HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2011-08-08 #GAGENDA STAFF DEPORT
DATE: August 8, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Sean P. Crumby, Assistant City Manager /Public Works
SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY
COMPENSATION STUDY OF ORANGE COUNTY
CITIES
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
It is requested that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign and send
a response letter to the Orange County Grand Jury Compensation Study of
Orange County Cities.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
In 2010 the Grand Jury of Orange County prepared a Compensation Study of
Orange County Cities. The goal of the study was to determine whether there
existed any abuses of pay in Orange County related to compensation for elected
officials and upper level positions. The study focuses on those employees that
earn base salaries of over $100,000 per year. Confidential questionnaires
requesting salary data for calendar year 2009 was distributed to all Orange
County cities.
The report found no abuses with respect to salaries in the City of Seal Beach. In
addition to reporting the salaries, all of the cities were graded based upon
availability of salary information to the public via city websites. At the time the
study was being prepared, the City of Seal Beach was undergoing a complete
website redesign. Although the website redesign was reported to the Grand
Jury, the City of Seal Beach received a grade of "F" for its website. The new
website was launched in February 2011, and now adequately provides salary
information that is accessible to the public.
The Grand Jury did make recommendations for all Orange County cities to report
salary information to the public (Compensation Disclosure Model). The
recommendations are detailed in the City's response and as follows:
Agenda Item G
Page 2
Recommendation R1:
Transparency — All cities in Orange County report their compensation information
to the public on the internet in an easily accessible manner. The Compensation
Disclosure Model (Appendix 4 of Grand Jury Compensation Study) provides a
sample as to the items that should be included in determining total
compensation.
City Response: The City reports information for the compensation of every city
employee. A tab within the Employee compensation page on the city's website
has been added that complies with the Compensation Disclosure Model as
recommended by the Grand Jury Compensation Study.
Recommendation R2:
Employment Contracts — Each city reveal any individual employment contracts in
an easily accessible manner.
City Response: All City employment contracts are listed on the City's website.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no Financial Impact related to this item.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City receive and file response to Grand Jury
Compensation Study of Orange County Cities.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sean P. Crumby,
Assistant City Manager /Pu , I c Works
NOTED AND APPROVED:
M A NNINS , xv
iii/ ' - Ingram, 15t
y 7im
Attachments:
A. City response dated August 9, 2011
B. Grand Jury Compensation Study
August 9, 2011
Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Dr. West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMPENSATION STUDY OF ORANGE
COUNTY CITIES (2010/2011)
Dear Grand Jury,
Thank you for compiling this Compensation Study of Orange County. The City of
Seal Beach values appropriately compensating the employees within the
organization and being transparent to the residents within the City. This letter is
being sent in response to comments within the Compensation Study relating to
the City of Seal Beach.
The City of Seal Beach desires to begin this response with two general
comments. First, the City of Seal Beach was identified within the report as not
providing salary information within it's website and received grades of F for
Content, Clarity, and Accessibility of the website. The City of Seal Beach has
redesigned its website to provide all of the salary information for City Council and
every City Employee. This redesign was in progress during the preparation of
the grand jury report. Current Salary information can be found on the City's
website at http: / /www.sealbeachca.gov /departments /resources /salary/ .
The second point of clarification that the City desires to provide is in relation to
Exhibit 2h on page 37 of the report. This table provides a benefits package of
$94,086 for the City's Director of Development Services (Community
Development in Report). This figure is higher than the true benefits package for
this position. The inflated number in 2009 is due to the retirement of a 20 year
employee that received $57,501 for one time compensation of benefits accrued.
The benefit package for the current Director of Development Services is valued
at $38,087.72 which brings the compensation for that position down by
$55,998.28.
Recommendations R1 and R2 apply to the City of Seal Beach. Responses to
these recommendations are as follows:
Recommendation R1:
Transparency — All cities in Orange County report their compensation information
to the public on the internet in an easily accessible manner. The Compensation
Disclosure Model (Appendix 4) provides a sample as to the items that should be
included in determining total compensation.
City Response: The City reports information for the compensation of every city
employee. A tab within the Employee compensation page on the city's website
has been added that complies with the reporting as recommended by the Grand
Jury Compensation Study.
Recommendation R2:
Employment Contracts — Each city reveal any individual employment contracts in
an easily accessible manner.
City Response: All City employment contracts are listed on the City's website.
If there are any additional questions or suggestions on improving the City's
website, please feel free to contact me at (562) 431 -2527 ext. 1300 or
iingram @ sealbeachca.gov
Respectfully,
Jill R. Ingram,
City Manager
Compensation study
of Orange County Cities
Compensation Study of Orange County Cities
SUMMARY
The 2010 - 2011 Orange County Grand Jury has examined several
aspects of compensation in Orange County cities. The scope of this
report covers the following items:
• Individuals Covered -
o All elected officials.
• All employees who are being paid at a base salary rate in
excess of $100,000 per year.
• Salary and Total Compensation - Overall levels of salary and
benefit costs are reported along with multiple levels of
comparisons among cities.
• Organization - Upper level positions are reviewed and
compared.
• Contracts - Provisions of employment contracts and the extent
of their use are examined.
• Transparency - Disclosure of compensation information to the
public is examined, evaluated and compared.
Based on this comprehensive review of information submitted by the
cities, the Grand Jury has concluded that there are no individual
instances of abusive compensation in Orange County cities.
There is, however, a disturbing level of inconsistency in the degree of
transparency pertaining to compensation information which is currently
provided to the public. For this reason, the Grand Jury has developed a
suggested model for use in reporting municipal compensation
information to the public and recommends that such information be
made readily accessible on the Internet websites of all Orange County
cities as soon as practicable.
REASON FOR STUDY
While compensation of public officials and employees has long been a
subject of citizen concern, recent allegations of gross abuses have
created a firestorm of media, governmental and even prosecutorial
attention. Recent revelations from cities outside of Orange County have
led to charges that city officials were paying themselves lavish salaries
and benefits at taxpayer expense.
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
In Orange County, these allegations have spawned a number of articles
in the media concerning compensation of individual municipal officials
and employees. In addition to answering the question, "Are there any
similar cases in Orange County ?" this report will present Orange County
citizens with an objective and thorough report, analyses, and findings
covering multiple facets of compensation and recommendations for
accessible and consistent transparency for all Orange County cities.
It is not the primary purpose of this report to question the compensation
of any individual official or employee. Neither is it the purpose to simply
list all of the salaries and benefits of city officials and employees. Rather,
this report is focused on determining whether there are any abuses in
Orange County relating to elected officials and upper level positions and
examining the degree and quality of compensation disclosure.
METHODOLOGY
In order to accumulate the raw data which provides the basis for this
report, the Grand Jury developed a spreadsheet questionnaire (Appendix
1), covering total compensation elements for individuals covered by the
study. The questionnaire was sent to all cities in Orange County, and
included further requests for copies of employment contracts and
organization charts for the city. Interviews also were conducted to
confirm certain facts and findings contained in this report.
Employees with base salaries below $100,000 were excluded from this
study because:
C The primary focus of this study is compensation abuse. If the
upper level and management positions are found to be within
normal parameters, it is expected that there will be no abuses
in the lower level positions.
• With the above limitation, a total of 1,847 positions were
submitted in response to the Grand Jury's request.
This study does not include any analysis of benefits paid after retirement
or pension plans. This report does, however, include pension related
costs which are incurred by cities during active employment, such as
The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS)
contributions.
The compensation analyses contained in this report are based on
calendar year 2009 data, and exclude police, fire, electric utility and
Great Park employees. Several cities do not have any police and /or fire
positions because they contract with the County for such services.
6
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Electric utility and Great Park positions are unique to two cities.
All population statistics used in this report are from the State of
California, Department of Finance, E -1 Population Estimate for Cities,
Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change - January 1, 2008
and 2009, Sacramento, California, May, 2009.
FACTS
Fact: There are 34 incorporated cities in Orange County.
Fact: There are ten Charter cities, where compensation levels for elected
officials and employees are governed by the City Councils. These cities
are Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Los
Alamitos, Newport Beach, Placentia, Santa Ana, and Seal Beach.
Fact: There are 24 General Law cities, where compensation levels for
elected officials are governed by state laws and regulations and
compensation levels for employees are governed by the City Councils.
These cities are Aliso Viejo, Brea, Costa Mesa, Dana Point, Fountain
Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna
Niguel, Laguna Woods, La Habra, Lake Forest, La Palma, Mission Viejo,
Orange, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano,
Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster and Yorba Linda.
Fact: Each city has an elected City Council and Mayor and appointed
City Manager /Administrator. Beyond these functions, city organizations
and management positions vary widely.
Fact: All Orange County cities, except for Seal Beach, have posted
varying types and amounts of compensation information on their
Internet web sites.
Fact: The California State Controller required all local governments to
submit a Local Government Compensation Report for calendar year 2009
by a deadline of October 1, 2010. That report was intended to collect
salary, compensation, and benefit information for all elected, appointed,
and employed personnel. The Controller's website may be accessed at:
http://www.sco.ca.gov/compensation-search.html.
3
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
ANALYSIS
Compensation Comparisons:
For consistent analyses, the following eleven municipal management
positions were selected to be reported:
• City Council Member
• City Manager
• City Clerk
• City Engineer
• Finance
• Public Works
• Parks & Recreation
• Community Development
• Human Resources
• Information Technology
• Building Official
The following eleven charts for these selected positions display and
compare:
Base Salary,
• Total Benefits and Other Pay, which include,
• Fees,
• Deferred Compensation,
• Bonus Pay,
• Insurance Premiums,
• Auto Allowance,
• Pension Contributions, and
• Pay in Lieu of Time Off.
For the purpose of clarity, the charts display the highest five and lowest
five cities for each of eleven common positions. The average for each
reported position is included to provide a benchmark. All city data for
these positions is reflected in Appendices 2 (a) through (k). The
population ranking for each city is shown in parentheses to illustrate any
correlation between population and total compensation.
G�
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 1: City Council
ITotal Compensation
Irvine (3)
Anaheim (2)
L. Hills (28)
Tustin (14)
NP Beach (11)
AVERAGE
L. Alamitos (33)
San Clemente.
La Palma (32)
L. Woods (31)
Villa Park (34)
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
13 Base Salary oBenefits
• This chart reflects compensation for the highest paid member of
the city council.
• Total compensation does not appear to have any consistent
correlation to the population of the city.
• The City of Villa Park, the smallest city in Orange County, has
opted to not pay either a base salary or benefits to its council
members.
5
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
2"'
Z�167
.
3 . 8
11,3
9.
2US 9
pt&
I
8;0
1 2,690
1'
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
13 Base Salary oBenefits
• This chart reflects compensation for the highest paid member of
the city council.
• Total compensation does not appear to have any consistent
correlation to the population of the city.
• The City of Villa Park, the smallest city in Orange County, has
opted to not pay either a base salary or benefits to its council
members.
5
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 2: City Manager
• The city manager total compensation spread is $193,382.
• The spread of base salaries is $142,272.
• 21 city managers have a base salary over $200,000.
• The total benefits for the Laguna Hills City Manager reflects a one-
time payout of $30,097 for unused paid time off.
L
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Total Compensation
L. Hills (28)
Buena Park (12)239,954
<' 105,035
., - _ .p
Lake Forest (13)
120,763
gym..• ;, -�q,_ .�, ,�.a , •.�,�.
Anaheim (2)
-� i' .•.,�r- x "2513;351 80,077
Santa Ana (1)
<� 262,272 M " 75,079
AVERAGE
Stanton (25)
4 ' �.'_ 2 ,2 3
_
Y. Linda (15)
;169,017
La Habra (18)
r �1.76,10� , ` "" 7,18
L. Alamitos (33)
1.70,000 . -� 5 o- 6,84
Villa Park (34)
s, "20 �,. 65,045
$0
$100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000
0 Base Salary 0 Benefits
• The city manager total compensation spread is $193,382.
• The spread of base salaries is $142,272.
• 21 city managers have a base salary over $200,000.
• The total benefits for the Laguna Hills City Manager reflects a one-
time payout of $30,097 for unused paid time off.
L
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 3: City Clerk
I Total Compensation I
Costa Mesa (8)
Irvine (3)
Buena Park (12)
Yorba Linda (15)
Brea (24)
AVERAGE
Cypress (22)
Aliso Viejo (23)
Tustin (14)
SJ Capristrano (27)
L. Alamitos (33)
1 — J
335 335 2'
156584 54,583
.
51.0s'
82,0
144,352
.a 42,37
3 ',40
1
26,208
1:11,,329
_.
1 4", 32
100,168 .
3.821
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
1 ❑ Base Salary ❑ Benefits
• 25 cities reported a city clerk position with a base salary over
$100,000.
• The base salary spread is $55,396.
• Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
• The total benefits for the Yorba Linda City Clerk reflects a one-time
payout of $41,124 for unused paid time off.
7
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 4: City Engineer
I Total Compensation I
Cypress (22)
Anaheim (2)
Westminster (10)
Santa Ana (1)
Orange (6)
AVERAGE
Lake Forest (13)
La Habra (18)
Brea (24)
Hunt Beach (4)
F. Valley (19)
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
❑ Base Salary ❑ Benefits
• 2 cities reported a city engineer with a base salary over $100,000.
o Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
93
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
iii 3_44-
4b,560
161,808
#7,161
149,712. 53 ;578
' 1 4 0 388
55 79F_
73 -- - Fq
1,36,474 .1"r. 44
,4 7,052
0,544
v
13,818 28,
0_�'
1,4 27
07,723 24,
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
❑ Base Salary ❑ Benefits
• 2 cities reported a city engineer with a base salary over $100,000.
o Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
93
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 5: Finance
Total Compensation
L. Hills (28)
Irvine (3)
M. Viejo (9)
Anaheim (2)
F. Valley (19)
AVERAGE
Brea (24)
La Palma (32)
Stanton (25)
Aliso Viejo (23)
SJ Capistrano (27)
s�v ,193;296 `' • . � = •
A
�...�.• :s��': "f•�SY:
178,693 85;016 '
r5rw spy,"° r '�vtR. - • r••_gar�,.wr.^ „ ,yp,y. , ^ ,,..'r•w.•oq •y..w.
• .217,089 � • , 35,943
152,719 .: 54,317
r 124,738 EK• 37;175
�. mss.• Apr..., -..r .r• -.r... •
- ' • " x � � � 115,155 �Y' u � � � 43,538
=n; �r�. �...--
116,256- 38,173
�3 ,123,851
102,288 ' 37,191
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000
❑ Base Salary ❑ Benefits
• In some instances, the finance function reports to an Assistant
City Manager and that position also includes other functional
responsibilities.
• 31 cities report a finance position exceeding $100,000 base salary
• Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
• Anaheim, the 2nd largest city, has the highest base salary, while
Fullerton, the 7th largest has one of the lowest base salaries.
• The total benefits for the Yorba Linda Finance Director reflects a
one -time payout of $62,265 for unused paid time off.
9
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 6: Public Works
® 29 cities reported a public works position with a base salary above
$100,000.
• Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
10
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Total Compensation
L. Beach (30)
179,064'
Irvine (3)
:_ •• 18 ,203 71,270
Tustin (14)
169,611 _ -: '• • 82,553
L. Hills (28)
169,692 74;526. " -
Hunt Beach (4)
182
AVERAGE
RSM (21)
144,996 1,79
La Habra (18)
:154 513 ,0 8
La Palma (32)
1 8,027 - 46;709
Cypress (22)
07 052 -,, 32,857
Westminster (10)
104,052 33,659
$50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000
$0
Base Salary C3 Benefits
® 29 cities reported a public works position with a base salary above
$100,000.
• Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
10
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 7: Parks Recreation
I Total Compensation
Buena Park (12)
Orange (6)
NP Beach (11)
S. Clemente (16)
Irvine (3)
AVERAGE
La Palma (32)
Costa Mesa (8)
S. Beach (29)
L. Alamitos (33)
Placentia (20)
164,344'
154,651f 5
1 4' 39' 6 5,51 0
-
�14 ,S L7 ..'
3 '45,21
41,1
49,679'
'40,099 '
122,990. x 29-1
120,'5 1,541
I!;
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
1 0 Base Salary ❑ Benefits I
• 21 cities reported a parks & recreation position with a base salary
exceeding $100,000.
• Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
• The base salary spread is $55,465.
11
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 8: Community Development
Total Compensation]
Anaheim (2)
Irvine (3)
L. Hills (28)
L. Niguel (17)
S. Clemente (16)
AVERAGE
Placentia (20)
Y. Linda (15)
L. Alamitos (33)
Hunt Beach (4)
Allso Viejo (23)
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000
0 Base Salary 0 Benefits]
• 30 cities reported a community development position with a base
salary in excess of $ 100,000.
0 Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
12
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
.185,203'
61 , 71 7
90,374
15 778
!9,7
......
52
0
123,321 39,566'
15.
V11,002
OLN 8 1 616
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000
0 Base Salary 0 Benefits]
• 30 cities reported a community development position with a base
salary in excess of $ 100,000.
0 Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
12
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 9: Human Resources
Total Compensation
Anaheim (2)
Orange (6)
a Grove (5)
Hunt Beach (4)
NP Beach (11)
AVERAGE
SJ Capistrano (27)
M. Viejo (9)
Costa Mesa (8)
Buena Park (12)
Cypress (22)
8 A 20
. � .• ;rs*- q7y' +..wn-�•...».».a:xa _ —r7e , •wr
154 ;344 `57,229
•. ,.: - r 170,200
•4.�' AWS••1.' r..Yyyby,me .:gMww.•v ••,,,fix
151;736.. FF TT 54,734.
• " 153,785 50,097 '
.:, �. .. 13.4,,979 yy J 43 A 6' ..
�� 107,620 54,663
114,608 `� 40;743'
x• •: •:.. >, mac: z.:
- ;.'•.�: -1 109,245''` •• ` 38,329 "'
.--., ���� 11'0,'166 � - •�• • 30,992
?� 1'06,800
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
O Base Salary 0 Benefits
19 cities reported a human resources position with a base salary
above $100,000.
There does appear to be some correlation to city size.
13
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 10: Information Technology
I Total Compensation
G. Grove (5)
M. Viejo (9)
Santa Ana (1)
Irvine (3)
S. Clemente (16)
AVERAGE
Brea (24)
Hunt Beach (4)
Tustin (14)
Fullerton (7)
La Habra (18)
168,15 6
52.6'
ue -
56,87
ffi'd
44 50,idi
13 46,6 12 §3,791
36.20
106,621: 36,592
67 4,0961
�40tpz 30,264'
2
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
1 ❑ Base Salary ❑ Benefits �
• 19 cities reported an information technology position with a base
salary in excess of $100,000.
• Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
• The total benefits spread is $50,249.
14
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Chart 11: Building Official
Total Compensation]
NP Beach (11) 5 65
250 4
Costa Mesa (8) - L4 �2,
Santa Ana (1) 150.396
T .
S. Clemente (16) 06 - 9
127,92 5 ,652
7
Orange (6)
AVERAGE
Buena Park (1 2)
Anaheim (2) 80
Y. Linda (15)
Fullerton ( 7) 119.181
La Habra (18) j 17, 4 �2,501
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000
$250,000
1 ❑ Base Salary ❑ Ben=efits
19 cities reported a building official position with a base salary
above $100,000.
Total compensation does not correlate with city population.
Comparisons Outside Orange County:
For another perspective on compensation levels, comparisons were made
for the heads of selected functional positions in Orange County cities
with California cities of similar size outside of Orange County. This
comparison is based on total compensation, which includes salary and
certain benefit amounts. Since the Grand Jury did not collect
compensation information from cities outside of Orange County, it was
necessary to use the data reported on the California State Controller's
Internet website for this comparison. For this reason, the compensation
amounts shown on the following tables may be at variance with the
totals reflected in the preceding section and on the Appendices to this
report.
15
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
250 4
49,995'
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Large Cities:
City/
City
Community
Public
Finance
Human
Population
Manager
Development
Works
Resources
Santa Ana
$316,798
$233,189
$170,532
$197,084
$192,437
355,662
Anaheim
$327,486
$221,415
$226,150
$225,596
$220,982
348,467
Bakersfield
$294,551
$175,433
$188,443
$170,708
$136,278
333,719
$274,088
$217,339
$185,171
$179,106
$95,945
Riverside
$440,147
$212,174
$226,425
$194,830
$194,599
300,430
$357,155
$250,627
$268,419
$252,448
$245,154
138,826
Stockton
$310,374
$187,799
$186,825
$180,913
$184,530
290,409
In this comparison, the city managers are relatively consistent with the
exception of Riverside, which is considerably higher. For public works,
finance and human resources, Anaheim appears to be on the high side.
Medium Cities:
City/
City
Community
Public
Finance
Human
Population
Manager
Development
Works
Resources
Escondido
$304,747
$166,281
$156,907
$168,666
$157,323
144,831
Orange
$265,886
$210,062
$198,896
$203,879
$208,751
141,634
Elk Grove
$274,088
$217,339
$185,171
$179,106
$95,945
141,430
Sunnyvale
$357,155
$250,627
$268,419
$252,448
$245,154
138,826
Fullerton
$236,028
$182,269
$201,353
$174,733
$154,894
137,624
For this group, Orange and Fullerton are on the low side for City
Managers. For the finance and human resources positions, Sunnyvale is
clearly on the high side, with Orange not far behind.
16
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Small Cities:
City/
City
Community
Public
Finance
Human
Population
Manager
Development
Works
Resources
Laguna Hills
$380,054
$231,015
$217,381
$296,769
No Position
33,434
Burlingame
$239,629
$163,644
$199,059
$193,249
$172,963
29,060
Desert Hot
Springs
$263,246
$156,972
$141,275
$151,653
$149,274
26,552
Belmont
$229,632
$162,258
$164,039
$199,060
$164,006
26,250
Seal Beach
$274,790
$215,117
$216,453
$214,734
No Position
25,913
In this comparison, Laguna Hills is far higher for the City Manager and
Finance positions and, while the differences are not as great, is also on
the high side for the other positions compared.
Compensation Abuses:
As explained earlier, one of the principal reasons for this study and
report is to determine whether there are any compensation abuses in
Orange County cities similar to that which was discovered outside of
Orange County last year. Before going further, it should be recognized
that the term "abuse" is highly subjective in nature. A salary that would
seem abusive to one individual might represent a competitive level of pay
to another.
In an effort to determine a more objective standard for this term, two
recent sources are useful:
• The California Attorney General announced that he would look
into any city official's salary that exceeds $300,000.
• The California Public Employees' Retirement System (Ca1PERS)
launched a comprehensive review of any of its members who earn
more than $400,000 annually in salary.
Based on the data submitted to the Grand Jury by all 34 Orange County
cities, the highest paid city employee or official of the 1,847 positions so
reported is the Laguna Hills City Manager, with a base salary of
$233,592 and total compensation of $378,427. It is clear that this is a
17
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
substantial compensation level. As a point of reference in that regard,
the Chief Executive Officer for the County of Orange received total
compensation of $324,535, according to the State Controller website.
However, with due consideration to the benchmark compensation levels
noted above, the Grand Jury has concluded that there is no individual
compensation in any Orange County city which would rise to the level of
being considered as abusive.
Upper Level Positions:
While there is no finding of any individual abusive compensation level in
this report, the analysis did reveal a substantial number of positions in
municipal organizations with base salaries in excess of $100,000. A
summary of these results follows and the detailed listing of these
positions is included as Appendix 3a, 3b and 3c.
Number of $100K+ Positions per 10,000
Population
Laguna Beach (22) :°' - 8.73
Newport Beach (60) - 6.96
Irvine (106) 4.9.8.
Anaheim (173)
San Juan Capistrano (18) " ' 4.88'
Average
Placentia (8) 1.54
Lake Forest (12)
Aliso Viejo (6)
Laguna Woods (2) 1.08
Rancho Santa Margarita (4) 0:80
0 2 4 6 8 10
No. 100K Positions
The total number of $100K positions included in this analysis is indicated in
parentheses.
18
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
All of the cities in this analysis appear to have a fairly consistent number
of such upper level positions based on their population, with the
exception of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, which have a
considerably higher number. If these two cities had the average number
of positions over $100,000 based on their populations, Laguna Beach
would have eight such positions instead of 22, and Newport Beach would
have 27 instead of 62.
Also, from a review of Appendix 3a, it is worthy of note that, with fairly
similar populations, Santa Ana, Orange County's largest city, has 85
such positions, where Anaheim has more than double that number at
173. If Anaheim had the average number of over $100,000 positions
based on its population, they would have 106 such positions instead of
173.
Employment Contracts:
For the purpose of this report, the term "employment contract" is defined
as a written agreement between an individual employee and the city
setting forth the detailed terms, conditions and mutual obligations of the
employment.
The Grand Jury requested each city to provide contracts of employment
between the city and its employees, including but not limited to City
Manager/ Administrator. Although the contract provisions are distinct for
each city, it was found that the 114 employment contracts submitted
and reviewed appear to be well- reasoned with salary and benefit
provisions falling within the parameters of other cities.
The City of Huntington Beach has a contract with unique provisions for
the City Manager, providing a one -time $20,000 moving allowance and a
$200,000 real estate loan, either as a first or lower secured trust deed.
The real estate loan is to be forgiven at the rate of $28,571 per
employment year.
All contracts have provisions for both voluntary and involuntary
termination. None have a lifetime commitment or terms over three years
or automatic renewal for numerous years. An exception to this standard
is the City Manager of Laguna Woods, whose contract is for five years,
and unless notice of non - renewal is provided prior to the end of any
calendar year, an additional year is added to the remaining term and a
new five -year termination date is established.
No distinction was found between charter cities and general law cities as
it relates to paying salary or benefits earned by contract employees.
IV
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
While there is currently no disclosure of employment contract
information on most of the cities' websites, the Grand Jury is of the
opinion that employment contracts are important public information and
should be disclosed in the interest of public trust and confidence.
Transparency:
The best way to guard against abuse on the subject of governmental
employee compensation is to provide the public with effective
transparency. The most effective means of publishing compensation
information is on the Internet. Since all Orange County cities currently
have websites, the addition or enhancement of compensation information
on those websites should not impose any undue burden. Not only will
that publication serve the. citizens, but should also pre -empt numerous
information requests from media and other interested parties.
In order to achieve effective transparency on the subject of
compensation, salary and benefit information for senior level officials and
upper level employees of each city should be posted in a clear, concise
and consistent manner that is also easy for the public to access. In
evaluating the current state of municipal compensation transparency,
the Internet websites of all cities were graded on the following three
criteria:
Content - Does the city present both actual salary and benefit
costs? Are the items detailed separately and extensively?
Clarity - Is the compensation information presented in a clear,
concise format that may -be easily read and understood by the
average viewer? Are the salaries and benefits totaled, or is the
viewer required to do the math?
Accessibility - Is the compensation content readily identifiable and
accessible without complex website search and navigation? Note -
most websites include a search function with varying degrees of
effectiveness. For the purposes of this study, search functions were
not used.
Prior to discussing the grading, it should be noted that the Grand Jury
reviewed and evaluated the city website postings from the perspective of
the general public accessing the information for their personal use and
enlightenment. In contrast to this perspective, the current city salary
and benefit postings appear to be intended for either job applicants or
existing city employees. This difference in perspective may explain some
of the low grades.
20
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
For rating purposes, each website was assigned a letter grade (A -
Excellent, B - Good, C - Average, D - Poor, F - Non Existent) for each of
the three criteria noted above. This rating was done on February 1, 2011
and reveals a very wide disparity in the extent and quality of
compensation disclosure on city websites in Orange County.
21
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
City /Website
Content
Clarity
Accessibility
Aliso Viejo
C
C
A
Anaheim
C
C
B
Brea
C
C
B
Buena Park
C
C
A
Costa Mesa
B
C
C
Cypress
C
C
A
Dana Point
D
D
D
Fountain Valley
D
C
A
Fullerton
B
B
B
Garden Grove
C
C
A
Huntington Beach
D
D
D
Irvine
C
C
A
La Habra
C
B
A
La Palma
C
C
A
Laguna Beach
D
D
C
Laguna Hills
C
D
B
Laguna Niguel
D
C
C
Laguna Woods
B
B
C
Lake Forest
D
D
C
Los Alamitos
D
D
C
Mission Viejo
C
C
A
Newport Beach
D
D
C
Orange
D
D
A
Placentia
D
D
C
Rancho Santa Margarita
D
D
A
San Clemente
D
D
D
San Juan Capistrano
D
D
C
Santa Ana
D
D
C
Seal Beach*
F
F
F
Stanton
D
D
C
Tustin
D
C
B
Villa Park
C
C
A
Westminster
D
D
C
Yorba Linda
D
D
A
* The Seal Beach website was still under construction on the
date when this review was conducted.
22
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
State Controller Website:
Effective November 1, 2010, the California State Controller posted on his
official website certain salary and benefit information pertaining to all
California local governments. Based upon a thorough review, it was
found that the content of the State Controller's posting has a narrower
focus than this report. The principal differences are:
• For each position, actual salaries are not posted. Instead, only
minimums and maximums of established salary ranges (if in
existence) are shown, which is somewhat imprecise.
For actual total cash compensation, the Box 5 amount from the
employee's W -2 form is posted. Certain state and local government
employees hired prior to April 1, 1986 are exempt from mandatory
enrollment for Medicare coverage. Since Box 5 shows
compensation which is subject to Medicare tax, if the individual
did not enroll in Medicare, there is no amount reported in this box.
In Orange County, for positions covered by this study, there were
49 such individuals in calendar year 2009. Also, for partial year
employees, Box 5 presents an artificially low amount for annual
cash compensation.
The State Controller posting reflects any deferred compensation for
which the employee may be eligible, but no separate item for:
• Management, incentive or improvement bonuses,
• Automobile allowance, or
• Pay in lieu of paid time off
that may be paid. Of course; those amounts would be included in
Box 5 of the W -2 form, if the employee were subject to Medicare
tax.
• The posting covers all positions for each city. For the larger cities,
this results in a very lengthy list which may not be of any interest
to a reader who is interested only in upper level or elected
positions.
• The posting includes several major benefit amounts, but they are
not combined with cash compensation to reflect an overall total
compensation.
23
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
The differences in the method of calculating total compensation between
the State Controller and the model presented in this report does in fact
result in some fairly substantial variance in the bottom line amount
reported. These variances for the City Manager position in the nine
largest Orange County cities are shown below:
City
Total
Compensation -
State Controller*
Total
Compensation -
Grand Jury**
Percent
Difference
Santa Ana
$316,798
$337,351
6.5%
Anaheim
$327,486
$338,428
3.3%
Irvine
$282,186
$335,765
19.0%
Huntington Beach
$299,802
$317,234
5.8%
Garden Grove
$288,219
$328,525
14.0%
Orange
$265,886
$302,810
13.9%
Fullerton
$236,028
$255,518
8.3%
Costa Mesa
$255,757
$291,611
14.0%
Mission Viejo
$276,854
$308,786
11.5%
* Includes W -2 Box 5, Pension, Deferred Compensation and Insurance Premiums.
** Includes Base Salary, Fees, Incentives, Deferred Compensation, Pension Costs,
Pay in lieu of Time Off, Medicare Taxes and Insurance Premiums.
Compensation Disclosure Model:
In the interest of consistency and clarity in the disclosure of
compensation data for city officials and employees, the Grand Jury has
developed a model (Appendix 4) which could be posted onto the Internet
websites of all Orange County cities. The fundamental elements of the
model on the websites would provide that:
* Accessibility - The link from the home page to the
compensation webpage be a permanent feature, which is
prominently displayed and requires only one keystroke for
access.
Positions Reported - All employees earning a base salary rate
in excess of $100,000 per year and all elected officials be
reported. Elected officials be listed first, followed by employees
in descending order of salary amount. The posting of lower level
positions is not recommended in the interest of clarity. In the
event that all positions are listed, this same order of listing be
applied.
Note: The listing of names is not recommended.
e Salary Reporting - The actual annual base rate of salary be
shown, rather than range minimums and maximums or the Box
5 amount from the employee's W -2 form.
24
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
o Other Pay
• Fees - Any fees earned from city- sponsored boards,
committees or commissions
• Deferred Compensation
• Bonus - Any form of management, incentive or performance
improvement bonuses.
• Pay in Lieu of Time Off
• Automobile Allowance
• Insurance Premiums - Annualized amounts that the city pays
on the employee's behalf for medical, dental, vision, disability
and life insurance.
• Pension Costs - Annualized amounts that the city pays for
contributions to a pension plan (such as PERS) and Social
Security.
Total Compensation - Salary and benefit amounts be totaled
for a representation of the total compensation received for the
calendar year.
• Example - An illustration of this model as it would appear on a
webpage is shown on Appendix 4.
FINDINGS
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the
2010 -2011 Grand Jury requires responses from each city affected by the
findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to
the Presiding Judge of Superior Court.
Based on its investigation of the 34 cities of Orange County, the 2010-
2011 Orange County Grand Jury has seven principal findings, as
follows:
F. 1: Based on the data submitted, no position was found where the
compensation or employment contract was considered to be
abusive.
F.2: There is no discernable correlation between compensation levels in
charter vs. general law cities.
F.3: Compensation of individual high -level positions bears no
significant relationship to city population.
F.4: Public disclosure of municipal compensation levels is widely
inconsistent, ranging from good to non - existent.
25
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
F.5: With the exceptions of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the
number of high -level positions in each city is generally
commensurate with its population.
F.6: The compensation of the City Manager and Assistant City
Manager /Finance Director in the City of Laguna Hills exceeds
levels in other comparably sized cities both inside and outside of
Orange County.
F.7. There is currently no disclosure of written employment contracts
on the majority of cities' web sites.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following
recommendations:
In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the
2010 -2011 Grand Jury requires responses from each city affected by the
recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be
submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Based on its investigation of the 34 cities in Orange County, the 2010-
2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four
recommendations:
R.1: Transparency - All cities in Orange County report their
compensation information to the public on the Internet in an
easily accessible manner. The Compensation Disclosure
Model (Appendix 4) provides a sample as to the items that
should be included in determining total compensation.
R.2: Employment Contracts - Each city reveal any individual
employment contracts in an easily accessible manner.
R.3: Upper level Employees - The cities of Newport Beach and
Laguna Beach conduct a review of their organizations to
reconcile the necessity of maintaining a relatively large
number of upper level positions in relation to their
populations.
R.4: Compensation Levels - The City of Laguna Hills conduct a
compensation review of top officials.
26
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS:
The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the
Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to
comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such
comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes
its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report
containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency
headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such
comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an
information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors.
Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as
follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made:
(a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall
indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the
finding, in which case the response shall specify the
portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include
an explanation of the reasons therefore.
(b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or
entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a
summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but
will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for
implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an
explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis
or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared
for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the
governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it
is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation
therefore.
(c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary
or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an
elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of
Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the
response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those
budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision
making authority. The response of the elected agency or department
27
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations
affecting his or her agency or department.
Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance
with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the city council of
each of the following Orange County cities:
Responding Agency Findings
All Orange
County Cities F.4, F.7
Laguna Beach and
Newport Beach F.5
Laguna Hills F.6
Recommendations
R.1, R.2
R.3
R.4
28
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 1
O.C. Grand Jury Request for Municipal Compensation Data
Annual Compensation Amounts (Dollars) For the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2009
City of
Compensation Component (as described below):
Position Position Position Position Position
Component 1.
Per p a roll records
2.
Base Sala Second Position - if applicable)
Per payroll records
3.
Component 2.
4.
Management Incentives
Bonuses, Awards, Performance
Component 3.
Improvement Payments
5.
Deferred Compensation
City contribution to a deferred
Component 4.
compensation account
6.
Retirement
City cost of retirement plans such as
Plan
Component 5.
applicable
7.
Automobile Expenditures
Component 6.
p osition
8. Medical, Dental, Vision, Disability & Life Insurance
City cost for these benefits
Component 7.
9.
Unused Paid Time off Payouts
Include unused sick leave and
Component 8.
vacation leave payments
10. Employers Medicare Costs
City cost for Medicare contributions
11. Total per W -2
Component 9.
Component 10.
Component 11.
Component:
Description:
1.
Base Salary P imary Position
Per p a roll records
2.
Base Sala Second Position - if applicable)
Per payroll records
3.
Board / Commission fees
4.
Management Incentives
Bonuses, Awards, Performance
Improvement Payments
5.
Deferred Compensation
City contribution to a deferred
compensation account
6.
Retirement
City cost of retirement plans such as
Plan
PERS, (include Social Security - if
applicable
7.
Automobile Expenditures
City cost of auto allowance paid for the
p osition
8. Medical, Dental, Vision, Disability & Life Insurance
City cost for these benefits
p remiums
9.
Unused Paid Time off Payouts
Include unused sick leave and
vacation leave payments
10. Employers Medicare Costs
City cost for Medicare contributions
11. Total per W -2
Box 5 per W -2 report
Qz.
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendeix 2(a) City Council Compensation
$0 $ 10, OOO 520. 830.000 $40,000 $S0.0O0 $60.000
Irvine .. 27.120 • '"'" . .26.976 ,: ."
Anaheim 18 fi92 27,767
L WI5 '7,184' . • ° ` 37,226 e " . <. :. , . i
Tustin
HP Bach . - 20,259 ..
Buena Park -
_ i
Cypress '9964
SartaAre
Camp
8,260 ' 21,525
w .
_ i
Costa Mesa •11,424 46.364 I
Fullerton . 9A00`.
Westminster A ^• 70926 • 73.777 . "'
«. .r.:.
i
G Grove ^ ` -5,11 .. 18,642 "
gnea
'y � 9W • �i _
m Aliso Viejo - 6,240,
n
o RSM a 5,582 . 16,623 . • :. `
U I
o L *.d •_ , 1,800 ,16,604 -
a
Y. Linda .. 6,600 .. i3�35 C Base Salary
d ❑Benefits
Y ,
F. Valley 6 •- -.• 12,805. a:s„•'.-
T) Place 2,610 18,148
U - '
Si Capist— ^ 3,600, 12476
M. Viejo , ;; °`;12,000 '3,538
i
i
Gana Part 9,620" ' 5,024 "
Hub Beach 2.Iq1 '70,714
Lake Forest ".9,463 ,74
i
Stator
S. Beach "7,4 7
i
L Beach
i
La MBbra
L Alamitos ; ; sA
I
S. Derterde �0 I
La Palm
L Wooer .3600'
Villa Park
30
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 2(b) City Manager Compensation
$0 $50,000 $100,000 5150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $3og,000 $350,000 $400,000
L Fills
,;a',. : 233592
Buena Park
239,95 705,035 -
take Forst
Anaheim
_ 'm -" '" y' 258,361 ,2 % "'•- 90,077
Santa Ana
, '252,272 , r," r •`. `75,079
Inine
750,307 ,i
85,458 `
i
L Figud
226,200• '� '• `707,623' "' " " -
_
I
Cx Grow
t
95,029
Flunt Beach
M. Viejo
S. Clemenle
Grange
Tustin
Dana Point
m
Brea
U Cypress
p Costa Mesa
F
T
v L Beach
.%
m W Beach
m S. Beach
U F. Valley
RSM
We9tninster
Fullerton
SJ Capistrano
Placentia
Le Pdma
L Woods
Aliso Vlejo
Stanton
Y. Linda
La Flatsa
L Alamitos
Villa Park..`�,120,000.'`
I
I
i
r
i
p Base Salary
Benefits
i
t
t
r
'
1
I
"` . °A .. 247,212 '
_
y,, . ... :w,. -. -. -.
197,725 >.a. °_.: •.. .. 111,061
•,• , ` ' •193,).70. ;• •�; • 709,632 "
, � . �' '. ;c " '213,072 ' •'4' ,�..,.� 89,738
242,393. ' °•` ""' °` 55,532 �" "''"
203,488 ' a , s 93,14C
_ , w: - 210,559 • . N'- �•xe ' M - . , B2,B50, , h•.
,E.
_ 212,962
° .• ',+e v 271,011
. !• :.' ,:. 238,453 °;a
.�. ti • ,+e x'- 1190,747 " "-''� ' - • Y•'' - ' 89,977' ' ' `
_ 220.153. „ i ' :,x• : e : ^"`` r" _ _59,623• ';� ,
228,300' °' "°Y•ti ;� ,^„�' • 43,967, nya
'214 12 8 • i ; ' ' •' 47,501
, -. ^ ' 43,146•'"
169,829, , '? • -- ' 85,262',
789,264 ." " • 58,551
165,505`• , • 69,357 "� . , -•;
:.158,574 •,'° "`' ` ;` 70,574
'17fi,951'• 4 " " ' 51,242
198,845. -'
;tQ� ` • • ,F, 176,770.
? ' , . •;, 170,000.:sn •, • . ,� 26.849
65,045 " -
31
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 2(c) City Clerk Compensation
For cities shoving $0, the position vies not covered in the study
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
Costa Mesa
154,335 > x 65,872
Irvine
; - 155,584 ., : ' , . •;: ri' :: 54,583 "'
Buena Park
Y. Linda
Bra
NP Beach
Hunt Beach
Anaheim
Orange
Sarda Ana
M. Viejo
L. Fills
L Beach
Dana Point
'" 149,372 ;� 51,193
. . "°••^�-
.31,400
w
110,933 82,022
144,352 .. 42,631 '
145,964: �' ' ' ' ,; �. 38,143 '
„ ; ' - 40,647
Aliso Viejo
126,843 44,173
.7i'. , 111,329
711812.,, 57,262
27,846
42,335 '
51,304
:`' • 115,856 ; •" - 41,932
101210: 50502 °'
N
y S. Beach ® 115,118 ? "32,855'
n
o Stanton ".'' 107,760 '; s 37,470
U
o La Habra , " >, : 105641
F v Base Salary
Westminster v, .113,652. - 29,064 ❑Benefits
#^
32
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
J9
cypress
. . "°••^�-
.31,400
w
y
r
Aliso Viejo
.7i'. , 111,329
28,208'
U
Tustin
105,605 -
31,292
SJ Capistrano*
• ; ` 104,632 ''
, • '•; ,ri , ° 23,697
Fullerton
171;509'
16,799
L. Alandtos
100,158 '
23,8213
S. Clemente
Lake Forest
L Woods
G. Gno1e
L. Nguel
F. Valley
RSM
Placentia
La Palma
Villa Park
32
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
33
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
$0
Appendix 2(d) City Engineer Compensation
For cities stioWng $0, the position tees not covered in the study
$50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
N
N
rz
n
U
o
d
ca
N
a
U
Cypress
Anaheim
Westminster
Santa Arm
Orange
Fullerton
SJ Capistrano
Irvine
Stanton
L Beach
G.Gnne
Tustin
M. Viejo
S. Clemente
Dana Point
Costa Mesa
Placentia
NP Beach
Buena Park'
S Beach
lake Forest
La Habra
Brae
Hunt Beach
F. Valley
Y. Linda
L Niguel
RSM
Aliso Viejo
L Hills
L Woods
La Palma
L Alamitos
Villa Park
1g0,g8q - 1 53 308
,
Base Sala
Benefits
a. tie ... q..,: 171,844: 5t.'x... i.:;�:, 40,560'
' - 181,808" .: 'y ;. . ' -' ;° ' 47,181
;4149,712 '� ;•, ° ; •
5$578
: 140,388' - "' 55,735
.:161,463.' ' - 32,716
• "';°' .. "'153,338 ,. "!• 38,994
132,642'" < �.. 57,065
.. m. ::136,90:..,,' '. : ",4� 52,117
',134,928•
148,292•; 41,109;
c' ,; 127,920 .. ` ' '55,7
, 130205 52,423
55,154 '
r
" °" 127204 y'o ' , 50,029 '"
- ``'` ;•132;132 "' ^�<" " 39,853
' 123,052: .' "�:• 47,744
•xt 'r. •i.s:
w
'',`,k", 120,67.9 ' x"' 36,955
''110,369 ' "a •, "47,052,,v,•~
•' ` ��" , 128,723 °a` 20,544
" y°• 113,819 '° 26,926
'•' 111,487,, • : 27,338"
33
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 2(e) Finance Compensation
For cities showng $0, the position iiies riot covered in the study
$0 $50,000 $100.000 $150.000 $2W,000 $250,000 $300,000
_
L Hills 107,9 `
Vk.
M. Viejo
k178.693
Ariaheirn
217,009 35
F. Valley 152,300 J
Y. Uncle 13.8-820
Placentia 151561. 88,706
G. Grow 7 , 7 60.023
is
Ci-
E
0
2
1 0
a)
_e
C
Orange
La Habra
Westminster
L Beach
Buena Park
S. Beach
Santa Aria
Lake Famet
Tustin
Hurt Beach
costa mesa
RSM
NP Beach
L Alamitos
S. Clemente
Dana Point
Cypress
L Ifiguel
Fullerton
Brea
Lis Palma
Stanton
Allso Viejo
SJ Capistrano
L Woods
Villa Park
64473
�4.473
El Base Salary
0 Benefits
162,238 .
156 , 384 ` .. :
157 ,506
168.246 15.736
• "wo 49
142,9 50.700
•
-IRII 118,3011
T
75,438
I
138,000 13,171
$2,022
122,460
28,804 39
34.608
— 153.2 - A2.74P
124,73 - 38,175 ,
7 43,538 •
36.173
'29.646'
102,288
M.
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 2(1) Public Works Compensation
For cities shoving $0, the position vies riot covered in the study
$0 $50,000 $100,0D0 $150,000 s200,000 $250,000 $300,000
L Beach
-qvv
— 7
Irvine 185 -M
Tustin
L Hills
Hurt Beach 535.�
-
Anaheim "x 1 87 , 988
Orange
G Grove
SJ CePiStrdW
Costa Mesa
Buena Park
xa, wta s °'148075, zees ::67407
S. Clemente
Dana Point
4. S. Beach
0 NP Beach
CL M
E
0 F. Valley . . . . . .
r -'l- F-M —E7
la k e Forest
0 0 Base Salary
>1 , N 1.1 1 . . , n,
L Niguel 6246 . , , 13 Benefits
" `�8.525
C M. Viejo
4 ^ ',14d,77
to
F
Brea
Fullerton w �i52,972 30,784
Placentia 1
Y,
Sarta Ana
RSM
%
La Wis
La Palma
Cypress
Westminster
:.A
Allso Viejo
Y Linda
Stanton
L Woods
L. Alamitos
Villa Park
35
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
36
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
$0
Appendix 2(g) Parks and Recreation Compensation
For cities shoviing $0, the position vies not covered in the study
$510.01010 $100,000 $150,000 $200,00D $250,000
o
E
0
L)
0
C
Ir
(a
L)
Buena Park
Orange
NP Beach
S. Clemente
(nine
M. Viejo
Santa Arm
Stanton
Lake Forest
Tustin
Cypress
Anaheim
Fullerton
Hunt Beach
Y Linda
Dena Point
La Palma
Costa mesa
S. Beach
L Alamitos
Placentia
Aliso Majo
G. Grins
Westminster
L Niguel
La Habra
F. Valley
RSM
Brea
SJ Capistrano
L. Hills
L. Beach
L Woods
Ville Park
16 8 Z46 '
I
0 Base Salary
13 Benefits
` ' '.154,344 ; '' • m,kr 67.833
_
—154658 55,698"•
65,510
149
59,62
58,783 ,
0,639
144,580 • : 1 '51,702 -
- T
45,909'.1
41,34?
'143,0B
_32,34
4 6 , 708
111 . 53 - J
120 -M .2 44,594
120 42.154
-
.7 •
_49,67
40.09
J _29.908
20
36
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Anaheim
Irvine
L Frills
L. Niguel
S. Clemente
L. Beach
G. Grove
Lake Forest
S. Beach
Dana Point
Buena Park
Costa Mesa
co M \Aejo
Cypress
E
0 SJ Capistrano
L)
0 Brea
Tustin
C: NP Beach
CU
Santa Ana
La Palma
La Habra
Westminster
Fullerton
RSM
Stanton
Placentia
Y. Linda
L Alamitos
Hunt Beach
Aiso Viejo
F. Malley
L. Woods
Mile Park
Appendix 2(h) Community Development Compensation
For cities showng $0, the position vies not covered in the study
$50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
$300,000
0 Base Sala
Salary
11 Benefits
— 47.5
81,259
90,374
so, 768
64195
IiO
70058
- Z--!; ,
� i d Orange
. . ... 94.088
666d C, A
A , t
I,'-
:, 143 , 788 '
T
56,508'
153254`�
43.079
'49,67
8 3 0
`lei i7t
32,828
5 � 3 :
77121.2 ,04, 4892'
4 39,5M
1
23,ILS 30,524
b.!�02�7
4,82t
37
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 2(1) Human Resources Compensation
For cities shoWng $0, the position vies riot covered in the study
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150.000 $200.000 $250,000
Anaheim
18 K
Orange
G. Grow
0 V4.
Hunt Beach
77-7
NP Beach
...
7777
Santa Ana
Wrie
PT 1 7, 77
Tustin
2,
2A5 - 3a�
L Beach
S Clemente
Fullerton
cz. 4 y
Westminster
1 L3. I
Lake Forest
F. Valley
C
CL a) SJ Capistrano
E
0 M. Viejo
Costa Mesa
F-
......... .....
13 Base Salary
Ba Salary
Buena Park
-
13 Benefits
ar
its
a)
C Cypress
lr
U) Y. Linda
L Niguel
La Habra
RSIA
Placentia
Allso Vigo
Brea
Stanton
Dana point
L Hills
S. Beach
L Woods
La Palma
L. Alamitos
Villa Park
w
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
IC T IX
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 20) Information Technology Compensation
For cities shoming $0, the position vas not covered in the study
$D $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
E .
CL
0
L)
F-
a)
M
co
(D
G. Grme
M. Viejo
Santa Ana
Irvine
S. Clemente
Costa Mesa
Y. Linda
NP Beach
Westminster
F. Valley
Anaheim
Cypress
Brea
Hint Reach
Tustin
Fullerton
La Habra
Dana Point
Buena Park
Orange
Lake Forest
L Niguel
RSM
Placentia
Aliso Moo
Stanton
SJ Capistrano
L Fills
S. Beach
L Beach
L Woods
La Palma
L Alamitos
Villa Park
0 Base Salary
0 Benefits
50,
'4p
"124,862
A
1
34 -m —
""118;992
................ .2T
.......
........ .......
IC T IX
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 2(k) Building Official Compensation
For cities shorting $0, the position toes not covered in the study
$0 $50.000 $100,000 $150,DOO $200,000 $250,DO0
NP Beach
ILE."
Costa Mesa
Santa Ana
8
S. Clemente
1219 0
Orange
4;A-Ti I
Irvine
-- '128,252
L. Beach
131 " I .833
Dane Point
Cypress
.112 -PPO j 47.0
Brea
9,491
SJ Capistrano
Westminster
Tustin
4
HuntBeach
••120,120;
Buena Park
Anaheim
..... .... 1116,801,"
Y. Linda
0 Bas: Salary
L05&2
Fullerton
Ben
C) fits
La Habra
L. Woods
G. Grime
M. Viejo
Lake Forest
L. Niguel
F. Valley
RSM
Placentia
Aliso Viejo
Stanton
L Hills
S. Beach
La Palma
L. Alamitos
Villa Park
EX
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 3a Number of City Positions Paying over $100 K
City
Population
No.Positions
over $100K
No. Positions
per 10,000
population
Anaheim
348
173
4.96
Irvine
212
106
4.98
Huntington Beach
202
90
4.44
Santa Ana
355,662
85
2.39
Newport Beach
86,252
60
6.96
- Orange
141,634
39
2.75
Costa Mesa
116,479
33
2.83
Garden Grove
174,715
33
1.89
Fullerton
137 624
31
2.25
Tustin
74,825
28
3.74
San Clemente
68,316
25
3.66
Mission Viejo
100,242
23
2.29
Laguna Beach
25,208
22
8.73
Buena Park
83
21
2.52
San Juan Capistrano
3-6-,8-70-
18
4.88
Brea
40,176
17
4.23
Westminster
93
16
1.72
Cypress
49
15
3.02
Fountain Valley
58,309
15
2.57
Dana Point
37,082
14
3.78
La Habra
62,822
14
2.23
Yorba Linda
68,399
14
2.05
Lake Forest
78 344
12
1.53
Laguna Niguel
67
11
1.64
Seal Beach
25
9
3.47
Stanton
39
8
2.03
Placentia
51,932
8
1.54
Laguna Hills
33,434
7
2.09
Aliso Viejo
45,683
6
1.31
La Palma
16,205
5
3.09
Los Alamitos
12,217
4
3.27
Rancho Santa Margarita
49 704
4
0.80
Laguna Woods
18,477
2
1.08
Villa Park
6,276
1
1.59
Average
3.21
* Excludes Police, Fire, Great Park and Electric Utility positions
41
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 3b Laguna Beach Salaries over $100K *
POSITION
SALARY
City Manager
- 2 - 3 - 8 ) 453
Asst City Manager
179,064
Dir of Public Works
179,064
Dir Community Development
163,002
Dir of Finance and IT
157 506
Asst City Engineer
134 628
Finance Officer
133
Personnel Services Mgr
129,252
Mgr
129 252
- Planning
Official
129,252
- Building
Admin
129,252
- Zoning
Dpty Dir of Public Works
129
Official
129,252
- Building
Project Dir
129 252
City Clerk
115,656
Senior Plan Checker
114,053
CAD RMS Project Mgr
110 676
Dir of Community Services
108 765
Computer Network Admin
108,623
Principal Planner
102 817
Principal Planner
102
Principal Planner
102,817
* Excludes Police, Fire, Great Park and Electric
Utility Positions
42
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 3c Newport Beach Salaries over $100K *
POSITION
SALARY
City Attorney
220,000
City Mgr
190
Asst City Mgr
179,424
Public Works Dir
170,768
Gen Services Dir
166
Asst City Attorney
159,805
Dpty PW Dir /City Eng
159,224
Building Dir
154,665
Planning Dir
154
Rec & SR Service Dir
154
Human Resources Dir
153,785
Dpty Admin Services Dir
145,964
Library Services Dir
145,195
Dpty Bldg Official
142
Dpty Gen Svcs Dir
138,923
City Traffic Eng
138,778
Asst City Eng
138,778
Asst City Eng
138 778
Revenue Mgr
135,481
Finance Officer
135
Civil Eng Principal
132,132
Risk M r
128,991
Human Resources Mgr
128,991
Public Infor Mgr
123,446
IT Apps Su v
121,274
PW Finance Admin Mgr
120,910
Civil Eng Sr
118
Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check
118,851
Civil Eng Sr 1
118 851
-
Civil En Sr - Pla 1
118
POSITION
SALARY
Civil En g, Sr
118,851
Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check
118,837
Civil En g, Sr
117,149
Civil En g, Sr
117,149
Park & Tree Supt
116,875
Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check
115
Planning Mgr
115,138
GIS Su v
113,318
IT O ers Su v
113,318
Human Resources Su v
112,060
Civil Eng Sr - Plan Check
111,821
Recreation Supt
111,738
Dpty City Attorney P T
110,628
Civil En g, Principal
110,201
Lifeguard Battalion Chief
108
Apps Coord P.D.
108,056
Telecom Network Coord
107,588
EMS Mgr
106,756
PIO -Video
106,142
Pers Comp/Network Coord
106,072
Accountant, Principal
104,166
Planner, Principal
104,125
Sr Services Mgr
103,303
Civil Eng Assoc 5%
102,835
Construction Ins ec Supt
102,835
Civil Eng Assoc 5%
102
Human Resources Analyst, Sr
101,650
Civil Eng Assoc 5%
101
Field Maint Supt
100,581
O ers Siipport Supt
100
* Excludes Police, Fire, Great Park and Electric Utility Positions
43
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011
Appendix 4 Compensation Disclosure Model
POSITION
SALARY
OTHER
PAY*
INSUR
PREMS
PENSION
COSTS
TOTAL
COMP
* Includes Fees, Deferred Compensation, Incentive Bonus, Auto
Allowance and Pay in Lieu of Time Off.
44
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY 2010/2011