HomeMy WebLinkAboutR42-Economic Development Agency
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF mE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REOUEST FOR COMMISSION/COUNCIL ACTION
FROM:
Gary Van Osdel SUBJECT:
Executive Director 0 R ' ~ , , , . ~ L
August 9, 2001 j Iv. j I ~ n
Personnel PoUcles Amendment - Salary
Survey
DATE:
---------------..------------..-..--------..----..-----..--------....-----......--..-------.........-------..----..-------------------..--------..-..----------
Svnopsis of Previous CommissionJCouneWCommlttee Action(s):
On August 9,2001, the Redevelopment Committee recommended approval and implementation of the Salary Survey
conducted for Economic Development Agency employees.
----..-------..-..----------..-----------------------..--------..--------------------------------------------------------------------..-----_.._--
Recommended Motlon(s ):
(Community Development Commission)
MOTION:
RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT "B" OF
THE PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
------------------....---..........------------....---------------------------..--------------..---------------------------------------..--_.._.~..-
Contact Person(s): Gary Van OsdellBarbara Lindseth
Phone:
663-1044
Project Area(s):
All
Ward(s): All
Supporting Data Attached:1&I Staff Report D Resolution(s) D Agreement(s)/Contract(s) D Map(s) D LtrlMemo
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: $ 60,332
Source: All fundin2 sources
Budget Authority: FY 2001-02 Bud2et
SIGNATURE:
c
{CCM~1j~;(
Barbara Lindseth
Administrative Services Director
CommisslonJCouncII Notes:
_3?ot~__~_~~~~_~J~~~:__________________________________________________________________________________
GVO:bl:Agenda CDC salary survey COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: 08120101
Agenda Item Number: ~
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STAFF REPORT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Policies Amendment - Salarv Survey
Background:
Since 1991, when the Economic Development Agency was created and salary ranges were
established, most staff salary ranges have not been reviewed or surveyed with comparable city
agencies. In the last ten (10) years Agency staffhave received three (3) cost of living increases,
but there has been no salary survey conducted to compare Agency positions with similar positions
at other agencies. At the time of the Agency's reduction in the work force in 1998, many Agency
staff positions were eliminated, certain salary ranges were decreased and existing staff positions
were reorganized with expanded job duties.
Last fiscal year, at the same time that the City of San Bernardino conducted a salary and
classification survey through Johnson and Associates for all City employees, the Agency also
engaged the services of Johnson and Associates to conduct a salary survey of Agency positions.
The cities surveyed by Johnson and Associates were also the same cities surveyed fur City
employees.
On July 23,2001, the Commission adopted the Agency's fiscal year 2001-02 budget. Within the
adopted budget for the fiscal year 2001-02 is an allowance for the proposed implementation (if
approved by Commission) of the Agency's salary survey at a cost of$60,332,
Current Issue:
The Agency's salary survey was completed on April 25, 2001. Johnson and Associates surveyed
staff positions in sixteen (16) cities to compare Agency staffpositions with. According to their
labor market data summery, thirteen (13) Agency positions are below the median, five (5) Agency
positions are close to or above the median, and three (3) Agency positions did not have sufficient
comparisons to report on. Johnson and Associates also reviewed the internal staffing structure of
the Agency, along with financial data, for comparison purposes. The survey report explains in
detail how Johnson and Associates approached and conducted the survey and how comparisons
were established.
If the salary survey is approved, it is the intention of management to implement the salary survey
by placing staff at the next reasonable salary step within the five (5) step salary range effective
July 1, 2001. Agency staff will not be automatically placed at the top step unless the top step is
the next reasonable step within the new salary range, and advancement to the next step will ouly
occur if the employee has been recommended for advancement by their supervisor and the
Executive Director.
------------------------------------.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GVO:bl:Agenda CDC salary survey
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: 08120/01
Agenda Item Number: A C/3-.
Personnel Policies Amendment
Staff Report
Page-2-
Fiscal Impact:
The cost of implementing the salary survey is $60,332. This cost is included in the adopted fiscal
year 2001-02 budget and is part of the Agency's cash flow analysis,
Recommendations:
That the Community Development Commission adopt the Resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------.-----------------------------------------------------
GVO:bl:Agenda COC salary survey
COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: 08120101
Agenda Item Number: A tfJ-
,~
'-
~(Q)[PV
l
RESOLUTION NO.
2
, RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
3 THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
, AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT "B" OF THE PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
4 PROCEDURES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
6 WHEREAS, on September 21, 1998, the Community Development Commission
7 ("Commission") adopted Resolution No. 5557 approving revised Economic Development
8 Agency of the City of San Bernardino Personnel Policies and Procedures for all
9
employees of the City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency ("Agency")
10
11
12
including Exhibits "A", "B" and "C"; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 1998, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 5558
13 approving amendments to Exhibit "A", Exhibit "B" and Section 32 of the Agency's
,- 14 Personnel Policies and Procedures; and
'-
24
25
26
,-.. 27
I
'-
28
15
WHEREAS, on October 18, 1999, the Commission adopted Resolution No.
I G 1999-38 approving amendments to Exhibits "A", "B" and "c" of the Agency's Personnel
17
Policies and Procedures; and
18
19
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2000, the Commission adopted Resolution No.
2000-32 approving amendments to Exhibit "B" and Section 6 of the Agency's Personnel
20
21 Policies and Procedures; and
22 WHEREAS, the Commission now deems it desirable to amend Exhibit "B"
23 to the Agency's Personnel Policies and Procedures.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
II
c
c
c
1 I RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
2 I THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT "B" OF THE PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
3 I PROCEDURES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
4
5
SECTION 1. The Commission hereby approves and adopts Exhibit "B",
6 as amended, to said Agency Personnel Policies and Procedures, both as attached
i hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety.
8
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect upon the date of its adoption.
II
c- 1 RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF
2 THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT "B" OF THE PERSONNEL POLICIES AND
3 PROCEDURES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
r-
"-'
r-
\.-
4
5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
6 Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino at a
i
meeting thereof, held on the
day of
,2001 by
8 the following vote, to wit:
9 Commission Members
Abstain
Absent
Ayes Navs
10
11
12
ESTRADA
LIEN
13 MCGINNIS
14 SCHNETZ
15 SUAREZ
16 ANDERSON
1 i MCCAMMACK
18
19
20
21 The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this
Secretary
day of
,2001.
22
23
24
25
26 By:
27
28
Judith Valles, Chairperson
City of San Bernardino Community
Development Commission
( EXHIBIT "B"
"- (AMENDED)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CLASSIFICATION RANGE AND SALARY SCHEDULE
Class
& Ranae# Position 8- ~ ~ Q g
Manaaement
M 4200 Executive Director 8,520 8,946 9,363 9,863 10,356
M 4125 Admin Set'Vices Director 6,720 7,057 7,410 7,780 8,168
M 4125 Bus RetlRecruit Director 6,720 7,057 7,410 7,780 8,168
M 4125 HousinglComm Dev Director 6,720 7,057 7,410 7,780 8,168
Confidential
C 3210 AcclICoIlection Officer 4,209 4,420 4,640 4,872 5,116
C3175 Staff Assistant 2,926 3,072 3,225 3,386 3,555
Mid-Manaaement
MM 2185 Project Manager (4) 4,920 5,166 5,425 5,697 5,982
MM 2180 Contract Administrator 4,685 4,920 5,166 5,425 5,697
C General
G 1190 Sr Accountant 4,473 4,697 4,932 5,179 5,438
G 1190 Graphic Design Coordinator 4,473 4,697 4,932 5,179 5,438
G 1185 Assistant Project Manager (3) 4,473 4,697 4,932 5,179 5,438
G 1170 Construction Management Spec 3,890 4,085 4,289 4,504 4,729
G 1155 Accounting Technician 2,926 3,072 3,225 3,386 3,555
G 1145 Secretary 2,336 2,453 2,576 2,705 2,840
G 1140 Typist Clerk '" 2,225 2,336 2,453 2,576 2,705
G 1120 Operations Specialist 1,667 1,960 2,058 2,161 2,269
M - Management
C - Confidential
MM - Mid-management
G - General
r
'-
c
c
c
i
t'
~
il
.I
..
u
..
.!!i
E:
,g. !
.~ c.I
u = '"
'O-i l
iU~ ..
~H~
s1:':"
-~n
Iii a.>-.i
HJ'O
.t:..~
=1 -
h
J!~
sJ
=
o
i
lil~
OJ!
uS
lSo
.!is
~:;
&S
1;
.
E
= ~
..S
h
H
1;i
i.c
!i.!!
~J5
H
~
II!
J
~
f
2':--
-l'!~o
a~-~
:r.!!'B.)t.
.. ~- ~
! ~i.. ~
E8i~~
8hli
1;-=."-
" OIl'! E Z
C Ch::l S
~ ......
!O~2E
Hiii~~
~i . 8 ~
""'hi
Uhdl
8
o
oi
.,
.,
oi
;!
"_0
:ll:$~
~lt8
....'"
~.n~
~~~
""N
rxivi";
""'N
........
~~~
...,..
...,..
N......
NN
......
~~
N
....
..
t ~
f ~
r ..~
~ ~'"
B o~
.I .!!~
tIJ~~
H",,,,
-
~
'!!~i-
-..
.. .
.goo.!!
il-' -
__ll
!I.!!'ji
0..,-
i Q~
tOi'gi
n~
.!l~
.._ to
-"-=
~;e,~
fi&l'ii
o"lll:e
g.~
o
.,
.,
o
l;;
.,
:lllil
....
C?C?
N....
0.,
~oi
~ni
ltt;"12:!f
,...C")NO
ai~<<it6
.....U')~
~z '8~~
N,... O"'CION
~~ UU
C'i~ ~N a;
J~u;~g~~
......_...C\I "":
_0(")..-('0111')
S~iS;S;S;
--...--.....
..
\!!
'"
..
..
H!!i
~Il II
l.. r~J~- i
p~!i~~z~ 1
__N(')....lOU) l
-
I
""lj
i"
..e
E..
:I~
:2.
::lj
.~
~'"
gg
00
u
~
E
..
!!!
-
:!
~ ~ Ii ~In
tpi! Sil ~8
...... ;og:lill~",
oi~ Cl~ Me?
ii
!;Ill!
N.,
oi
O.....NNC")
C")CIDOC")lI)
"(',110,...,
o C'i... ca....
N~~CD;Z
S!:............,...,.......o .....
c;lt) C")-e>""':2 ~
OS(,,)NCllC")C?C'oI
..... GlICDClDCIO,.........,o
~....~~~~~~.
..
.,
~
~i~ ~
I H "",ii
.;:~ eu..
-,,-11 h l!~~~
.f:!~::Joo:s.ll..
....:("ojcoi...o.or--:a:io
'i;
o
I
..
o
..
g
o
u
....
i
ri
,.
oi
-
~
g
..
...
;0
~
8':!S!
o.,lS
8Ul
_N..
llit?
uu~~u
~8sn~.o""ii
CID....C")O~~.....,..
N _MNNci"":
.... NS! ~
s
~
..;
g5l18~l!~~:;llil;!;~Ol
to CD"" .... Ci "'I~ 0 G ....... 'It
;::~~S~~colN:8~~:i
1O.....C.......CO:8....ca__
..:t>i;
lil!;l!;l~~:;ljUU~
f'i":.;
-~ca:l;caC'lllC).,-i~
~~!!~!~~!~~
..
\!!
I
u
i
~_=er h I
jLH~~H!h~
,"'-
\- ~ i~
:ee
cf'''!/l''
= ~ ffi"f II
i ~flh~~.8
~ I ~~~!~i"~g
0
.5 ,lJ ~a:li~E~:
~ ~ "'Ii 55EcoE
c t6-g.c:s8.~ j
U ~ t!~!l'EE--E
E ..!!OaolO:a~Q.
8 Q.e5o...:e -
I eC'J._EC
!!, ..
'0 'E['jj-U,B
" 11 .1~ooQ.e
Ii i~.~ a..~
.!! iiiOE~ _~.s
" ~:I:~ffi:I: il ...
co .Y"IDQ~l~E
0 It:...:u ~~
"' c
co ~
... E
,jl ....
i!l g
'" co
,.
t:.i
001-
",,,"
....
~~
....
a""
C liDS;
.....-:
00
~~
00
riri
;!;!
i oioi
M!
.."
1-.5
~ N N;I
0
~ ;J;N
~ .....N
~
co _
......
i ~~
H
U
ll'i ~
i~
~!&
~..
!S
c
~
!l
.i
ll'
=
i'l
..
=
. "
.5-30
8'i~
i~n
II::JN
a..
.!IE ...
sa c
..
~.!! V
,lJlo ~
lo"
..i .!!
n ~
1- 'Ii
.!I~ E
Ii"'- !!
~'O 8
a 0
'"
-. N
=. co '
!!11 ..
~ffi .!!E
Ii
ilo
iiiu
c
0.2
c=
il"e
!,'"":
01;;
..
0 0000
0 ....N
0 ..0
8 ........
-00
..0
~ -...
-....~
~ ~8
~ ~ai
....
00....
'" ...-...:
..0 -~
..- 0"
-....
-
~.. ..~
...... ........
~~ ~~
..~ =
i~ ~=
Ii a
-=
.f
III 0
"':N M:..t
..
~
f
~
o
u=
U
=oo
S~
..
-
..
jj
..
E
';i
..
.
...
c
<!
e
i
..
::
::
o
8
~
'"
N
00
88
88
........
ii
-
lil
N
..
..
ai
;Z~r!
__N
(0'),...6
"00"
N'II:.....
1lI
N
......
~_oo
~~
O~
......
~~
o
....
..
!
'c
~
o
u
ooH
> c ~
e-
~!j-
.~.~
l!co"
..
~"':N
f
::0
..
U
..
31
!
.
2:
II<
1
!!
!
~
~
E
:;:
N
co
8
..
; ;!~ ~ ~I ~
00
1; l:l ~ N li!
.. 0_ ..
't ;!N '" 't
..
.. J::N .... ~ ~
:;: :II ....
!i 0":11 ~ ~ g
.... N
N - '" N
~ N_ i~ ...... 0....
.. ::ll;1 l:;~
.... .. ~ ci "'....
N N
un....!....! ........ClloGt!Z
(DoomS I ==SCIIIS 01
................................ ................................
~
~
j ..
~ ~un u ....llliZ....
~.... m=~co
88------- N.o:t::i:~~=
"'......"'-~.. H:li:liors
OOI:liHiooooO
:g Z zz
~ ~:a:Q.Q.~Q:Q: . . .. "
~Q.Q..tQ..t<s
i!"':Npj.,j.oc:i~a;; . O"':Ncoht.nci
0........................._
c
'g
.
I
~
~
$.
-
....
..
'"
..
'"
~
'"
~
..
't
.... ~ ~
~
;0 i5 ~
..
:\ :;
.. ..
~ ~
~ l!:
ai ai
S Z~~
..
N '"
~I ii
~
'"
..
i
0( ~
i!L
! i !d!
8"':Ntfi..,f
0
0
f-
,.1
C ~ 8j
:l! ~jl jolt
J jlll-
==~ 'OL
g- O - .II a
i !
i 0 .iLl-
IE::.
:;
."i
.
a
IDa.
8E
.. .
.00
h
.2~0
0.:'0
i''''
.... .r~
.?J......
.0"
~::'O
.~!
Eo~
~,.
,E_
Ie!
go
~
N
0
i
00
:ll
..
..
'"
..0 "'..
:Hl I~
::l~ _l'l
- "'....
"'''' ..00
..
...... ;;;
0_
"0 ......
ON ~5i
00-
~'ot:. ~--
::;;1; :&
..
.,
~l:l l3lil
~~ ~~
-00
~Ii GO
n ~ g
Jl.
~1~ i'!;
<.>
'':'('OJ ~..
;:
..
o
"
II
c5
'6
o
!
~
'"
:8
l'l
....
..
~
....
..
o
t
'"
S!
~;!-
l:j
NN
~~
N
o
,:
'"
~
NO.
"''''
........
iil:&
00
gg
8
,,;
U
...;
..
~
;;;
~
-
~
t
~~-
"'-a
l!O:1-
-
0:'"
r
'- 0
0
..
.:;(
-g.....
~lll
Uli:
i~o
c ...~o
t l;..
~S.E
." ,.
C ~ ~
.~~
.5 ~c(
c..C
O;!iO:
u ;;0: =
J-~
Dh
'" .-
9~c:
-~IE
oOOl
~-
.....
0
'"
"' ..
.;
.. ~
'D ~
,jl ....
" ;I;
C
It:
i N
r
\"....
..
~
-
~
..
;:
..
III
~
'"
- ..
c N
~
=5
....5
~
.ll
!
...
i
H
H
..
it'll ~
i] ~
~-
!!
N
...
II
'"
~
2f')....~:;;~Zg
CSgiCDNOcaCD
~~g!2"Il~~
tD..~:o..o
cDN....N'fl)C')O
~ ..- ~
~...
~-
"''''
8.
1Ill2..mOC")1t)1O
te5~~~= ~
~;I;"'~!!!!2.;ili
N...~It)(;siX;t;("')
~t<i .o~ ~
~i !Da)" ~
....10 ~..,.Qo
Oi2;e~g
NCOC")...O
.,;
IIOClIOOC")og2NC):EClII':l!i!:
~~!~~~2!!~!~!!
. a
E w
r- ! 0
c
'- . 1!o
~ r- c
it
c
)l c
.:1-,
r-
"-'
FINAL COMPENSATION REPoRT
CnYOF
SAN BERNARDINO ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AprD 25, 2001
,--.
L
-C
c
c
c
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SBCI10N I PRo.JBCr OVER.VIEW' ......_........_____.........__........_..................................I
DEVELOPING AN EFFECl1VE COMPENSATION PLAN ......................,.....,.................,........,...,................................ 1
STIlDY OB.lECTIVES....,...........,................................,............................,...............................................-.........,.. 1
SECnON D ME'I'IIODOIA)(;IES .......................................................................................-.3
LABOR MARKIIT DEFINITION ..,..,..............,.,........,.'...,...............,......,...'....,..........................,.,...,...,...,.......,.....,3
LABOR MARKIIT AGENCIES ............,.....,......,.............,.,........,.,.............,.,.........................,.......,.......................-4
SURVEY CLASS SELECI10N .........................,.,.,......,....,........,.,.............,................................,.........,...................5
MARKIIT DATA COlLECflON PROCESS.................,.....................................,........................,....,..........................6
EsTABIJSHINGJOB COMPARABIUTIES .........,..............................................................,.....................................,6
STATISTICS USED IN ANALnING THE MARKIIT DATA......................,......,..........................................,.....,.....,.... 7
LABOR MARKlITPOSmON .......................................,.....,....,..............................................................................7
POINT OF COMPARISON....................,....,....................................................,......,.......,..,.......,.............................8
SBC'I'ION m FIN'DIN'GS _..............................................................-.....................................9
OVERALL SALARY SURVEY RESULTS............................................,..,..........,.............................,....,.....................9
SUMMARy..,.....................................................,............................................,.....,.............................................11
SECI10NWRECOMMENDAll0NS.........................................._.....................................-.13
BENCHMARK CLA5SIFlCATIONS.....................,.................................................,........................,....................... 13
INTERNAL SALARy RELATIONSHIPS.........,.....,...............................................,.....,............................................ L4
SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS ,........................,..,.....................,......................., .....................,.......................... L4
APPENDIXA lABOR MARICE"f DATA SIIEEI'S ................................................................A-1
APPENDIX B S.AlAJl.Y REOOMMENDA"DONS .................................................................B-1
""'~
,/
'-
c
c
City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
SECTION I
PROmCf OVERVIEW
Johnson &- Associates was retained by the City of San Bernardino Economic Development
Agency to conduct a compensation study of all Agency classifications. This report presents the
results of the study through the following sections:
. Section I - Project Overview
. Section II - Methodologies
. Section III - Findings
. Section IV - Recommendations
Developing an Effective Compensation Plan
The City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency's compensation plan is one of the
most important elements in its personnel system, Combining a sound compensation system
with an effective classification system contributes to the overall effectiveness of an organization.
In broad terms, the compensation plan should:
. Ensure that the Agency has the ability to attract and retain well-qualified employees
. Provide a defensible and technically sound basis for compensating employees
. Allow flexibility and adaptability for making compensation decisions based on changing
market conditions
. Establish fair and equitable salary levels for Agency jobs
. Recognize the Agency's responsibility as a public entity in establishing a pay plan which
is consistent with prudent public practices
. Ensure that the Agency's compensation practices are competitive and consistent with
those of comparable employers,
Before a sound compensation plan can be developed that will meet the specific needs of the
Agency, it was necessary to clearly identify the Agency's compensation philosophy. Early in the
study, discussions regarding labor market survey agencies and labor market position were
conducted to ensure the consultant's recommendations were aligned with the organization's
philosophy. Based on these.discussions, the appropriate labor market agencies were determined
prior to the collection of survey data.
Study Objectives
Based on the identified needs of the Economic Development Agency, this study was designed to
achieve the following overall objectives:
. Conduct compensation policy meetings to identify and confirm appropriate Agency
compensation policies including the selection of labor market agencies
Page 1
c
c
c
City of San Bernardino Eeonomle Development Ageney
. Develop a survey data collection fonn
. Analyze the market data and document comparisons with the Agency's compensation
plan
. Conduct an internal relationship analysis
. Present specific salary recommendations based on the results of the market survey and
internal relationship analysis.
The role or primary objective of the compensation survey and subsequent analysis is to provide
a .picture" of wage practices in the labor market for comparable jobs. Additionally, the
compensation survey documents how the Agency's classifications compare to similar employers
in terms of compensation, Ultimately, the results of the compensation survey provide a basis for
compensating employees in a consistent, equitable, defensible and competitive manner.
The methodologies used to accomplish these objectives are presented in Section II.
Ptlge2
r-
'--
c
c
City of San Bernardino Economic Development Atl;cncy
SECTION IT
METHODOLOGIES
This section provides an overview of the methodologies that have been used to conduct the
compensation analyses and develop specific recommendations. Specific methods and systems
presented include:
. Labor Market Definition
. Labor Market Agencies
. Survey Class Selection
. Market Data Collection Process
. Establishing Job Comparabilities
. Statistics Used in Analyzing the Market Data
. Labor Market Position
. Point of Comparison.
All methodologies used by Johnson &- Associates are consistent with established professional
standards of compensation.
Labor Market Definition
One of the most important policy components of a compensation plan is a definition of the labor
market within which the Agency must compete. In order to obtain comparable market data that
best represents the Agency labor market, the consultants met with Agency management staff to
identify the group of agencies that the Agency competes with in terms of recruiting and retaining
personnel.
There are typically three important criteria utilized in identifying those employers that comprise
an agency's labor market. They are:
. r.......... /ik.Jftoazindbl - Geographic proximity of potential employers is a major
factor utilized in identifying an organization's labor market. This factor is particularly
important because it identifies those employers that directly compete with the Agency to
recruit and retain personnel. If a sufficient number of comparable agencies exist within
close proximity to the Agency, the defined geographic area may be confined to a one, two
or "surrounding" county region. If insufficient comparables exist locally (such as more
comparably sized employers), a more extensive regional market may be required. Since
the Oty of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency resides in San Bernardino
County, competing cities within this county and/or its closest adjacent counties are the
primary survey agencies to consider.
. BiIuoI.--.s&w - As a rule, the more similar employers are in size, the greater the
likelihood that comparable positions exist within both organizations. The size of possible
Pllge3
r
"-
c
r
\-
City of San Bernardino Eeonomle Development Ageney
SUlVey agencies can best be measured using population served and number of employees,
To ensure consistency in the comparisons, year 2000 population estimates from the State
of California Demographic Research Unit have been used. While there will be some
variance in the population figures, the selected cities should include a balance of smaller,
larger, and similar sized cities.
. N,- tI'.<e J.... Aow1 U J - Another criterion typically utilized in identifying an
organization's labor market is the nature of services provided. This criterion is important
for the following reasons:
Employers who provide similar services are most likely to compete with one
another for employees
These employers are most likely to have comparable jobs
These employers are most likely to have similar organizational and economic
characteristiCs.
Using these factors, the survey agencies should focus on other cities or agencies with similar
economic development functions.
Labor Market Agencies
Based on historic practices and the labor market agency selection guidelines descnbed above,
Exhibit A presents the labor market surveyed by Johnson & Associates. This market comprises
comparable cities with a population base of between 100,000 and 200,000 within San
Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties. While the City of Riverside, San
Bernardino County and Riverside County have a larger population base, these agencies have
been included due to their geographic proximity and the resulting significant impact on
recruiting practices. The selection of a broad surrounding region ensures that a "balanced" list
of comparable agencies can be identified. It is important to note that while all of the selected
agencies may not have exactly the same economic development activities as those performed
within the Economic Development Agency, the use of a broad regional and local market does
provide sufficient comparable saiaIy data for the Agency's management, administrative and
specialized classes.
To ensure the consistency of labor market and other economic conditions among survey
agencies, a relative cost of wages index published by the Economic Research Institute (ERI) has
been used as an indicator of similarity. This index identifies the percentage difference in labor
market conditions between each survey city and the City of San Bernardino, and is based on
relative differences in wages between each city. Using. the ERI index, any Agency with a wage
index greater than 100 has a higher paid labor market while indexes of less than 100 indicate a
lower paid labor market. Generally, differences of less than five percent are not statistically
significant, The use of this index minimizes the possibility of skewed data in the collected data.
Ptlge4
c
c
I"'"""'
,
. "-'
City of San Bernardino Eeonomle Development qeney
Cilyof~.~~:_1ia!DevelopmentAgeney
"" ":,~fei:"';';,~'f~~~ ' , ' ',' -cies
PonuJatiOD ERI Index I
Citv of San Bernardino 186.400 100.0
Lo8 ADgeles County Apnde8
Citv of Glendale 20<1,700 10<;.0
Citv of Inl!lewood 121 000 10<;.6
Citv of Pasadena Id<l.OOO 104.7
Citv of Pomona Id7.700 lO<;.d
City of West Covina 107.600 105,3
eCoun-' .. des
City of Fullerton 128.<100 lOd.8
Citv of Garden Grove 1<;8.<100 104.7
Riverside County Agencies
City of Corona 12<1.000 10<1,0
Citv of Moreno Vallev 141.<100 102,<;
City of Riverside 259,700 10::1.2
Riverside Countv N/A 103,2
San BemarcUno County Agendes
City of Fontana 117,dOO 10<1,0
Citv of Ontario 1<;1,<:00 102.7
Citv of Rancho Cucamonl!a 12<;.600 10::1,0
San Bernardino County N/A 100.0
. Economic Research Institute Salary Structure Index
The Inland Valley Development Authority was unable to provide comparable data for this survey and
further indicated that the Authority was a part of the San Bernardino County pay pIan,
Survey Class Selection
Survey classifications represent a sample of all classifications contained in the Agency's
classification plan and provide a reference point for the extrapolation of salary
recommendations for non-survey classes. Three important criteria are utilized in selecting these
survey classifications. They are:
PageS
,I""""'"
"-
/">_.~..
'~
.-
"-
City of San Bernardino Beonomle Development Agency
. Survey classes should have a clear and identifiable relationship to other classes in their
occupational group. This assures that they will make good references in relating and
establishing salaries for other classes.
. They should be reasonably well known, and clearly and concisely descnoed,
. They should be commonly used classes such that counterparts may be readily found in
other agencies in order to ensure that sufficient compensation data may be compiled.
These factors ensure that sufficient data can be collected in order to select benchmark classes
and to determine appropriate internal sa\ary relationships. Since the Agency has a diverse
range of jobs, all classes were included in the salary survey.
Market Data Collection Process
After the recommended labor market agencies and survey classes were selected, the project
consultants collected and compiled base salary data. To ensure data reliability and
completeness, survey data was collected according to a structured methodology. In conducting
the compensation survey, the following specific steps were taken:
. An initial telephone call was made to each labor market employer to explain the purpose
and scope of the study, confirm participation, and request general background
information including current salary schedules and organizational charts
. A compensation survey packet was prepared
. Salary schedules and other documentation were analyzed for each survey agency in order
to determine comparability issues
. Telephone interviews were conducted with each survey agency to verify, clarify and
identify comparable survey classes to ensure the accuracy of the survey data.
Throughout the data collection process, careful efforts were made to document the full range of
duties and requirements of all job classes as compared to the Agency's corresponding survey
classes.
Establishing Job Comparabilities
When conducting labor market surveys, one of the most critical objectives is to ensure that the
labor market data is sufficiently comparable to Agency jobs while also serving as a strong
indicator of market trends. Since the purpose of the labor market analysis is to identify general
wage trends with other agencies, broad comparability guidelines are used when collecting data.
If the comparability guidelines are too narrow, then insufficient data will be found in the market
that may not be a realistic .picture" of market wage trends.
fritical comparability criteria typically includes similar education/skill requirements, similar
level of duties, and comparable level of supervisory and management duties, It is not as critical
for all job duties to be the same or for the number of employees supervised to be the same.
Furthermore, it is not essential that a comparable market job use the same equipment, have the
same workload, or work in an identical facility. While Johnson &- Associates has been careful not
to include .gross" comparisons, there will be some variability in the job matches. In some
instances, a comparable market job may exceed the respoDSloilities and duties of the Agency's
job and in other cases the market job may perform duties at a slightly lower level. Overall, the
market comparabilities are intended to provide an indication of market trends.
Page 6
----
~
-
/
f
\.-.
(
\.-
City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency
The data sheets presented in Appendix A contain job matches that are sufficiently comparable
based on the professional judgment of Johnson &- Associates. Wherever possible, comparability
similarities and differences are supported by survey forms and other documentation received
from the survey participant. However, it should be noted that job descriptions were not used as
a primary basis for establishing comparabilities due to their unreliability and the inconsistent
formats used in the survey agencies. Many agencies are unable to sufficiently maintain and
update their job descriptions while other agencies use job description formats that provide little
insight into the actual job duties of the class. In addition, requiring public agencies to copy and
send a large number of job descriptions is sufficiently burdensome and costly that many
agencies refuse to provide copies to an outside consulting firm.
The term "No Comparable Class" has been used in the data sheets in Appendix A to indicate
instances where either the job does not exist within the survey agency, the level of
responsibilities/duties are not sufficiently comparable, or the comparable job duties are spread
among several job classifications.
Statistics Used in Analyzing the Market Data
The salary survey data has been analyzed using a variety of statistical measures that are
standards in compensation analysis. The purpose of the statistics is to describe the data and
identify data trends that can be used to describe the labor market. The three most common
statistics used in analyzing compensation data include:
. M....n l____\ - This is a common statistical measure in which the market data is
summed and divided by the number of agencies in which data is reported. While this is a
valuable statistical measure, it is not stable for data sets of less than 30 agencies. In
addition, this statistic can be significantly skewed by a significantly high or low paying
agency that may not represent the entire sample.
. M...II.n - This statistic is based on the ranking of the data and represents the "middle"
of the data set; as such, half of the data is above the median and half is below. This is the
most stable statistical measure of the market, even for highly variable data sets, and is
not skewed by unusually high or low payers.
. '7!nh _ntn.. (~ .............\ - This is also a rank based statistic in which one
quarter of the data is above the 75th percentile and three quarters of the data are below
this point. This statistic effectively captures the high end of the data set, however, it is
not as stable a measure as the median. Since the relationship between the median and
the 75th percentile is based both on the ranking and on variability of the data, no
consistent percentage relationship exists between these statistics.
All statistical comparisons are based on market control point salaries, The data sheets
presented in Appendix A provide additional statistical information, as well minimum salary
levels for reference purposes.
Labor Market Position
Considering that the recommended survey agencies represent both a comprehensive and
balanced set of employers, it is recommended that the Agency establish a labor market policy
that positions the Agency's pay plan at the market median. For that reason, the salary survey
data has been analyzed using the labor market median. When establishing the Agency's desired
labor market position, some key elements for consideration will include:
PIIge7
City of San Bernardino Economic Development AJ!;ency
,.......
L . The Agency's ability to pay
. Priority of compensation versus other expenditures
. Recruitment and retention of qualified staff.
A solid, defensible labor market position will rely on a balancing of these factors in order to meet
the Agency's compensation goals and objectives.
Point of Comparison
When comparing the Agency's salaries with those of the labor market agencies, it is important to
establish a consistent point of comparison. Since all the survey agencies used in the market
study utilize pay range structures, a critical analysis is needed to find the salary range "control
point". This is the point in the salary range that:
. Is used to "anchor" the pay range to the labor market
. Employees will attain through step increases or other increases based on satisfactory
performance (range progression beyond the control point is usually based on superior
job performance)
. The majority of employee salaries cluster around as measured by calculating a compa-
ratio (employee salary divided by the range maximum),
The "control point" for each labor market survey agency was identified and is represented in the
"C.P,jMax" column in the data sheets,
r-
l....
r-
'-
Page 8
,"-"
'-
c
/-
\-
City of San Bernardino Economic Development AKcncy
SECrION ill
FINDINGS
This section of the rePort documents the key findings and observations resulting from the
consultant's compensation analyses. The focus of the compensation analysis is to identify
significant differences in the pay practices of the Agency as compared to the other labor market
agencies. Ideally, the Agency should be consistent with the .prevailing practice" in the market.
For purposes of this study, .prevailing practice" has been defined as a majority practice among
survey agencies.
Overall Salary Survey Results
Based on an evaluation of the survey data, general salary trends in the market place have been
identified. Detailed labor market data sheets for all survey classes are presented in Appendix A
of this report. A summary of the salary survey results including a comparison of the Agency's
salaries to the labor market salary survey results is provided in Exhibit B. This summary table
includes:
. The class title of each benchmark class
. The number of observations (matches), not including Agency data
. The Agency's current control point (range max)
. The labor market median, based on monthly control point/top step salaries in the labor
market
. The percentage relationship of the labor market median to the control point for the
Agency's classification.
RYh1)lit B
I.abor Market: Data 80111111111")'
ausTide #of Control Median PercaJ.t+/-
OU. Point M........
1 - ,1
22 2.0
18 -11.0
-7.2
1 .1
Page 9
--
,
'-
r
\.-
,-
'-
City of San Bernardino Eeonomlc Development Agency
Rtr"hihit B
Labor Market Da1a SoRlRl.'"
au. 'fide i# of Control X_.Ii." Pereent: +/-
Ob&. Point M...H-
ior Accountant
taff Assistant
ist Clerk III
In analyzing the question of "market relationship", the survey jobs were ranked from high-to-
low in terms of each survey classification's salary relationship to the labor market median (Le.
percent abovefbelow the median). As indicated graphically in Exhibit C, this analysis indicates
that of the fifteen classes analyzed:
o Eight classes are below the labor market median ranging from -4.5% to -13.5%,
. Five classes are above the labor market median, ranging from 2.0% to 15.1%,
o One class did not receive enough comparable data to perform an analysis and is
identified as I.D. (insufficient data) - if the number of comparables is less than three,
insufficient data was available for analysis.
o One class, the Director of Business Recruitment, Retention and Revitalization, has been
surveyed as a "Drift Check" class. The "Drift Check" designation indicates that the
survey data may not be directly comparable to an Agency class but the data may be used
in the salary setting process. The labor market data for this survey class represents the
highest-level position with management responsibility for the function in each labor
market agency.
EXHmIT C
I Percentage Relationship to Market Median I
5
Abovo
Z 4
~
t 3
~
II)
'll 2
!
2 1
o
-20%+ -1510.10% -5100% 510 10% 151020%
-2010-15% -1010-5% 0105% 101015% 20%+
PucenllQe Increments
Pllge 10
r
"'-
,.,."......^~
{
..........
r-
l
-\-
City of San Bernardino Economie Development Agency
The graph presented in Exhibit D of this report demonstrates that 23% of the Agency's classes
are within 5% of the labor market median, 54% are more than 5% below the labor market
median and 23% are more than 5% above the labor market median. Generally, a pay plan is
considered to be "at market" if it is within five percent of the desired labor market position.
Rlrhihit D
I Trends AboveIBelow Market Median l
u'--
54".~11w15"'bIIaw~
Summary
This section has presented the findings and observations of the market analysis. This
information has been used to develop the salary recommendations that are presented in the
following section of this report.
Pllge 11
I""'"'
\.-
c
.--
'-'
City of San Bernardino Eeonomle Development Ageney
Page 12
,-..
'-
c
-
f
\..,..,
City of San Bernardino Economic Development ARency
SHCrION IV
RECOMMENDATIONS
This final section of the report presents salary recommendations based on the findings
contained in the previous section. All of the recommendations presented in this section are
based on the compensation policies defined previously in this report.
Benchnun-k Classifications
Since it is impossible to compare all of the Agency's jobs to comparable market jobs, the
objective of a market-based compensation study is to identify wage differences for selected
"benchmark" classes. Benchmark classes are jobs that are easily compared with the pay
practices of other agencies and are directly comparable to many Agency jobs. For example, while
the Agency may have more than one level of a particular classification, it is not necessary to
obtain data for all levels since they are highly interrelated. Instead, one class is set to market and
the remaining classes can be set relative to the benchmark class using percentage salary
differentials. This process not only maximizes. the use of available market data but also
preserves important salary relationships.
To establish market equity, benchmark classes are placed into a salary range based on the labor
market data or ties with comparable City of San Bernardino job classes. For this report, the
majority of the Agency classes with internal equity ties to the City of Bernardino city-wide
classes (e,g., Secretary or Accounting Technician) have been set using comparable City salaries
to maintain existing equity relationships. Since the Agency's classification and compensation
structure for comparable jobs is closely aligned with the City's plans, it is important to retain
those historic practices. Job classes unique to the Economic Development Agency (e.g. Project
Manager and Housing/Community Development Director) have been set using the median of
the labor market.
n--tlon Jlelatlonahlp
Entry level to Journey level
Journey level to Advance Journey level
Lead over subordinate class
Specialized class over related class
SupervisOr/Manager over subordinate class
Other Considerations:
. Historical pay relationships, where appropriate.
. Scope of impact and magnitude of resources managed.
. . relationshi between r level classes.
Page 13
i'~
City of San Bernardino Eeonomle Development Ageney
'- Internal Salary Relationships
For non-benchmark classifications, saIary levels are established using internal relationship
guidelines among related job classes, While the consultants have considered existing salary
relationships, an effort was made to establish greater consistency between the salary alignments
of job classes. Consequently, some historical pay relationships may have been altered, Exhibit E
presents a summary of the internal relationship IP~ ~ ~._ used in this study.
These internal relationship guidelines build off benchmark job classes or classes that are closely
related to the job series being analyzed. Since the benchmark classes serve as the basis for any
internal relationship guidelines, the entire pay plan is anchored to the labor market data.
"-
c
Salary Recommendations
Using the methodologies descnbed above, salary range recommendations have been prepared
for all study classes and are provided in Appendix B. The specific steps used to develop the
salary recommendations in Appendix B are as follows:
1, Benchmark classes were established using comparable City of San Bernardino job classes
or comparable market data.
2. Internal relationship guidelines were used to establish salary ranges for classes within a
related series using the guidelines provided in Exhibit E,
3, Salary levels for non-benchmark job classes that are not within a structured series were
set relative to the closest related class. For example, a unique administrative professional
job's salary range can be established by comparing to other administrative professional
classes. Factors considered for these classes include expertise, independence, scope and
impact of responsibilities, and similarity of job functions.
The salary recommendations presented in Appendix B include the following information:
. Class title
. Current top step monthly salary for each class
. Benchmark salary
. A recommended salary range
. A recommended top step
. The percentage change between current monthly top step and the recommended top step
salary
. Internal alignment/saIary setting rationale for the saIary recommendation (benchmark
or internal relationship)
The salary setting rationale identifies the reliance placed upon labor market data versus internal
relationships in developing each specific recommendation. Beyond market considerations,
internal relationship guidelines were established and applied within class series.
Page 14
r
'-
'-
/-
1",-"
.
Appendiee8
APPENDIX A
LABOR MARKET DATA SHEETS
PflgeA. -1
f-
'-
~.".-...
'-
;r-
'-
S1I1'VeV au.
......nl!V
ComD81"llble n._ "ftlle
Mnnthlv Mlnhnnft'l
Monthlv Control Point
or M.~ftlum
NumberofOlM.
V.riabllitv
M...tt.n
Pereentlle8
MUD
PereentAboveJR.low
ARoNS PP-I'Nl!ntDe
EXPLANATION OF SURVEYDATASHEEl'S
TItle of the survey classification.
Name of survey agency from which compensation data was collected.
Comparable title of matching class in each aurvey agency. The phrase "No
Comparable Class" is used when a survey agency does not have the job or if
there is a significant difference in qualifications or scope of duties.
This is the monthly starting salaty for positions in the class.
This is the monthly top step or range maximum for those agencies that use
the range maximum as the control point. Control point salaries are used if
the agency's range structure utilizes a mid-point or similar reference point.
By definition, the range control point is that point in the salaty range that
most employees attain through tenure, assuming satisfactory performance.
The control point is also used as the market "anchoring point" of the salaty
range.
The total number of data observations (not including the Agency's salary).
If this number is less than three, insufficient data is available for statistical
analysis. Ideally, there should be at least eight observations.
This is a quick description of the sample variability. High variability, if
inconsistent with the overall trends of the data, can indicate unreliable
data. Low variability indicates very reliable data.
This statistic represents the middle of the labor market. As such, half of the
data is above the median and half is below the median. In order to be
statistically valid, a minimum of three pieces of data must be available for
analysis.
This measurement is similar to the median except a different percentage of
data is above a specific point in the ranking and the balance of data is
below this point (i.e., for the 75th percentile, 25% of the data is above this
point and 75% is below). The percentiles are calculated using the
@function of Lotus 1-2-3 for Windows. Since there are different methods
for computing percentiles, the @function methodology used by Lotus may
not be the same as other spreadsheet programs or manual calculation
methods.
This is the average of the surv<:y data.
This percentage represents the difference between the market statistic to
the left of the percentage and the Agency's saIm:y. SpecificalIy, it is the
percentage increase/deerease needed to move the Agency's salary to the
market. For convenience, below market relations are shown as negative
values and above market relations are shown as positive values. The
following formula is used to calculate the percentage:
(Agency's Salary - Market)
Agency's Salary
It is important that the Agency's salary be in the denominator of any
percentage formula.
This is the percentile that corresponds to the Agency's saIm:y if it is placed
into the market data.
Pflge A-2
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
t-
""-' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
Statlotios compullld ""Ing control polnl/maxlmum
Accounting Collect. OffIcer
,-
',-
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P ./Max
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Corona No Comparable Position
City of Garden Grove Administrative Analvst 2903 4112
City of San Bernardino, EDA Accountlnll Collect OffIcer 3485 4237
City of Pomona Management Analyst II 3582 4370
City of West Covina Administrative Analyst II 3242 4377
City of Ontario Administrative Analyst 3606 4383
City of Fontana Administrative Analyst 3637 4420
City of Moreno Valley Management Analyst II 3467 4425
City of Riverside Administrative Analyst 3261 4428
San Bernardino County Staff Analyst II 3504 4474
City of Pasadena Management Analyst III 3615 4520
City of Fullerton Administrative Analyst II 3559 4543
City of Inglewood Administrative Analyst 3279 4645
Riverside County Administrative Analyst 3773 4800
City of Rancho Cucamonga Management Analyst II 3891 4994
City of Glendale Senior Admin. Analvst 4178 5172
% Abovel
Number of Observations 14 Market Below
VariabilitY Low Value Market
labor Market Median 4451 -5.06%
40th Percentile 4426 -4.46%
60th Percentile 4511 -6.47%
75th Percentile 4620 -9.03%
labor Market Mean 4547 -7.33%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 4th Percentile
.~
.\.-,
A-1
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
/'IP-~.
'-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
Statlotico compullld ...Ing control poIn1/maxlmum
Accounting Technician
'--
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P JMax
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Fullerton No Comparable Position
City of Inglewood No Comparable Position
City of Pasadena No Comparable Position
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
City of Corona Accounting Technician II (City Class) 2214 2702
City of Pomona Accounting Technician 2406 2936
San Bernardino County Accounting Technician (County Class) 2371 3028
City of Moreno Valley Accounting Technician (City Class) 2444 3120
City of Ontario Account Technician (City Class) 2607 3169
City of Riverside Accounting Technician 2733 3322
Riverside County Accountino Technician II (Countv Class) 2711 3359
City of San Bernardino, EDA Accounting Technician 2788 3389
City of Rancho Cucamonga Account Technician (City Class) 2677 3435
City of Glendale Accounting Technician (City Class) 2706 3532
City of Fontana Accounting Technician (City Class) 2912 3539
City of Garden Grove Accountina Technician (City Class) 2664 3774
% Abovel
Number of ObselVations 11 Market Below
Variability Moderate Value Market
labor Market Median 3322 1.97%
40th Percentile 3169 6.49%
60th Percentile 3359 0.88%
75th Percentile 3484 -2.79%
labor Market Mean 3265 3.65%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 64th Percentile
~
(
'-
A-2
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
,-..
\....,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
5_d.. computed uolng control polnl/maxlmum
Assistant Project Manager
c
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P ./Max
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Fontana No Comparable Position
City of Fullerton No Comparable Position
City of Glendale No Comparable Position
City of Inglewood No Comparable Position
City of Moreno Valley No Comparable Position
City of Pomona No Comparable Position
City of West Covina . No Comparable Position
City of Garden Grove Senior Economic Dev. Specialist 3253 4604
City of San Bernardino, EDA Assistant Project Manage, 3841 4669
City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Analyst 3702 4751
San Bernardino County ECD Analyst II 3770 4815
Riverside County Senior Development Specialist 4111 5093
City of Corona Economic Development Coordinator 4319 5272
City of Riverside Neighborhood Coordinator 3966 5314
City of Ontario Project Manager I (Redevelopment) 4515 5488
City of Pasadena Proiect Planner 4552 5690
% Abovel
Number of Observations S Market Below
Variabllitv Low Value Market
Labor Market Median 5183 -10.99%
40th Percentile 5037 -7.88%
60th Percentile 5280 -13.09%
75th Percentile 5358 -14.74%
Labor Market Mean 5128 -9.83%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 6th Percentile
r-.
I
'-
A-3
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
/""'
"'-
CiTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
_Ocs compullld ...Ing control polnl/maxlmum
Construction Mgmt. Specialist
r
L
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P JMax
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Corona No Comparable Position
City of Fontana No Comparable Position
San Bernardino County No Comparable Position
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
City of Riverside No Comparable Position
City of Rancho Cucamonga No Comparable Position
City of Pasadena No Comparable Position
City of Moreno Valley No Comparable Position
City of Inglewood No Comparable Position
City of Glendale No Comparable Position
City of Garden Grove No Comparable Position
City of Fullerton No ComDarable Position
City of San Bernardino, EDA Construction Mgmt. SlJec/allst 3231 3929
City of Pomona Rehabilitation Specialist 3407 4159
City of Ontario Neighborhood Improvement Spec. III 3465 4212
Riverside County Construction Inspector 3827 4742
% Abovel
Number of Observation. 3 Market Below
Variabllitv Low Value Market
Labor Market MedIan 4212 -7.19%
40th Percentile 4201 -6.92%
60th Percentile 4318 -9.89%
75th Percentile 4477 -13.94%
labor Market Mean 4371 -11.24%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile o Percentile
-.
f
\..-
A-4
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
-
t
'-"
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
_tics compu18d ...Ing control poIn1/maxlmum
Contract Administrator
;'"--
'-
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P .IMax
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Corona No Comparable Position
City of Pasadena No Comparable Position
San Bernardino County No Comparable Position
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
City of Fontana No Comparable Position
City of Rancho Cucamonga No Comparable Position
City of Ontario No Comparable Position
City of Inglewood No Comparable Position
City of Fullerton No Comparable Position
City of Garden Grove No Comparable Position
City of Glendale No Comparable Position
Riverside County Procurement Contract Specialist 3409 4222
City of Moreno Valley Management Analyst II (City Class) 3467 4425
City of Pomona Sr. Management Analyst 3956 4827
C;h, of Riverside Housino Coordinator 3966 5314
, c1iV of San Bernardino, EDA Contract Administrator 4485 5451
% Above!
Number of Observations 4 Market Below
Variabilitv Low Value Market
labor Market Median 4626 15.13%
40th Percentile 4505 17.34%
60th Percentile 4747 12.91 %
75th Percentile 4949 9.21%
labor Market Mean 4697 13.82%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 100th Percentile
."'''-''.''
L
A-5
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
r-
\.-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
S_tic. compul8d ...Ing control poIn1/moxlmum
Director of Admin. Services
c
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P ./Max
Inland Valley Oev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Corona No Comparable Position
City of Fontana No Comparable Position
San Bernardino County No Comparable Position
Riverside County No Comparable Position
City of West Covin a No Comparable Position
City of Rancho Cucamonga No Comparable Position
City of Pomona No Comparable Position
City of Pasadena No Comparable Position
City of Ontario No Comparable Position
City of Moreno Valley No Comparable Position
City of Inglewood No Comparable Position
City of Garden Grove No Comparable Position
City of Fullerton No Comparable Position
Citv of San Bernardino, EDA Director of Admin. Services 6124 7444
. City of Glendale Asst. Director of Develop. Services 6522 8142
City of Riverside Redevelooment Finance/Admin. Mar. 5831 8204
% Above!
Number of Observations 2 Market Below
Variabllltv Low Value Market
Labor Market Median 1.0. -
40th Percentile 1.0. -
60th Percentile 1.0. -
75th Percentile 1.0. -
Labor Market Mean 1.0. -
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile . I.D.
/--
\.-
A-6
,r-
'-
c
r'''''_.
.L
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
Shdlotl.. compu18d ...Ing control poInl/maxlmum
Dir. of Housing & Comm. Dey.
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Corona No Comparable Position
City of Moreno Valley No Comparable Position
City of Fontana No Comparable Position
City of Rancho Cucamonga No Comparable Position
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
City of Inglewood No Comparable Position
City of Glendale No Comparable Position
City of Garden Grove No Comparable Position
City of Fullerton No Comparable Position
San Bernardino County Deputy Director, ECD 5060 6472
City of Pasadena Housing Administrator 5825 7281
City of San Bernardino. EDA DI,. of Housina & Comm. Dev. 6124 7444
City of Riverside Housing, Neigh. & Comm. Dev. Mgr 5363 7546
Riverside County Executive Dir. for Housing Authority 6725 8790
City of Pomona Housing Director 7279 8897
City of Ontario Housino & Neiohborhood Revitaliz. Dir. 6467 8902
% Abovel
Number of Observations 6 Market Below
Variabilitv Moderate Value Market
Labor Market Median 8168 -9.72%
40th Percentile 7546 -1.37%
60th Percentile 8790 -18.08%
75th Percentile 8870 -19.15%
Labor Market Mean 7981 -7.21%
CIty of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 32nd Percentile
A-7
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
r--
"-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
s_a.. computed uolng control poIn1Jmaxlmum
Dlr., Bus. Recruit., Relent. & Reylt.
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Fontana No Comparable Position
City of Inglewood No Comparable Position
City of Ontario No Comparable Position
City of Rancho Cucamonga No Comparable Position
City of West Covins No ComDarable Position
Citv of San Bernardino, EDA Dir.. Bus. Recrolt.. Retent. & Revit Drift Check
City of Fullerton Economic Development Manager 5108 6209
San Bernardino County Deputy Director, ECD 5060 6472
City of Moreno Valley Redevelopment Manager 5104 6514
City of Pasadena Business Development Admin. 5595 6993
City of Riverside Economic Development Manager 5314 7118
City of Glendale Business Assistance Administrator 5888 7293
Riverside County Deputy Director of the EDA 5607 7329
City of Corona Economic Development Director 6033 7364
,City of Garden Grove Economic Development Manager 5273 7470
CitY of Pomona Deoutv Econ. Dey. Director 7630 9307
% Abovel
Number of Observations 10 Market Below
Variabilitv Moderate Value Market
Labor Market Median 7206 -
40th Percentile 7068 -
60th Percentile 7307 -
75th Percentile 7355 -
Labor Market Mean 7207
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile
...~~...-
<
'-
A-8
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
/""""
"-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
5_ti.. computed using control poinl/maxlmum
Executive Director
c
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P ./Max
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Fontana No Comparable Position
City of Garden Grove No Comparable Position
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
San Bernardino County Director of Economic & Comm. Dev. 8370
City of Moreno Valley Community & Econ. Dev. Director 6843 8733
City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Director 6281 8909
City of Pasadena Director of Housing & Development 7239 9048
Riverside County Managing Director of EDA 7173 9376
City of Inglewood Community Development Director 6419 9556
City of Ontario Redevelopment Director 6467 9578
City of Riverside Development Director 7704 9680
City of Fullerton Director of Redevelop & Econ. Develop. 9717
City of Pomona Economic Development Director 8149 10066
City of Glendale Director of Develooment Services 8226 10283
C/tv of San Bernardino. EDA Executive Director 8520 10356
citV of Corona ACM/Housino & Develooment Director 8511 10390
% Above!
Number of Observations 12 Market Below
Variabilltv Low Value Market
Labor Market Median 9567 7.62%
40th Percentile 9448 8.77%
60th Percentile 9639 6.92%
75th Percentile 9804 5.33%
Labor Market Mean 9476 8.50%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 97th Percentile
r
\.....
A-9
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
r
\.,..,
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
Statlatics computed using conlIOl polnl/maxlmum
Operations Specialist
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Fontana No Comparable Position
City of Moreno Valley No Comparable Position
City of Pasadena No Comparable Position
City of Rancho Cucamonga No Comparable Position
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
Riverside County Custodian 1558 1929
San Bernardino County Custodian I 1529 1952
Citv of San Bernardino, EDA ODerations SDecialist 1686 2050
City of Corona Custodian 1813 2214
City of Fullerton Maintenance Worker 1783 2275
City of Riverside Custodian 1906 2318
City of Pomona Custodian 1914 2335
City of Inglewood Custodial Service Worker 1717 2433
City of Garden Grove Custodian 1811 2565
City of Glendale Custodial Worker 1974 2584
City of Ontario Custodian 2146 2609
% Abovel
Number of Observations 10 Market Below
Varlabllitv Moderate Value Market
Labor Market Median 2327 -13.49%
40th Percentile 2301 -12.23%
60th Percentile 2374 -15.81%
75th Percentile 2532 -23.51%
labor Market Mean 2321 -13.24%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 15th Percentile
r-
~
A-10
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
I"""'"'
,-.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
StatIo1i.. compubtd ....ng control poInlJmaxlmum
Project Manager
c
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
City of Pomona Redevelopment Project Manager 3879 4732
City of Fullerton Redevelopment Project Administrator 4148 5042
City of Fontana Housing Project Manager 4410 5361
San Bernardino County ECD Program Manager 4261 5441
City of Rancho Cucamonoa Senior Redevelooment Analvst 4300 5517
City of San Bernardino, EDA Pro/ect Manaoer 4709 5724
City of Garden Grove Project Planner - Multi-Family Housing 4153 5882
Riverside County Principal Development Specialist 4800 5947
City of Inglewood Development Coordinator 4247 6017
City of Ontario Project Manager II (Redevelop.) 4989 6064
City of Glendale Redevelopment Project Admin. 5077 6288
City of Pasadena Project Manager 5041 6299
City of Moreno Valley Redevelopment Manager 5104 6514
City of Riverside Project Manager 4817 6780
CitY of Corona Redevelooment Proiect Manaoer 5654 6902
% Abovel
Number of Observations 14 Market Below
VariabilItY Moderate Value Market
Labor Market Median 5982 -4.51 %
40th Percentile 5895 -2.99%
60th Percentile 6055 -5.78%
75th Percentile 6296 -10.00%
Labor Market Mean 5913 -3.31%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 35th Percentile
f~
'-
A-11
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
r
'-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
S_ti.. compubld ...Ing control polnl/maxlmum
Secretary
r-
'-'
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max
City of Garden Grove Data Not Available
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Moreno Valley No Comparable Position
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
San Bernardino County No Comparable Position
City of Fontana Secretary (City Class) 2165 2632
City of Pomona Secretarv w/o shorthand 2178 2653
City of San Bernardino, EDA SecretalY 2259 2748
Riverside County Secretary II (County Class) 2305 2855
City of Inglewood Secretary (City Class) 2075 2939
City of Ontario Secretary (City Class) 2480 3015
City of Fullerton Secretary (City Class) 2378 3034
City of Pasadena Staff Assistant IV 2345 3077
City of Corona Admin. Secretary (City Class) 2571 3139
City of Riverside Secretary 2683 3261
City of Glendale Office Services Secretary (City Class) 2522 3294
CitY of Rancho Cucamonca Admin. Secretarv (Citv Class)' 2704 3470
% Abovel
Number of Observations 11 Market Below
Variabilltv Moderate Value Market
Labor Market Median 3034 -10.43%
40th Percentile 3015 -9.74%
60th Percentile 3077 -11.99%
75th Percentile 3200 -16.47%
Labor Market Mean 3034 -10.41%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 15th Percentile
~
'-
A-12
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
-
I
'-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
Statistics computed uolng control polnl/maxlmum
SenIor Accountant
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P ./Max
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of Corona No Comparable Position
City of Fullerton No Comparable Position
City of Garden Grove No Comparable Position
City of Ontario No Comparable Position
City of Pasadena No Comparable Position
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
San Bernardino County No Comparable Position
Riverside County Senior Accountant (County Class) 3354 4155
City of Fontana Accountant II (City Class) 3548 4313
City of Pomona Sr. Accountant 3841 4686
City of Moreno Valley Senior Accountant (City Class) 3676 4692
City of Riverside Senior Accountant 3847 4908
City of San Bernardino, EDA Senior Accountant 4076 4954
l City of Rancho Cucamonga Senior Accountant (City Class) 3891 4994
City of Glendale Senior Accountant (City Class) 4594 5690
- City of 'nolewood Senior Accountant (City Class) 4041 5725
% Above!
Number of Observations 8 Market Below
Variability Moderate Value Market
Labor Market Median 4800 3.12%
40th Percentile 4691 5.32%
60th Percentile 4925 0.59%
75th Percentile 5168 -4.31 %
Labor Market Mean 4895 1.19%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 65th Percentile
r-
-\..-
A-13
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fall 2000
,--
'-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
S_ti.. computed using control polnl/maxlmum
Staff Assistant
c
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P .IMax
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
San Bernardino County Secretary II (County Class) 2260 2884
City of Fontana Administrative Secretary (City Class) 2528 3074
City of Moreno Valley Secretary II (City Class) 2444 3120
City of Fullerton Administrative Secretary (City Class) 2627 3352
City of San Bernardino EDA Staff Assistant 2790 3392
City of Pasadena Executive Secretary (City Class) 2717 3398
City of Pomona Admin. Assistant WIO Shorthand 2935 3582
City of Garden Grove Department Secretary (City Class) 2560 3627
City of Corona Senior Admin. Secretary (City Class) 2971 3627
City of Glendale Executive Secretary (City Class) 2859 3737
City of Rancho Cucamonga Senior Admin. Secretary (City Class) 2929 3758
City of Riverside Project Assistant 3108 3775
City of Inglewood Admin. Secretary (City Class) 2769 3922
City of Ontario Secretary to the Exec. Dir. RDA 3329 4047
Riverside County Executive Secretary II (County Class) 3354 4155
% Above!
Number of Observations 14 Market Below
VariabilitY Moderate Value Market
Labor Market Median 3627 -6.93%
40th Percentile 3591 -5.87%
60th Percentile 3715 -9.52%
75th Percentile 3771 -11.17%
Labor Market Mean 3576 -5.41%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 30th Percentile
r
\..-
A-14
Prepared by Johnson Associates
Data Effective Fan 2000
r
'-
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, EDA
LABOR MARKET SALARY SURVEY
Typist Clerk III
SlaIIall.. com~d ...Ing control poInl/maxlmum
c
Agency Comparable Class Title Minimum C.P./Max
Inland Valley Dev. Agency Data Not Included in Study
City of West Covina No Comparable Position
Riverside County Typist Clerk II 1690 2096
City of Pomona Typist Clerk 1876 2290
City of Moreno Valley Office Assistant II (City Class) 1827 2332
San Bernardino County Clerk III (County Class) 1860 2371
City of Fontana Administrative Clerk II (City Class) 1961 2384
City of Ontario Intermediate Clerk-Typist (City Class) 2052 2495
City of Corona Office Assistant (City Class) 2044 2495
City of Fullerton Clerical Assistant II (City Class) 1972 2516
City of Pasadena Staff Assistant II 1988 2586
City of Rancho Cucamonaa Office Specialist II (City Class) 2035 2611
City of San Bernardino, EDA TVDist Clerk III 2185 2656
City of Inglewood Senior Typist Clerk (City Class) 1878 2661
City of Riverside Administrative Clerk 2206 2682
City of Garden Grove Office Assistant (City Class) 1901 2692
City of Glendale Office Assistant (City Class) 2319 3038
'Yo Above!
Number of Observations 14 Market Below
Variability Moderate Value Market
Labor Market Median 2506 5.68%
40th Percentile 2495 6.07%
60th Percentile 2572 3.18%
75th Percentile 2649 0.30%
Labor Market Mean 2518 5.22%
City of San Bernardino, EDA Salary Percentile 76th Percentile
-
L
A-15
r
'-
r-
L
c
Appendiee.
APPENDIX B
SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS
PflgeB-I
/,,-.....
\.-
---
r--.
'-
Appendiee.
PflgeB-2
1"...-....
~
r
..........
C
..
is
.
2
~
..
2
..
o
.
.
.
.
..
u
.a-
u
.s
CCS'li:
C-.
W~.
oc.
c..
.- E ..
l!Eu
caO-f
e,;..
GI"'E
Q. :1
WID
. 1 .. -
ii Gl-
C .. ",c
0 ~ ....
i Cu
..-
.. .. ~ :tC
~~ 11-5
CD i .. ~
I!! I!! ~ .
C . '"
! . 00 '" 111 ~ g' C
Ul . . c c~. ! co Q..=as
u~~ e.!!.l!! .. 2_1:C~~
~ Ulee ....2. 1::t
e(C
.. j E E~ ~j! ~~11 lL~~J..l!!
~ e'5~ 81!!
~B ~ ~ Ul~ ""'l. D.~ ::!.~
C ::! 2':; ~~~ ~ ~Gl:Ul
. s"'~s ~:gGl
E _cc_ C E :8~:8iE.!
C :~!nl ~J ~ 1~-
CD c.8 C .:.8
:c ..00.. UGl";1. ";1. Gl";1..g"";1.
~J:J:~ i!: i!: i!:Ulon OUlon i!:
E CDcocnGl ..... Ill. ..... coT"" as as 10
E....E ElliE E.. . ""..EE..
-5 Gl Gl-5 iiGl-5 -5Gle 2~2g-52
SI e E E C cEe cE... 0. 0. co.
.5 CD CO CO CD dlc?ldl Gllll... "'c?l~GlGl'"
alUlUlal alUle( e( alale(
";1.";1.";1.";1. ";1.";1.";1. ";1.";1.";1. ";1.";1.";1.";1.";1.";1.
ee 0"""" ....co(') on on on G:! G:! ~ ap,,: G:!
el daiaiai 0"':"; "':<Ii"': mmo"l:toT""
"I - "I _
ll.U
Ii CO:B 18 18 coon 0 "I co.... ~coo>ono>on
~T""T""T"" :::8:; co(')o> C")NIOCQO
E III 0>..,. co ~ ~..""'.."l"!."'-:.
~:E o aiaS a; 06MN 060606 onon..,.(')NN
-
II: .......,. ... ... ... <It <It <It . tit .. tit ... tit
i! ~ 18 co 0 ~ on 0>
- :; on co
sz:. - - onN
.I:: e 0; .0 06 N on MN
u;j
! ... ... ... ... ... <It ...
III ~ttt ....N~ ..,.0>- ~~~~~~
:E (')0> N:gon
"l~t';. "":. -....
e 0............... """'''1 on..,.on ~""4'''PiMN''N
~ .....
:0
U ......""" <It <It <It <It <It <It ""69-""""""
ee 8ononon oonon on:go ~~12:8~~
Ii "INN -......,. CO CO
C\lT""T""T"" "1__ --- T""..... T"" or- T""T""
UII: ..,...,...,...,. (')"'- "1-"1 ...._T""_T""T""
..
~ .
.!! ]l
- 0 ii
i= - I
. c
gj ..
. ~
J! ..Ul
u ~ s-
"5- Gl ..e
1 '" cGl
I.e . ! ~ -Ec
... 11::' !5
~o~~ illS iGl~-
C '" .!!!
. I ::iEll "Eo!c:i
E i · 'E . ..,. .l!!c"j8.
E Gl -
BGlE 81: '" .E Cg::E =
! O~&!B III E J::!!5I-Uli
~~ ~ :ii D. ~
II:: GlJJ .~ ::E1:1) Otj 2'r!~
I .: j~.l!! 11i~ ~~il'E~1-
.EC1il ~~
E1il 8 -...~O&~
~...'" l.~8 el! Gl
e(alJ: UlUl JJC) e(CO
..., -NM~.'G~G~O_N~.~~~~~
~
..
OJ
.
-
e
{g
G
.
..
..
E
..
Ul
.
.
Ul
U
Ul
--....-------
** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT **
RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM
Meeting Date (Date Adopted): 'b' -20-0\ Item # R. 42-
Vote: Ayes ','-1-'1 Nays Q- Abstain
Change to motion to amend original documents:
Resolution# Co:::l-Zml-32.
-0 Absent "?, "\
Reso. # On Attachments:
Contract term:
NullNoid After:
Note on Resolution of Att'l"hment stored separately: -=-
Direct City Clerk to (circle I): PUBLISH, POST, RECORD W/COUNTY By:
Date Sent to Mayor:
Date of Mayor's Signature:
'6'-22-0\
&-2"- "3-()\
Reso. Log Updated: v'"
Seal Impressed: -------
Date ofClerklCDC Signature: ~-':l '\-0 \
Date Memo/Letter Sent
nature:
See Attached:
See Attached:
See Attached:
Date Returned: '-
60 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 30th day:
90 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 45th day:
Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached:
Updated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below):
Updated CITY Personnel Folders (6413, 6429, 6433, 10584, 10585, 12634):
Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557):
Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234,655.92-389):
Yes / No By
Yes No L By
Yes No I/' By
-
Yes NO+ By
Yes No B
Copies Distributed to:
City Attorney
Parks & Rec.
Code Compliance
Dev. Services
EDA ,/'"
Finance
MIS
Police
Public Services
Water
Others:
Notes:
BEFORE FILING. REVIEW FORM TO ENSURE ANY NOTATIONS MADE HERE ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE
YEARLY RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGICAL LOG FOR FUTURE REFERENCE (Contract Term. etc.)
Ready to File: 1lh:-
Date: l<-D.'1-c:.\
Revised Oll12/01