20150303 Late CorrespondenceCITY OF RA.NCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 3, 2015
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA**
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No.
5
Carla Morreale
Description of Material
Email from Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) Employee
Association; Koff & Associates response to RPV Employee
Association
**PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, March 2, 2015**.
W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150303 additions revisions to agenda.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
rpvemployeesassociation < rpvemployeesassociation@gmail.com >
Monday, March 02, 2015 5:43 PM
cc@rpvca.gov
CityClerk
Fwd: RE: CITY OF RPV CLASS/COMP STUDY
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
Please accept the Employees' Association comments and questions regarding the Classification/Compensation
study (Agenda item no.5). Although some comments are related to errors found in the draft report (some
corrected in the final report), the data comparison methodology concerns are still relevant to the final study
product. As stated in the comments below, the Association reiterates that we are not waiving the right to
disagree with, and meet and confer, the impacts resulting from the final study product or its implementation.
We understand that the study results are a tool the City wishes to use during the negotiation process. With that
in mind, we look forward to working with the City's labor negotiation team in the near future.
Respectfully submitted,
Board of Rancho Palos Verdes Employees Association
--------Original message --------
From: Georg Krammer <GK.rammer@koffassociates.com>
Date:02/20/2015 8:28 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: rpvemployeesassociation <rpvemployeesassociation@gmail.com>
Cc: Sean Robinson <SRobinson@rpv.com>
Subject: RE: CITY OF RPV CLASS/COMP STUDY
Dear Board Members,
Thank you for taking the time to review the draft classification and compensation report that K&A submitted
to the City and for communicating your questions and concerns about the report. We will address your
questions and concerns over the next few days and respond to you in writing.
Thank you again and best regards,
Georg
1 5
S. Kramrner
Chief Executive
www.KoffAssociates.com
Street ! CA 94710 ! 510.658.5633
From: rpvemployeesassociation [mailto:rpvemployeesassociation@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 6:13 PM
To: Georg Krammer
Cc: Sean Robinson
Subject: CITY OF RPV CLASS/COMP STUDY
Subject: CITY OF RPV CLASS/COMP STUDY
February 19, 2015
Dear Mr. Krammer:
In review of the draft study results provided to the City Council on February 3, 2015, the Rancho Palos Verdes
Employees Association wishes to express that it is not waiving its right disagree with, and meet and confer
regarding, the impacts resulting from final classification and compensation study product as well as its
implementation. Rather, the Board is informing you of certain issues and questions relating to the draft study
analysis.
At this time, the Board offers the following comments to the report's compensation analysis:
2
1. Building Inspector II position. Apparently, the comparator agencies' inspectors are akin to a Building
Inspector I position in the City of RPV. Koff & Associates should ensure an "apples-to-apples" comparison is
being made.
2. The draft Compensation report, page 3-212, contains a misleading statement regarding "Total Compensation"
relating to the 75th percentile. Last sentence, last paragraph of page 3-212 for the summary of the 75th
percentile total compensation reads the same as that of the summary for the median salary market. Provided that
Koff & Associates is trying to convey where RPV salaries and total compensation compares to a 75th percentile
target, an accurate description of the 75th percentile summary should report that RPV classifications are only
.8% above the 75th percentile for the market salaries, but the RPV's total compensation is -5.3% below the 75th
percentile mark.
3. The City of San Juan Capistrano provides a uniform/boot allowance for its maintenance workers, building
inspectors and code enforcement officers with an annual pants allowance of $360, work boots up to $160 per
pair (two pairs max annually, and a shirt allowance (unknown amount). The draft Compensation report, thus the
benefit analysis, only accounts for $20 for those positions. Ref (Volume II Appendix IIb ). This is just one
example of a benefit afforded to other cities, yet not accounted for in the benefit costs and analysis. Koff &
Associates should ensure that they are reporting accurate benefit amounts. This would include that the "other"
benefit category incorporates the costs for post-retirement health insurance benefits, certification pay, stand by
duty pay, bilingual pay, etc.
The Board also wishes to make the following inquires as to the study methodologies and data analysis:
1. With respect to the City Council's direction for Koff & Associates to incorporate RPV's Tier 1 retirement
plan, 2.5%@ 55, into the compensation report analysis ... what is the methodology to that will be used to
compare retirement plans?
2. How are vacation hours and holiday days calculated? Not all employees have the 5 year plus vacation accrual
hours. Furthermore, some agencies have multiple MOUs with varying vacation accrual rates. How was this
rectified?
3. Does Koff & Associates intend to update and include into the data analysis max. month salaries for those
cities which received salary adjustments in January 2015?
Lastly, Koff & Associates may wish to consider modifying the summary table found on page 3-217 because the
summary table doesn't clearly display the benefit costs used to calculate the Total Monthly Compensation. It is
apparent that the benefit compensation is, on average, much less than that of the comparator cities, yet the data
which shows the benefit costs is contained in a different appendix (Volume II Appendix IIb). Presently, the only
way to see the benefit costs for each benchmark classification is to rifle through pages of appendices (Volume II
Appendix Ilb) or for one to manually calculate the difference between the position max salary and the RPV
Total Monthly Compensation columns. It is suggested that the summary table could be made clearer if both
salary data and benefit cost data are displayed as a single table with Total Monthly Employee Compensation as
a separate table.
As you prepare your follow-up report to the City Council, you may wish to consider the aformentioned
comments. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Board of Rancho Palos Verdes Employees Association
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sean Robinson
Tuesday, March 03, 2015 3:32 PM
cc
FW: Feedback Response
RPV EA Response Memo .docx
Hello Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
The Memo from Koff and Associates to the Employee Association is attached.
Thank you
Sean
Sean M. Robinson
Human Resources Manager
L· City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Manager's Office
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
srobinson@rpvca.gov -Off (310) 544-5331 -Fax (310) 544-5281
WE ARE IN PROCESS OF SWITCHING TO A NEW WEB AND EMAIL DOMAIN. PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL AND IF I AM
IN YOUR CONTACTS, SWITCH MY EMAIL FROM SROBINSON@RPV.COM to SROBINSON@RPVCA.GOV
From: Georg Krammer [mailto:GKrammer@koffassociates.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 2:18 PM
To: Sean Robinson
Subject: Fwd: Feedback Response
FYI
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kendra Reich <KReich@koffassociates.com>
Date: March 3, 2015 at 2:15:11 PM PST
To: "m_vemployeesassociation@gmail.com" <rpvemployeesassociation@gmail.com>
Cc: Georg Krammer <GKrammer@koffassociates.com>
Subject: Feedback Response
Good Afternoon,
1 5 ..
We apologize for the delay; attached you will find our response to the feedback we received regarding
the final classification and compensation reports. The changes we incorporated will be included in the
final report that will be presented to the City Council this evening.
Best,
!\endra
Firm 1,:;ss,oc1ate
www.KoffAssociates.com
Linkedln
2
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Board of Rancho Palos Verdes Employees Association
Georg Krammer, Project Manager
Draft Classification and Compensation Final Report
February 24, 2015
Thank you for articulating your concerns in writing regarding the classification and
compensation study draft final reports. We have reviewed your feedback and below is our
response.
1. Building Inspector II position. Apparently, the comparator agencies' inspectors are akin
to a Building Inspector I position in the City of RPV. Koff & Associates should ensure an
"apples-to-apples" comparison is being made.
K&A Response: Originally the City's Building Inspector I was the benchmark that was
selected for the market survey. We found that only one of the comparator agencies had
an appropriate match for the Building Inspector I classification. Therefore, we decided to
survey the Building Inspector II classification to ensure sufficient matches and ensure that
the City would have a stronger data pool for purposes of determining appropriate
compensation levels. Based on our analysis, the classification comparisons from the
survey agencies are appropriate matches for the City's Building Inspector II, based on the
body of work performed and the required qualifications such as knowledge, skills, abilities,
education, training, and certifications. An appropriate compensation level for the Building
Inspector I would typically be based off of the compensation data for the benchmarked
Building Inspector II
2. The draft Compensation report, page 3-212, contains a misleading statement regarding
"Total Compensation" relating to the 75th percentile. Last sentence, last paragraph of
page 3-212 for the summary of the 75th percentile total compensation reads the same as
that of the summary for the median salary market. Provided that Koff & Associates is trying
to convey where RPV salaries and total compensation compares to a 75th percentile
target, an accurate description of the 75th percentile summary should report that RPV
classifications are only .8% above the 75th percentile for the market salaries, but the
RPV's total compensation is -5.3% below the 75th percentile mark.
K&A Response: We have updated the final compensation report to reflect your feedback.
3. The City of San Juan Capistrano provides a uniform/boot allowance for its maintenance
workers, building inspectors and code enforcement officers with an annual pants
allowance of $360, work boots up to $160 per pair (two pairs max annually, and a shirt
allowance (unknown amount). The draft Compensation report, thus the benefit analysis,
only accounts for $20 for those positions. Ref (Volume II Appendix llb). This is just one
example of a benefit afforded to other cities, yet not accounted for in the benefit costs and
analysis. Koff & Associates should ensure that they are reporting accurate benefit
amounts. This would include that the "other" benefit category incorporates the costs for
Koff & Associates Page 1
post-retirement health insurance benefits, certification pay, stand by duty pay, bilingual
pay, etc.
K&A Response: For the purposes of the compensation study, we do not include an amount
for uniforms that are provided by the City or reimbursement amounts, because this is a
"use it or lose it" type of benefit that not all incumbents in each classification take
advantage of. The City of San Juan Capistrano provides certain classifications with
uniform shirts. Additionally, the City will reimburse certain classifications up to $160 per
pair of works boots up to two pairs per year.
We did include the $360 pant allowance for applicable classifications, which amounted to
$30 per month as seen in the benefits detail spreadsheets.
The Board also wishes to make the following inquires as to the study methodologies and
data analysis:
1. With respect to the City Council's direction for Koff & Associates to incorporate RPV's
Tier 1 retirement plan, 2.5% @ 55, into the compensation report analysis ... what is the
methodology to that will be used to compare retirement plans?
K&A Response: The updated final report includes separate benefits detail and total
compensation spreadsheets for Tier I and Tier II retirement plans. The updated final report
also includes a visual and numerical comparison of the two plans.
2. How are vacation hours and holiday days calculated? Not all employees have the 5
year plus vacation accrual hours. Furthermore, some agencies have multiple MOUs with
varying vacation accrual rates. How was this rectified?
K&A Response: Vacation and holiday leave is based on what the five-year employee
receives and is calculated based on annual hours worked in order to adjust for any
alternative work schedules (i.e. 9/80). Using the five-year employee gives a better "apples
to apples" comparison of an average employee and we find that the majority of employees
at an agency have at least five years of service with the agency.
Some agencies do have multiple MOUs with differences in benefits, including vacation
accrual based on bargaining unit. Our data collection and input process incorporates any
differences in benefits based on bargaining unit or employment group. For example, we
include administrative leave that is allotted to management classifications that other
classifications may not receive.
3. Does Koff & Associates intend to update and include into the data analysis max. month
salaries for those cities which received salary adjustments in January 2015?
K&A Response: We will not be updating the study with 2015 data at this time. Doing so
would require re-surveying all cities, including Rancho Palos Verdes, to ensure we capture
all changes as of January 2015, salaries and benefits.
Lastly, Koff & Associates may wish to consider modifying the summary table found on
page 3-217 because the summary table doesn't clearly display the benefit costs used to
Koff & Associates Page 2
calculate the Total Monthly Compensation. It is apparent that the benefit compensation is,
on average, much less than that of the comparator cities, yet the data which shows the
benefit costs is contained in a different appendix (Volume II Appendix llb). Presently, the
only way to see the benefit costs for each benchmark classification is to rifle through pages
of appendices (Volume II Appendix llb) or for one to manually calculate the difference
between the position max salary and the RPV Total Monthly Compensation columns. It is
suggested that the summary table could be made clearer if both salary data and benefit
cost data are displayed as a single table with Total Monthly Employee Compensation as
a separate table.
K&A Response: Thank you for the feedback. It can be challenging to find the optimal way
to display so much data in a way that is beneficial to all stakeholders without overwhelming
stakeholders with data. It might be helpful to refer to the narrative report as it contains an
analysis of the major differences between Rancho Palos Verdes' benefits package and
those of the comparator agencies.
Koff & Associates Page 3
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MARCH 2, 2015
ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, March 3, 2015 City Council meeting:
Item No.
3
4
Respectfully submitted,
~Carla M~rreale
Description of Material
Email from Jim York; Community Development Director Joel
Rojas; Email exchange between Jeremy Davies and
Community Development Director Rojas
Email from Noel Park
W:\AGENDA\2015 Additions Revisions to agendas\20150303 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
-----Original Message-----
Joel Rojas
Monday, March 02, 2015 12:05 PM
Carla Morreale
Teresa Takaoka
FW: Code Amendment Zonel
From: Jim York [mailto:theyorkproperties@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 7:36 AM
To: Joel Rojas
Cc: Gary Weber
Subject: Code Amendment Zonel
York Point View Properties, LLC, owner of the 94 acre Point View property, is in favor of the City Council initiating a
proposed code amendment that could result in an amendment to the City's landslide Moratorium Ordinance to create a
new Moratorium Exception Category that would allow vacant parcels in Zone 1 to be developed with single family
residences.
Jim York
Member
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members
Joel Rojas
Monday, March 02, 2015 3:44 PM
cc
Carol Lynch <clynch@rwglaw.com>; James Lancaster
(JLancaster@KlingConsultingGroup.com)
Proposed Moratorium Exception Category for Zone 1
The Staff Report for this item (Item #3) on tomorrow night's agenda mentions that the proposed development area on
the 29-acre Plumtree Parcel, that has received geologic approval, is approximately 2,500 square feet in area. This is a
typo. The proposed development area measures approximately 25,000 square feet in area.
Also, the City Geologist will be attending tomorrow night's meeting to answer any geologic questions that may come up
about the proposal.
Joel
1 3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
This s related to Item #3.
Joel Rojas
Monday, March 02, 2015 12:28 PM
Carla Morreale
Teresa Takaoka
FW: Cutting down of natural flood protection above new home on Upper Cinnamon
From: Jeremy Davies [mailto:jdavies@kuboaa.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Cc: robert.cumby; Gordon Leon <Gordon.Leon@gmail.com>; Jim Knight
Subject: Re: Cutting down of natural flood protection above new home on Upper Cinnamon
Dear Joel
Thank you for getting back. The cutting down of vegetation is above 37, 35,33 Upper Cinnamon and may be
further across from 33. It clearly further denudes our protection.
I shall be interested to hear more from you on this. And incidentally if Zone 1 is now up for discussion I do not
believe it was included in the gross impacts in the Zone 2 FEIR.
Regards
Jeremy
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpvca.gov> wrote:
Jeremy
First let me say that if there is clearing going on right now it should have nothing to do with the item going to the
Council on Tuesday regarding Zone 1. However, in order for us to investigate this clearing issue, we need some clearer
details. When you say that someone is doing vegetation trimming above the new building on cinnamon, do you mean
the behind the new house at 27 Cinnamon? If not can you provide us with the address of the building you are referring
to? thanks
Joel
From: Jeremy Davies [mailto:jdavies@kuboaa.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 3:46 PM
To: Joel Rojas; Ara Mihranian
Cc: Jim Knight; robert.cumby; Cassie Jones; Gordon Leon <Gordon.Leon@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Cutting down of natural flood protection above new home on Upper Cinnamon
Dear Joel and Ara,
If the cutting down of natural winter vegetation is connected to item 3 of the Council's March 3, Agenda
referring to an application to allow a moratorium exemption for Zone 1, I suggest the owners be advised by the
1
3.
City that by this action they are increasing the likelihood of flooding into our Community. This was an issue
widely raised in the public's comments on the FEIR for Zone 2. Incidentally, the City has today issued a
warning about the next winter storm and sand bagging which reemphasizes caution about inappropriate
actions.
Regards
Jeremy Davies
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeremy Davies <jdavies@kuboaa.com>
Date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1 :35 PM
Subject: Cutting down of natural flood protection above new home on Upper Cinnamon
To: "robert.cumby" <robert.cumby@cox.net>
Bob
Today February 26, 2014 at l.30pm someone is strimming nature's growth of flowers, grasses etc behind the
new building on Upper Cinnamon. As you are aware, in the FEIR public comments we brought to everyone's
attention that the natural growth after rains helps protect against flooding in the winter time. Please look into
this and request the owners not cut down nature's growth particularly as building has already denuded hillsides
which has increased flooding probabilities.
Many thanks
2
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
NOEL PARK <noel@jdcorvette.com>
Friday, February 27, 2015 9:09 AM
cc
Nicole Jules
Item 4, Agenda of 3/3/15, Upgrading of streetlights from HPS to LED
I am extremely pleased to see this item on your agenda. In addition to the obvious savings in electric bills, I believe that
this project will have other substantial benefits to our City, arguably more important than the dollar savings.
I applaud the City for taking a leadership role in energy conservation, and realizing the environmental benefits of
same. Also, the Dark Sky movement continues to gain momentum in our country, and I believe that many of our
residents are sophisticated enough to appreciate its value. I believe that this project will be one more useful step in
branding Rancho Palos Verdes as an environmentally and technologically aware and forward looking city. I expect that
this will be a source of pride to many or our residents and one more positive attribute of the City for potential future
residents.
Furthermore, the reduction of glare from these new fixtures will substantially improve the nighttime views in many of
our neighborhoods. In a city where preservation and enhancement of view is stated public policy, this will be a great
step forward. It will enhance the quality of life of our residents and certainly incrementally increase property values as a
result.
Thanks you again for taking up this project. I sincerely hope that you will approve it, and encourage its implementation
with all deliberate speed.
Very best regards to all,
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
~ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
1 L/.