s will be applied and encourage participants to become good stewards of the environment. Below is a list illustrating the total pounds of batteries collected per school: School Battery Totals (Lbs.) Award 1st place Davis Magnet 2 ,455 $1,000 2nd place Christ Lutheran 1 ,324 $600 3rd place Kaiser 628 $400 4th place California 536 $300
Board of Directors May 12 , 201 5 Page 2 of 3 5th place Newport Heights 175 $300 6th place Waldorf 128 $300 7th place Ada ms 63 $300 8th place Tewinkle * 36 $300 9th place Estancia 0 10th place St. John 0 11th place Sonora 0 Totals 5345 $3,500 *A minimum of 50 lbs. was required to receive the minimum award of $300. Staff is recommending that Tewinkle school be allowed to collect the $300 award since they did attempt to collect batteries. Staff attempted contacting school officials at Estancia, St. John and Sonora several times to find out why they weren’t collecting any batteries, and received no response. As the list illustrates, Davis Magnet collected 2,455 pounds of batteries and got 1 st place. A total of $3,5 00 will be awarded to the eight schools. Strategic Plan Element & Goal This item complies with the objective and strategy of Strategic Element 2.0, Solid Waste, which states: “Objective: Our objective is to manage the collection and recycling of residential trash in the most economical and environmentally friendly way.” “Strategy : We will do this by looking for ways to improve efficiencies, ach ieve high customer satisfaction, and considering prudent new recycling methods.” Legal Review Not applicable at this time . Environmental Review Having the District establish a convenient method for school children and families to dispose of batteries is an approximate equivalent alternative to having the battery users find another disposal location. If anything, the collection by the District prevents batteries from being illegally placed in the trash and making their way to landfills. As presented, the District’s battery recycling program is not a disturbance of the environment directly or indirectly similar to grading or construction and is not a project under CEQA or the District’s CEQA Guidelines. Financial Review For Fiscal Year 2014 -2015, the B attery Recycling program budget is $10,000. The total cost of the program was $7,562.20 , creating a savings o f $2,437.80 . Below are the total costs: • Battery Disposal Costs: $ 4,062.20 (5,345 lbs. at $0.76 per lbs.) • Awards: $ 3 ,5 00 $ 7,562.20 (total pr ogram cost)
Board of Directors May 12 , 201 5 Page 3 of 3 Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the complete a genda packe t for the May 12, 2015 , Board of Directors Study Session meeting at District Headquarters and posted on the District’s website . Altern ative Actions 1. Do not approve awarding $300 to Tewinkle because the school did not collect a minimum 50 lbs. 2. Direct staff to report back with more information.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District OC Waste & Recycling Coordinator's Meeting - Update Item Number:8. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors oppose AB 45 (Mullin) and direct staff to formally oppose this bill with State legislators. ATTACHMENTS:Description Type OC Waste and Recyling Update Cover Memo
Protecting our community's health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection service s. www.cmsdca.gov Costa Mesa Sanitary District ….an Independent Special District Memorandum T o: Board of Directors Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager From: Elizabeth Pham , Management Assistant Date: May 1 2 , 201 5 Subject: OC W aste & Recycling Coordinator’s Meeting - Update Summary On Thursday, April 23 , 201 5 , staff attended the OC Waste & Recycling Coordinator’s meeting in Santa Ana. This report is a brief synopsis of the meeting . Staff Recommendation T hat the Board of Dire ctors oppose AB 45 (Mullin) and direct staff to formally oppose this bill with State legislators . Analysis The meeting consisted of the following three (3 ) presentations: • Isabel Rios from OC Waste & Recycling, report ed on AB 45 (Mullin)—Curbside HHW . • Mal lory Burden from CalRecycle , reported on the State Update. • Antonia Castro -Graham, Energy & Sustainability Project Manager and Greg Warren, Administrative Manager for City of Orange Public Works presented on Recycling Market Development Zone s (RMDZ). • Isaac Novella from OC Waste & Recycling, reported on the County Update. 1. Isabel Rios discussed the impacts of AB 45 (Mullin). The bill mandates that all public agencies provide a door -to -door household hazardous waste (HHW) collection program. The County has i ssued an opposition letter to AB 45 (Mullin) to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and encourages all public agencies
Board of Directors Study Session May 12 , 201 5 Page 2 of 3 to oppose the bill . OC Waste and Recycling believes the cost will represent yet another unfunded mandate from the state to local gove rnment agencies. 2. CalRecycle is developing guidelines for the recently signed mandatory organics recycling law. Information about AB 1826 can now be found at www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Re cycle/Commercial/Organics/. They will continue to develop responses to questions received, and will respond to the questions at the April workshops. A new webpage has been developed to provide more information on AB 1594: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/basics/ADCGreen/default.htm . 3. With the passage of SB 1274 (Hancock), CalRecycle has made conforming revisions to the proposed mattress recovery and recycling regulati ons . CalRecycle has approved the certification of the Mattress Recycling Council (MRC) as the mattress recycling organization pursuant to section 42987(a) (1) of the Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act. On or before July 1, 2015 the MRC will submit it s plan for recycling used mattress in California to the Department. The members of the Advisory Committee, representing the environmental community, solid waste industry, local governments, and mattress recyclers, meet regularly to discuss the program and consult with the MRC. CalRecycle held a workshop on March 19 , 2015 to discuss the proposed criteria for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs, Fiscal Year 2015 -16. The webcast recording and PowerPoint pr esentation are now available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/GrantsLoans/. 4. Antonia Castro -Graham, Energy & Sustainability Project Manager and Greg Warren, Administrative Manager for City of Orange Public Works presented on the benefits of RMDZ. The R MD Z is a program that combines recycling with economic development to fuel new businesses, expand existing ones, create jobs, and divert waste from landfills. This program provides low -interest loans for the purchase of equipment and other r elevant business costs. The intent of the RMDZ Loan Program is to help California manufacturers increase their processing capabilities and create additional markets for recycled -content products. 5. Is a ac Novella a n nounced that the recycling grant will be p ostponed until January of 2016. With the newly elected Board members, staff felt that it was necessary to focus on the continuation of importation of waste at the County landfills. Strategic Plan Element & Goal This item complies with the objective and s trategy of Strategic Element 2.0, Solid Waste, which states:
Board of Directors Study Session May 12 , 201 5 Page 3 of 3 “Objective: Our objective is to manage the collection and recycling of residential trash in the most economical and environmentally friendly way.” “Strategy : We will do this by looking for way s to improve efficiencies, achieve high customer satisfaction, and considering prudent new recycling methods.” Legal Review Not applicable Environmental Review The OC Waste and Recycling Coordinator’s Meetings are not a disturbance of the environment sim ilar t o grading or construction and do not constitute a project under CEQA or the District’s CEQA Guidelines. The recycling coordinators work as a group for the betterment of the environment. Financial Review No financial impact. Public Notice Process Co pies of this report are on file and will be included with the complete agenda packet for the Ma y 1 2 , 201 5 , Board of Directors Study Session meeting at District Headquarters and posted on the District’s website. Alternative Actions 1. Do not oppose AB 45 (Mu llin). 2. Support AB 45 (Mullin) and direct staff to formally support this bill with State legislators. 3. Take a neutral position on AB 45 (Mullin). 4. Direct staff to re port back with more information . Attachment s A . AB 45 (Mullin) Presentation B . Coun ty Opposition Letter C . County Opposition Letter
AB 45 Mullin Household Hazardous Waste Collection Centers Program 1 Presented by Isabel Rios, Recycling and Material Regulations Programs Manager April 23, 2015
Household Hazardous Waste Collection Centers Anaheim 1071 N Blue Gum St Anaheim, CA 92808 Huntington Beach 17121 Nichols Street, Gate 6 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Irvine 6411 Oak Canyon Irvine, CA 92618 San Juan Capistrano 32250 La PataAvenue San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 2
Statewide HHW Collection 3 Source: CalRecycle HHW Website
COLLECTION METHODS 4 Permanent Collection Centers
PER CAPITA COLLECTION 5 PERMANENT FACILTIES 150 (62 co-located at SWF)MOBILE ROUND-UP EVENTS MANY Examples:City of Ventura: Monthly San Mateo County: Monthly DOOR-TO-DOOR 49 Primarily city sponsored Sources: CalRecycle; Sweetser & Associates
COST PER POUND Total Direct HHW Collection Costs FY 2012/13 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $457 $165 $12 High Avg Low $235 $44 $0.1 High Avg Low Door-to-Door Residential Program Permanent Facility Temporary/Periodic Events $167 High Avg $61 Low $3 COST EFFECTIVENESS Source: CalRecycle’s Statewide HHW Survey ( Survey Responses )(15)(37)(21)6
PROGRAM COSTS l 2014 6,813 cars $285,500 $46.63 / load $0.5 / lb LosAngeles County City of LA SAFE Centers AVECC Open 2nd Saturday of Month 9:00 am -2:00 pm ENVIRONMENTAL COLLECTION CENTER Signal Hill 7
CITY OF SANTA MONICA OperatingCosts (FY 2010/11)$530,613 Households Participated4,508 Total Householdsin City (U.S. Census)46,439 Participation Rate9.7%Cost per Participating Household$117 / household OperatingHours4 days per week Permanent Public Facility (Now Closed)OperatingCosts $250,000 Households Served1,401 ParticipationRate3%Cost per Participating Household$178 / household OperatingHours4-6 weeks for pickup Residential Door-to-Door Program 8
COUNTY OF ORANGE Permanent Public Facility (Now Closed)HHW CollectionEvent Costs (FY 2013/14)$85,545.78 HouseholdsParticipated986 AveragePounds Per Participants86 Cost per Participating Household$1.01/household HHW One Day Community Events7 PermanentCollection Center Costs (FY 2013/14)$4.1Million Households Participated118,921 AverageOperational Cost Per Pound$0.60 AveragePounds Per Participants58 Cost per Participating Household$34.88/household OperatingHours5days per week 9
COUNTY OF ORANGE Permanent Public Facility (Now Closed)County Material Reuse Program (FY 2013/14) Free for OC Residents $708,533 Households Participated18,936 Totalof HHW Pounds Reused Products710,533 10
AB 45 Mullin POTENTIAL MANDATES:•Separate AB 939-type goal for HHW (rates & dates)•Expansion of what constitutes HHW •Emphasizing Door-to-Door Collection of HHW GOAL : To establish a convenient program to increase participation 11
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Organics Ad Hoc Committee Update - Oral Report Item Number:9. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors receiv e an oral report from Secretary Ooten.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Project #101 Westside Pump Station Abandonment Desi gn and Engineering Phase - Oral Report Item Number:10. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors consid er options for the design and engineering phase of Project #101 - Westside Pump S tation Abandonment.
Costa Mesa Sanitary District ... an Independent Special District Future Study Session Items Item Number:11. Recommendation/Notes: Recommendation: That the Board of Directors provid e staff with direction on items to be placed on future study session agendas.