HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental - Goldberg QuestionsRobin Roberts
From:
Robert Goldberg <rgoldberg@live.com>
Sent:
Sunday, November 12, 2017 9:49 PM
To:
Mike Varipapa; Sandra Massa-Lavitt; Thomas Moore; Ellery A. Deaton; Schelly Sustarsic;
Jill Ingram; Vikki Beatley; Steve Myrter, Patrick Gallegos
Cc:
Robin Roberts; Charles Kelly
Subject:
Monday Questions and Possible Funding Sources for Two Police Officers
Attachments
11.13.17.Questions l.doc; Police position money l.pdf
Dear Council and Staff,
Please find attached my questions for Monday night's agenda. Most of these are on the Class/Comp study. I
would greatly appreciate if these could be shared with the consultant and perhaps addressed during their
presentation.
I have also attached my stab at "squeezing blood from a tumip"-- finding pockets of budgeted General Fund
operational expenditures that could possibly be reallocated to police salary, rather than borrowing from the
swimming pool reserve. This analysis is two pages long, so be sure to page down.
Thank you for your service,
Robert Goldberg
Questions & Comments for 11/13/17
Item A: Strategic Objectives
The City Manager has repeatedly stated the objectives represent tasks or projects that are
above and beyond the routine work of staff.
Given this characterization, why is completion of the winter berm and backpass project
which is routine and reoccurring, included as one of the objectives?
Item B: Class Como Study
Staff Report: The bottom of page 2 states that staff is not asking the Council to make a
determination on whether to implement the study.
Is staff planning to implement any of the recommendations in the near future without
Council approval? For example, the reclassification recommendations fornumerous
employees found on pages 4 and 5 of Volume 1, Appendix 1?
If staff is not going to implement any of recommendations without Council approval,
how will they then proceed to incorporate the revised classification specifications into
the Citywide Succession Plan (Strategic Objective D.1, due 11113/17)? Is it the position of
staff that the adoption of revised classification specifications does not need Council
approval?
Vol II, Compensation Study: Regarding the employer cost of retirement benefits, Page 4
indicates that the extra cost for offering a 12 -month average final salary (vs. a 36 -month) is
considered in the calculation of Total Compensation. However, besides paying extra for this
enhanced benefit, we also pay extra to CaIPERS to provide Post-retirement Survivor Allowance
(PRSA). In fact, the PRSA benefit actually costs us more to provide than the 12 -month average
final salary benefit.
Is this benefit typical in the comparator cities? If not can it added to our total
compensation costs?
On page 4-5, the study discusses how the monetary value of holidays are computed and states
that this is based on the number of holiday "hours." While not discussed here, the subsequent
calculations indicate that the study assumed one holiday equals 8 hours. However, this is
frequently not the case with our union -represented employees who work 9/80, 4/10 (Marine
Safety), or 3/12 (Police) schedules. Instead, they receive additional holiday hours if the holiday
falls on a 9, 10, or 12 hour regularly scheduled workday.
Is this benefit typical in the comparator cities? If not can it added to our total
compensation costs?
Compensation Report Appendix 11, page 10b, benefit detail for City Clerk includes two cities, EI
Segundo and Hermosa Beach, with monthly salaries that way below the range of the other 10
comparators.
Is City Clerk a full-time position at these two cities?
Compensation Report Appendix II, page 10b, benefit detail for City Clerk for Seal Beach does
not include a $75/month cell phone allowance nor an $850/year wellness program allowance.
The former is a long standing benefit. The latter was added on 2/15/17, within the
compensation survey period of December 2016- March 2017 (see page 5, Data Collection).
Why are these benefits not included in the tally of total compensation?
Note that these two benefits and the question above also apply to the classifications of Finance
Director, Marine Safety Chief, Assistant City Manager, Director of Public Works, and Community
Development Director.
Compensation Report Appendix II, page Ila, shows the top monthly salary for the City Manager
for Seal Beach at $18,567. However, this was recently raised retroactively to $19,217, effective
as of 1/1/17.
Since the salaries in the study are intended to reflect those in effect during December
2016 through March 2017 survey period (see page 5, Data Collection), should not our
City Manager's salary be revised to reflect her retroactive top salary during this period?
Note that the City Managers 1/1/17 retroactive salary of $19,217 is 4.7% below the
comparator median salary vs. the 8.6% reported on page Ila.
Compensation Report Appendix 11, page llb, shows the benefits for City Managers. During the
December 2016 through March 2017 survey period, our City Managers deferred compensation
was $13,500/year or $1,125/month.
Why is a lower figure of $833 shown on page 11b?
In figuring the dollar value of our City Managers vacation leave on page llb, the study uses an
annual vacation leave of 152 hours. However, the study method states on page 5 that the
number of hours should reflect vacation hours at 5 years after hire. Per our City Manager's
contract, she was to receive 176 hours of vacation as 7/1/16, which is five years after her hire
date.
Why is a lower figure of 152 hours used as her annual vacation leave?
Our City Manager receives a $500/month auto allowance.
Why is this amount not entered under "auto allowance" on page 11b?
Making these corrections, yields a total compensation for our City Manager of $25,786 (3.8%
below median) vs. the figure of $24,021(11.6% below median) presented in the study:
Presented on
Page 11b Corrected
Monthly Salary
$18,567
$19,217
Employee Retirement
$251
$259
Deferred Compensation
$833
$1,125
Insurance
$1,664
$1,664
Life
$11
$11
LTD
$53
$53
Vacation
$1,357
$1,626
Holidays
$857
$887
Admin Leave
$428
$443
Auto Allowance
$0
$500
Total Monthly
Compensation $24,021 $25,786
Average of Comparators
$26,784
$26,784
%Seal Beach Below
-11.5%
-3.7%
Median of Comparators
$26,797
$26,797
% Seal Beach Below
-11.6%
-3.8%
Compensation Report Appendix II, page 28b, benefit detail for Marine Safety Chief for Seal
Beach shows $0 for auto allowance. However, this position is allowed to home garage a city
vehicle and use this vehicle for personal use. Per the study methodology on page 5, the value of
such a benefit is to be entered as $450/month.
Shouldn't $450/month be entered as auto allowance for our Marine Safety Chief?
Note that adding in the value of this benefit raises the total compensation of our Marine Safety
Chief from $15,669 (7.7% below median) to $16,119 (4.5% below median).
Compensation Report Appendix II, page 30b, benefit detail for Police Chief for Seal Beach shows
$0 for auto allowance. However, the contract for the former incumbent for this position
provided a city vehicle that was home garaged and available for personal use. Per the study
methodology on page 5, the value of such a benefit is to be entered as $450/month.
Shouldn't $450/month be entered as auto allowance for our Police Chief?
Note that adding in the value of this benefit raises the total compensation of our Police Chief
from $24,572 (7.6% below median) to $25,022 (5.3% below median).
Compensation Report Appendix II, page 32b, benefit detail for Police Officer for Seal Beach
does not reflect that our MOU provides for employee payment to CalPERS of 3% of the
Employer Contribution.
Shouldn't this be entered as a minus amount (employer credit) to the cost of the total
monthly compensation?
Note that subtracting the value of this employer subsidy reduces the total compensation of our
Police Officers from $12,525 (6.8% above median) to $12,262 (3.9% above median).
Item F: Landscape Maintenance Contract
Page 2 of the staff report states that extending the current contract for a second year (FY 18-
19) would result in a significant cost savings to the City (presumably vs. issuing an RFP with the
proposed scope of service).
What is the estimated cost savings amount?
Item G: Supplemental Police Officer Staffing
The first paragraph of the staff report states that "Over the last 4 years the revenues for the
City have declined." However, page 34 of the Adopted FY 17-18 Budget shows that Total
General Fund Revenues (which fund police officer salaries) have increased by over $1 million
over the last 4 years:
FY 2014-15 Actual
FY 2015-16 Actual
FY 2016-17 Projected
FY 2017-18 Ado ted
$29,106,232
$29,156,733 1
$29,697,300
li $30,195,900
What is the basis for the contrary statement in the staff report?
If the Council approves two additional positions Monday night, actual employment dates for
these two new officers will not likely be immediate. I would think that, even in the best case
scenario where recruitment and background screening have been completed already with a
"waiting list" of eligibles, actual employment would not begin until December. However, the
budget amendment is for a full year of funding.
Why is budget amendment for FY 17-18 not for dollar amount of the likely FY 17-18 costs
(at most 7/12 times $358,900, or $209,358)?
N
y
n
e
N
n
a
�
g
0
c
8
QQ
4
4
4
8«
8
8
8
a
t3:
O g
X
m
9
003
q
ww
F m8E
E i W W
u 9
A C
r ! dQ
Z L
O g
L
L N
2y
8
O
°Yo>id
3cj min°u
EdEg
cm£v
u�m
y—
v ° d v
g
E_ E
c
a
y
o
E
i
v_
q a
e
Qc..
E
y
25
o
gC
25
o
r_
N
Q O
O
A
2 C a
a
O
C
9
d
N
uAi
_N O'
V O
r O pp
0dppp d
N H
a
N
O A y
n C
C 6
E'
C O 6
a
O W
'V O
C
—.
u
S y E
d'
v. 3
c c
¢
v L
m✓
N O N
C�
�—
w
n
'd'
N m
2
c tits
-_
B
9
w
am
S
$
IEE
u
°
S
6
E
8
QQ£
S
L
4
Y!
Z
-
d
a
c
N
�'
Cp� .j(
CCy�
�jryd
W
�1
p� yV
OeC
pq
V
N
m
m
A
3
3 a
O
u
i
E d
a c
c
a
a
r
N
s
E `o 0
o c g
`o
0orU.MI
ss
06 E E �. E E a A
gsQ;Eo9o�
d y M O t F p° gi
figq'=�i=as
S qi ° E c2,v5
g
15 v
a
E
s
0
Y d N
p
-
�z
�E
E
s