CC 11-07-23 Item No. 6 Approve and update the salary and benefits for Unrepresented & Appointed Employees_Written CommunicaitonsCC 11-7-2023
Written Communications
Item #6
Approve and update
the salary and benefits
for the Unrepresented
(Management and
Confidential) Employees
and Appointer
Employees
From:Peggy Griffin
To:Kristina Alfaro; City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2023-11-07 City Council REGULAR meeting-Agenda Item6 Mgt Salary and Benefits-Civil Grand Jury Findings
Date:Monday, November 6, 2023 12:37:46 PM
Attachments:2009-2010 CGJ Costs not sustainable-Cupertino Response.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Manager Guerra, City Council and Staff,
During the 2009-2010 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury session, they looked into the growing,
unsustainable employee costs in cities in Santa Clara County.
I have attached the City of Cupertino’s 2010 response to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings which lists
the findings and recommendations. Many of these findings are very applicable today given our
current financial crisis. For example,
In the contracts presented, I do not see and the Staff Reports do not mention or list what steps are
being done to contain employee costs. In fact, it looks like they are just increasing as if nothing has
changed in our city!
Q1: What exact changes are being implemented in THESE contracts and policies to re-gain control of
the rising costs?
Q2: The addition of more holidays is excessive given our city’s situation. Can these holidays be
“non-paid holidays”?
Q2a: If not for represented employees, then for the non-represented with the intent of transitioning
to all employees with the next contract?
Q3: Floating holiday(s)…Can they be changed so if they don’t use it, they loose it rather than
automatically get paid for it?
Q4: Regarding new/future employees…What changes are being made to reduce the city’s burden
for compensations?
REQUEST: Please review the attached document (City’s response to the Civil Grand Jury). The
findings are very applicable to today’s environment. The city’s old response to them may no longer
be applicable since staff has predicted 10 years of ongoing budget crisis.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
REFERENCES:
2009-2010 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: “Cities Must Rein in Unsustainable Employee
Costs” (33 pages)
LINK:
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2010/CitiesMustReinInUnsustainableEmployeeCo
sts.pdf
2010-08-24 City of Cupertino’s Response letter (16 pages)
LINK: https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2010/responses/emp_costs/Cupertino.pdf
CUPERTINO
August 24,2010
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE'CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3202
(408)777-3212 •FAX (408)777-3366
FILED
The Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose,CA 95113
RE;Grand Jury:Cities Must Rein In Unsustainable Employee Costs
Dear Honorable Judge Jacobs-May:
AUG 3 0 2010
DAVIDH.YAM
Chief executive Offl
Superior Court of CA Coun
BY n 11 nVCKL
The City of Cupertino received the above Grand Jury report dated May 26,2010 and has set forth our
responses in Attachment A.We agree with all its applicable findings and have responded to all
applicable recommendations.We also agree that all governmental agencies need to operate under a
sustainable salary and benefit plan for its employees and appreciate the Grand Jury's efforts in this
regard.
In conjunction with your efforts to address this issue for our entire county,we ask that the Grand Jury:
:Y Encourage CalPERS to offer additional plans that extend retirement age options out to 60,62
and 65,and
).>Recommend that CalPERS investment guidelines be re-visited to prevent or limit high risk
investments that have contributed to wide rate-of-return fluctuations.
Finally,please correct an error in the report (page 4)which states that the City of Cupertino's median
total compensation cost per full-time equivalent for regular (non-safety)employees is $132,982.This
number should be $103,080 (see Attachment B).
Thank you for our consideration of the above and restatement of our information.
Sincerely,
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
ATTACHMENT A
Finding 1:
The cost of total compensation for employees has grown substantially in the past decade and
now threatens the cities'fiscal stability.
Response 1:
The City of Cupertino (CITY)agrees with the finding.
Recommendation 1:
All of the cities in the County need to implement measures that will control employee costs.As
a starting point,each city should determine the percentage of savings required from the total
compensation package to reach budget stability,and provide choices of wages and benefits in
collective bargaining sessions for the unions to choose to achieve that percentage goal.
Response 1:
The recommendation has been implemented.CITY historically and currently has a balanced
budget and a strategic plan to control employee compensation to avoid budget instability.Over
the past ten years,CITY has maintained services without layoffs.
Finding 2:
Salary and wage increases do not reflect changes in economic conditions;e.g.even with minimal
inflation,yearly COLAs are granted with little bearing on the actual increase in cost of living or
market conditions.
Response 2:
CITY agrees with the finding.Cupertino analyzes market conditions and budget constraints,and
negotiates with employees on pay increases if these are warranted.In FY201 0-20 11,a minimal
increase of .5%was negotiated although the yearly COLA was over 2%.
Recommendation 2:
Cities should not increase salaries and wages that are not supported by planned revenue
increases.Cities should tie COLA increases to clear indicators and retain the ability to adjust or
withhold based on current economic data.
Response 2:
The recommendation has been implemented.CITY has assessed expenses and revenues,and
offers salary increases commensurate with strategic budget planning and economic indicators.
1
2
Finding 3:
Step increases are arbitrary and do not adequately represent an employee's added value to a city.
Combined with COLAs,new employees'wages increase quickly and are not necessarily
reflective of improved knowledge and skills.
Response 3:
CITY agrees with the finding.CITY's step increases are performance based and tied to
evaluations.Employee needs to progress in knowledge and skills.
Recommendation 3:
Cities should negotiate step progressions from the current three and half years to seven years.
Employees should not receive COLA increases while in step progression.
Response 3:
The recommendation is not current industry practice,but will be taken under advisement.The
subject of pay increases are considered during the collective bargaining process.The feasibility
of these combined recommendations will be considered in future negotiations.
Finding 4:
Medical insurance costs for active employees are growing year after year at rates that exceed
most cities"revenue growth,while the employee contribution to medical care is minimal.
Response 4:
CITY agrees with the finding.Cupertino has a set dollar amount for the employer's contribution
to health benefits and employees pay the annual increases each year.In some cases,this dollar
amount has not been adjusted since 2002.
Recommendation 4:
Cities should negotiate that employees assume some of these increased costs for their medical
benefits.To contain medical costs cities should consider the following:
A.Split monthly premiums between the city and the employee and increase the
employee's share,if already cost splitting,and remove any employee caps.
Response 4A:
The recommendation has been implemented.CITY cost is fixed.Employee pays
annual increases.
B.Establish reasonable co-pays for doctors'visits,prescription drugs,and in-patient
and out-patient hospital care.
2
3
Response 4B:
The recommendation has been implemented.CITY purchases medical plan
coverage from CaIPERS,and CalPERS regulates through its purchasing
agreements the co-pays and related costs for medical services.The CITY
investigated alternative medical benefit providers through a regional joint powers
agreement with a medical benefit broker and found that cost for coverage was
more expensive and provided less medical benefits for the employees.
C.Prohibit an employee from being covered by both city-provided medical benefits
and as a dependent of another city employee.
Response 4C:
CITY agrees with the finding.Employee may not have dual coverage with
another CalPERS agency,and CalPERS retirement law paragraph 22843 sets
forth how family members are covered.
D.Reduce cash-in-lieu payments.
Response 4D:
The recommendation was implemented in 2005 for all groups.
E.Introduce a new lower premium,high-deductible medical plan.
Response 4E:
The recommendation has been implemented.CITY purchases medical plan
coverage from CaIPERS,and CalPERS regulates through its purchasing
agreements the co-pays and related costs for medical services.The CITY
investigated alternative medical benefit providers through a regional joint powers
agreement with a medical benefit broker and found that cost for coverage was
more expensive and provided less medical benefits for the employees.
Finding 5:
Pension formula changes instituted in the past decade,stock market losses,the aging "baby
boomer"work force,and the growing unfunded pension and OPEB liability all contribute to
making retiree pension and health care costs the most problematic and unsustainable expenses
the cities are facing.The city contribution to pension plans and OPEBs far exceeds the
employee contribution.
Response 5:
CITY agrees with finding.
3
4
Recommendation Sa:
Cities should:
1)Renegotiate and make provisions for increasing the employee's contribution for
current pension plans.
2)Renegotiate to stop paying the employees'contribution amount to pension plans.
3)Renegotiate to implement a contribution amount for employees to OPEB;this
contribution should provide for a reasonable split of costs between a city and the
employee for retiree medical and dental benefits.
Response Sa:
The recommendation has been implemented.Recent negotiations resulted in increases for
employee's contribution to the current pension plan and reduction of the employer's
contribution.Consideration will be given to the feasibility of negotiating the OPEB costs in
future negotiations.
Recommendation 5b:
Cities should thoroughly investigate reverting to prior pension formulas that were less costly.
Response 5b:
The recommendation was discussed this year during negotiations and will be addressed in 2012
negotiations.
Recommendation 5c:
To provide a meaningful,long-term solution,the cities should negotiate agreements to:
1)Institute a two-tier system for pension and retiree health care for new hires.
2)Increase the retirement age from 50 or 55 to 60 or 65.
3)Calculate current post-employment health care plans with health savings plan.
4)Replace current post-employment health care plans with health savings plans.
Response 5c:
The recommendation will be addressed in 2012 negotiations,especially a tier system with
increased retirement age.Consideration will be given to the feasibility of negotiating the health
savings plans in the future.In addition,we strongly recommend that the Grand Jury encourage
CalPERS to offer more retirement options using age 60,62 or 65.
4
5
Finding 6:
Public sector employees are granted a generous number of holidays,personal days,vacation days
and sick leave annually.Rules and limits on accrual vary by city and union,but vacation days
and sick leave can be accumulated and converted to cash or calculated into the pension benefit
within those limits.
Response 6:
CITY agrees with the finding.
Recommendation 6a:
Cities should renegotiate with the bargaining units to:
1)Reduce vacation time.
2)Reduce the number of holidays and/or personal days.
3)Cap sick leave and eliminate the practice of converting accumulated sick leave to
cash or adding into their years of service for inclusion in their retirement benefit.
Response 6a:
Recommendation has not been implemented.CITY will consider the feasibility of this
recommendation for future negotiations.All contracts are currently settled.
Recommendation 6b:
Cities should negotiate to substitute paid days off for unpaid days instead of imposing furloughs.
For example,reduce paid holidays to major holidays only,consistent with private industry;and
convert minor holidays to unpaid.Therefore,the public is not impacted by fewer services
caused by furloughs,and the city saves the employee cost.
Response 6b:
Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.CITY has no furloughs.
Public has not lost services.
Finding 7:
Cities traditionally determine their compensation packages by surveying the wages and benefits
of other public sector employees in the same geographic area.There is major resistance to
comparing themselves or mirroring trends with the private sector.This has allowed wages and
benefits to become artificially high and out of sync with market trends.
Response 7:
CITY agrees with the finding.
5
6
Recommendation 7a:
Cities should research competitive hiring practices and alter the approach to determine fair
wages and benefits for each city by using public and private sector data.
Recommendation 7b:
Cities should renegotiate salaries and wages using valid market comparisons and not only the
current wage index.Cities should utilize more market-oriented compensation practices so that
salaries can adjust as competition for labor changes.Cities should reduce entry-level
compensation for positions for which there are many qualified applicants.
Responses to 7a and 7b:
Recommendation has not yet been implemented,but will be considered in preparation for future
bargaining sessions.All contracts are currently settled.
Finding 8:
All cities perform certain core functions to run smoothly and provide services to their residents.
To reduce employee costs and streamline operations,the cities are in various stages of
contracting services to private industry or partnering with other cities,special districts or the
County to deliver services.
Response 8:
CITY agrees with the finding.
Recommendation 8a:
Cities should explore outsourcing some functions and services to private industry.Cities should
discuss the prospect with cities that are successfully doing this to determine best practices and
areas for success.Cities should develop contract with measurable objectives,performance goals,
and timelines.
Response 8a:
Recommendation has been implemented.Cupertino is a contract city in the areas of library,
Sheriff Services and refuse.Fire and sewer services are performed by a special district and we
have leased our water utility to a private company.
Recommendation 8b:
Cities should create partnerships with other cities,special districts and/or the County for
services,such as payroll,human resources,animal control,police and fire.Cities should
investigate sharing the cost of new information technology systems.
6
7
Response 8b:
Recommendation has been implemented.Cupertino is a contract city in the areas of library,
Sheriff Services and refuse.Fire and sewer services are performed by a special district and we
have leased our water utility to a private company.In addition,we partner with other cities for
animal control,disaster preparedness and training.
Finding 9:
Cities can gain operation efficiencies and effectiveness with lower employee costs by making
sure they are staffed with the correct numbers of people in the appropriate job classification in all
departments and work groups.
Response 9:
CITY agrees with finding.
Recommendation 9:
Cities should analyze the functions performed by all job classifications and make adjustments in
the work force.Consolidate functions within the same group or a similar group.Reassign
appropriate work to lower paid job classifications.Eliminate unnecessary functions.
Response 9:
Recommendation has been implemented.CITY's on-going practice is to analyze and
consolidate positions as they become vacant.CITY also analyzes the cost of labor from
outsourcing and from shared services with other agencies,thereby reducing payroll costs.
Finding 10:(Applies to San Jose)
Finding 11:
In many cities,the contract negotiations process is completed by placing the negotiated
collective bargaining agreements on the consent calendar for approval,which is acted on quickly
at the start of council meetings by a single motion and vote of the council.
Response 11:
City agrees with the finding.
Recommendation 11:
Cities should consider holding well-publicized public hearings about the cities'goals of
negotiations before negotiations begin,and again at the end of negotiations to report to citizens
clearly what changes have been made in contracts.
7
8
Response 11:
Recommendation has not yet been implemented,but will be considered in the future if so
determined after further consideration by Council.
Finding 12:
Current contracts were negotiated in good faith by representatives of the cities and the bargaining
units;they were approved by the city councils.Promises made to employees were made by
elected officials,past and present.Responsibility for formulating and approving solutions to
restore the cities'financial stability resides squarely with our elected officials.The economic
downturn has placed additional pressure on the situation.
Response 12:
City agrees with the finding.
Recommendation 12a:
City council members and mayors sh'ould become better informed about the fiscal realities of
their cities,long-term costs and commitments,and be cognizant of potential issues in labor
agreements.
Response 12a:
Recommendation has been implemented.City Council is well aware of the fiscal realities and
long-term costs and commitments and understands the implications of labor agreements.
Recommendation 12b:
City councils and mayors should direct city administrators to (re)negotiate collective bargaining
agreements that reverse the escalation of employer costs through concessions,cost sharing,and a
second tier for new employees.
Response 12b:
Recommendation has been implemented.
Recommendation 12c:
City councils and mayors should meet with the bargaining units to clearly outline the cities'
financial health and show how employee costs are impacting the budget.
Response 12c:
Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.Management
representatives meet and conferred with Council prior to negotiations and stay within Council
directives.The negotiation team clearly outlines the City's financial health at the beginning of
negotiations to the Council and all bargaining groups.
8
9
Recommendation 12d:
City councils and mayors should inform citizens of their plans for controlling unsustainable
employee costs and remove politics from the equation.
Response 12d:
Recommendation has been implemented.This result has occurred during budget study sessions
and Council meeting discussions.
Finding 12:(Applies to San Jose)
9
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF CUPERTINO
THE FOLLOWING EXCEL SPREADSHEET PROVIDES 2009 GROSS SALARY FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS FOR REGULAR NON-SAFETY EMPLOYEES.
THE MEDIUN (MIDDLE)TOTAL COMPENSATION COST IS CALCULATED ON PAGE 5 OF THIS SCHEDULE.IN SUMMARY,
Median Gross Salary =employee #79,Susan Winslow.
Fully loaded benefit multiplier
Median Salary and Benefits -2009,City of Cupertino
$71,089.44
x 1.45%
$103,080.00
LAST,FIRST NAME CLASSIFICATIONDEPARTMENTBASEPAYOVERTIMEOTHERPAY2009GROSS
MILLER,ATHENAG
SR.OFFICE ASSISTANTPUBLICWORKS ADMIN/ENG$9,084.06$-$1,976.50$11,060.56
HETLAND,JOHNB
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$18,047.00$46.59$447.02$18,540.61
HUNGMARTIN,MIRANDA
ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEERPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$31,179.00$-$560.93$31,739.93
RECORDS,JOHNE
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIISTREETSDIVISION$31,808.96$-$769.90$32,578.86
SPITSEN,PAUL
RECREATION ASSISTANTSENIORCENTER$17,458.74$-$17,064.43$34,523.17
flORES,SUSAN
RECREATION ASSISTANTSPORTSANDFITNESS$34,917.48$-$2,864.44$37,781.92
LEWIS,SUSAN
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSANDRECADMIN$37,954.02$-$212.45$38,166.47
GROSS,LESLIE
ASSISTANT PLANNERPLANNING$38,876.38$-$974.84$39,851.22
HEJZA,JULIE
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTCITYCLERK$40,989.09$139.90$695.91$41,824.90
LEE,LAURADOMONDON
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDADMINISTRATION$41,678.78$29.54$2,814.32$44,522.64
CARDENAS,TIFFANY
OFFICE ASSISTANTADMINISTRATION$47,569.74$-$72.00$47,641.74
BULLOCK,RONALD
FACILITY ATIENDANTPARKSAND RECADMIN$46,024.02$3,210.24$558.48$49,792.74
VILLALOBOS,RAFAEL
FACILITY ATIENDANTSENIORCENTER$48,719.84$-$1,073.03$49,792.87
VILLA,FRANCISCO
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$50,839.51$-$623.66$51,463.17
LAITILA,MICHAEL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$50,904.29$-$1,482.73$52,387.02
ORTEGA,VINCENT
FACILITY ATIENDANTPARKSAND RECADMIN$48,719.84$3,562.47$120.00$52,402.31
GARCIA,PATRICIA
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPLANNING$52,353.11$-$516.00$52,869.11
RAMOS,JOHNJ
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$50,394.66$596.10$1,938.25$52,929.01
WILLIAMS,JONATHAN
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$51,513.87$555.51$1,160.55$53,229.93
SCHMITI,ANDREW
MAINTENANCE WORKER ISTREETSDIVISION$51,556.25$1,245.12$554.48$53,355.85
REDWINE,MARY
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPARKSAND RECADMIN$52,805.67$372.03$180.00$53,357.70
SANTOS,DOMINGO
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIESDIVISION$51,462.05$1,743.15$760.00$53,965.20
BADAL,ANDY
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$52,693.92$111.05$1,612.96$54,417.93
ALEGRIA,ALFREDO
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$53,912.40$-$952.00$54,864.40
KINST,JULIA
OFFICE ASSISTANTSENIORCENTER$55,098.60$-$180.00$55,278.60
PARSLEYYELAVICH,LINDA
RECREATION COORDINATORSENIORCENTER$49,758.67$-$5,605.98$55,364.65
FAUTH,JASON
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$51,849.49$1,983.21$1,737.27$55,569.97
PHILLIPS,LAUREN
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSANDRECADMIN$55,414.99$964.21$72.00$56,451.20
STEED,JAME5
MAINTENANCE WORKER ISTREETSDIVISION$56,499.83$-$905.38$57,405.21
MENDEl,SYLVIA
SR.OFFICE ASSISTANTBUILDING$52,206.92$5,101.36$108.00$57,416.28
VILLALOVOS,ADRIAN
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$54,700.32$-$2,933.82$57,634.14
ORDWAY,JEFFREY
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSANDRECADMIN$59,061.17$-$72.00$59,133.17
TEFFT,THEODORE
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$57,229.30$-$2,484.87$59,714.17
MABUTAS,CLIFF MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$58,664.88$1,804.54$1,317.37$61,786.79
ABE,ASAKO
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTORHUMANRESOURCES$29,446.68$-$32,459.62$61,906.30
JAUCH,HEATHER
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPARKSAND REC ADMIN$60,187.27$42.66$1,949.06$62,178.99
ALEXANDER,BRADFORD
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$59,314.24$1,507.90$1,893.19$62,715.33
SHAFFER,REBECCA
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPARKSAND REC ADMIN$60,187.27$-$2,958.36$63,145.63
FERRANTE,JONATHAN
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$57,020.88$844.89$5,375.89$63,241.66
JAMES,MOLLY
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSANDRECADMIN$58,942.01$4,370.17$72.00$63,384.18
COLES,TIMOTHY
RECREATION COORDINATORBLACKBERRYADMIN$60,600.63$-$2,908.36$63,508.99
BANFIELD,BARBARAJ
RECREATION COORDINATORBLACKBERRYADMIN$62,897.80$649.78$645.00$64,192.58
WONG,RICHARD
ACCOUNT CLERKFINANCE$64,013.69$45.37$144.00$64,203.06
SANDER,RACHELLE
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSANDRECADMIN$63,989.05$1,093.01$419.10$65,501.16
HOOK,ROBERT
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$63,044.70$-$2,484.87$65,529.57
RUMALEAN,YULIA
ACCOUNT CLERKFINANCE$60,696.45$689.29$4,365.88$65,751.62
TERADA,PETER
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$63,517.48$-$2,360.72$65,878.20
ARNST,PETER
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$63,517.48$93.18$2,320.25$65,930.91
SACKS,LAWRENCE
I.T.ASSISTANTINFORMATION TECHNOlOGY$65,970.84$-$270.00$66,240.84
BARRAS,DORIE
EXEC ASSIST TO THE CITY ATTYCITYATTORNEY$50,579.36$-$15,828.73$66,408.09
CARIAGA,ABRAHAM
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$63,517.48$1,951.54$979.01$66,448.03
MORENO,JESUS0
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$63,517.48$-$3,084.89$66,602.37
MAD,TINA
ACCOUNT CLERKFINANCE$64,013.69$-$2,738.44$66,752.13
TOGNETTI,PAUL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$63,517.48$1,080.44$2,368.63$66,966.55
HAYES,KELSEY
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSANDRECADMIN$62,571.44$4,390.02$99.00$67,060.46
ALVAREZ,NICHOLAS
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$63,517.48$465.94$3,178.96$67,162.38
TABARES,ALBERT
EQUIPMENT MECHANICGENERALSERVICES$6,321.09$426.14$61,101.44$67,848.67
OSBORNE,CHYLENE
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERKFACILITIESDIVISION$67,680.84$-$180.00$67,860.84
PRONI,ANTHONY
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$63,517.48$-$4,462.41$67,979.89
MO,TERESA
RECREATION COORDINATORSENIORCENTER$66,344.98$-$1,659.41$68,004.39
EBBEN,BETHANY
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERKPLANNING$67,847.00$-$180.00$68,027.00
HEMBREE,TODDD
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$63,517.48$-$4,686.47$68,203.95
HOFFMAN,MABEL
OFFICE ASSISTANTSENIOR CENTER$48,004.40$605.11$19,931.42$68,540.93
OLSEN,KARL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$63,517.48$-$5,033.21$68,550.69
LEVY,KAREN
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSANDRECADMIN$66,344.98$316.34$2,021.06$68,682.38
FERRIS,COLLEEN
RECREATION COORDINATORSPORTSANDFITNESS$66,344.98$-$2,367.33$68,712.31
LABRIE,MARC
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$63,517.48$4,236.20$1,332.24$69,085.92
NA.ITO,PAMELA HUMAN RESOURCES TECHHUMANRESOURCES$68,976.77$-$270.00$69,246.77
BODENE,WilLIAM
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIESDIVISION$62,193.63$4,049.23$3,352.96$69,595.82
NEMETZ,SCOTT
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11BLACKBERRYADMIN$63,517.48$4,089.43$2,214.59$69,821.50
DUNN,DONALD
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GENERALSERVICES$63,517.48$135.85$6,391.86$70,045.19
BARRAGAN,MANUEL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$63,517.48$1,274.08$5,407.98$70,199.54
LOPEZ,ANGEL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$62,960.42$5,567.15$1,712.28$70,239.85
FREY,KIMBERLY
RECREATION COORDINATORSENIORCENTER$66,344.98$1,331.78$2,679.24$70,356.00
LOMASIII,RUTILIO
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIESDIVISION$63,517.48$2,510.53$4,370.48$70,398.49
MARTINEZ,DEBORAHC
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIESDIVISION$65,448.61$-$5,053.95$70,502.56
POLITO,RUSSELL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$63,517.48$1,889.52$5,378.56$70,785.56
WINSLOW,SUSANJ
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERKBUILDING$67,847.00$-$3,242.44$71,089.44
SAKHRANI,GULU
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERCODEENFORCEMENT$70,868.80$-$270.00$71,138.80
IRWIN,MELANIE
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPARKSAND REC ADMIN$60,187.27$6,133.57$5,339.15$71,659.99
HENRIQUES,DONNA
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTPARKSANDRECADMIN$70,819.55$-$1,188.00$72,007.55
BERNARD,KARENA
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$71,952.54$-$162.00$72,114.54
BRIDGE,WilLIAM
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDSDIVISION$63,517.48$4,531.27$4,237.61$72,286.36
MERTENS,CHRISTOPHER
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIIGROUNDSDIVISION$70,050.50$-$2,324.67$72,375.17
CATON,TRACI
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTPLANNING$72,235.15$-$162.00$72,397.15
KIM,ROBERT
MEDIA COORDINATORADMINISTRATION$72,895.68$103.33$270.00$73,269.01
GOSS,L1AN(KAREN)
CASE MANAGERSENIOR CENTER$69,264.03$1,048.26$4,299.53$74,611.82
WOLFE,KANE
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$63,517.48$3,411.69$7,784.77$74,713.94
ROSALES,GilBERT
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GENERALSERVICES$63,517.48$720.28$10,648.69$74,886.45
STEENFOTT,DOROTHYA
ADM I N ISTRA TIVE ASSISTANTADMINSERVICES$72,235.15$-$3,048.32$75,283.47
RODRIGUEZ,JESUS
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$60,321.76$2,864.49$12,131.56$75,317.81
DRAKE,MICHAEL
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIISTREETSDIVISION$70,050.50$3,554.60$3,378.47$76,983.57
DELGADO,REINALDOG
MEDIA COORDINATORADMINISTRATION$72,895.68$1,394.95$3,031.90$77,322.53
COGLIANESE,PETER
MEDIA COORDINATORADMINISTRATION$72,895.68$-$4,866.52$77,762.20
JOHNSON,JOANNE
ENGINEERING TECHNICIANPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$78,381.67$-$171.00$78,552.67
SCHMIDT,GRACE
DEPUTY CITY CLERKCITYCLERK$72,235.15$3,556.25$2,901.17$78,692.57
TOGNETTI,SHAWN
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GENERALSERVICES$63,517.48$5,892.80$9,803.37$79,213.65
WINSLOWJR,ROGER
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIIFACILITIESDIVISION$67,930.55$5,642.67$5,764.17$79,337.39
BLOOMQUIST,TY
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIESDIVISION$63,517.48$6,952.38$9,208.93$79,678.79
GATHERS,BRIAN
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIIGROUNDSDIVISION$70,050.50$801.33$9,017.28$79,869.11
LOOMIS,MIKEV
EQUIPMENT MECHANICGENERALSERVICES$64,427.48$7,585.56$7,961.64$79,974.68
TRYBUS,JEFFREY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERCODEENFORCEMENT$80,176.98$56.83$464.82$80,698.63
BLOOMQUIST,CURTISP
STREET LIGHT WORKERGENERALSERVICES$71,016.68$7,176.19$5,222.16$83,415.03
GERHARDT,TERI
GIS COORDINATORINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY$83,346.25$-$216.00$83,562.25
LAGERGREN,LINDA
EXEC ASST TO THE CITYMNGRADMINISTRATION$79,021.80$202.88$4,871.34$84,096.02
JIMENEZ,MARIA
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYSTHUMANRESOURCES$80,453.88$-$4,312.20$84,766.08
KORNAHRENS,GARY
SR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFCRCODEENFORCEMENT$81,588.54$735.18$2,547.65$84,871.37
LOMAN,HERMAN
TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIANPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$79,451.30$789.58$4,882.44$85,123.32
WYKOFF,ALEXANDER
SR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFCRCODEENFORCEMENT$81,588.54$1,060.13$3,178.75$85,827.42
SILVA,RONALDJ
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORGENERALSERVICES$69,524.45$-$16,733.47$86,257.92
HOM,ARNOLD
PLAN CHECK ENGINEERBUILDING$86,161.70$-$216.00$86,377.70
GHOSH,PIU
ASSOCIATE PLANNERPLANNING$83,784.01$-$2,970.36$86,754.37
STREAM,GARY
BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$87,270.16$-$1,032.00$88,302.16
MIYAKAWA,LAURA
HUMAN RESOURCES TECHHUMANRESOURCES$86,703.63$-$1,889.28$88,592.91
WINTER,RICHARD
BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$88,782.50$-$1,032.00$89,814.50
MATHUR,NIDHI
WEB SPECIALISTADMINISTRATION$83,346.25$-$6,501.60$89,847.85
ADAMS,QUINTONR
NETWORK SPECIALISTINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY$83,357.56$4,511.24$2,534.40$90,403.20
ORR,CHRIS
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORFACILITIESDIVISION$85,238.32$-$5,292.25$90,530.57
GREEF,JEFFREY
BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$92,501.94$-$552.00$93,053.94
CHANG,JENNIFERY
ACCOUNTANTFINANCE$86,703.63$-$6,748.51$93,452.14
DONNELLY,CHERYL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MGRPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$92,747.25$-$1,032.00$93,779.25
SAKAI,EDWINT
EQUIPMENT MECHANICGENERALSERVICES$75,157.03$10,060.16$8,594.77$93,811.96
COOKE,ERIN
ENVIRONMTAL AFFAIRS COORDADMINISTRATION$93,771.80$-$144.00$93,915.80
CHOW,HANNAH
ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEERPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$96,773.43$-$216.00$96,989.43
GREGORY,ROBERT
BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$96,899.65$-$1,032.00$97,931.65
HONDASNELLING,AKI
SENIOR PLANNERPLANNING$98,333.10$-$826.97$99,160.07
HANEL,CHRISTINE
RECREATION SUPERVISORPARKSANDREC ADMIN$96,809.96$-$2,767.26$99,577.22
VANDEVEER,MICHAEL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIANPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$91,658.84$1,646.81$6,617.97$99,923.62
SABICH,ROBERT
BUILDING INSPECTOR-CNTR SPECBUILDING$99,070.79$-$1,189.40$100,260.19
GIL,VERAJ
SENIOR PLANNERPLANNING$100,227.38$-$240.00$100,467.38
BISELY,JOHN
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORGROUNDSDIVISION$99,070.79$-$2,209.80$101,280.59
RIEDEN,KEVIN
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTORPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$99,070.79$-$2,708.44$101,779.23
JUNG,COLINC
SENIOR PLANNERPLANNING$100,227.40$-$2,393.06$102,620.46
WALTERS,THOMAS
RECREATION SUPERVISORPARKSANDREC ADMIN$96,809.96$-$7,530.96$104,340.92
MCCARTHY,DON
RECREATION SUPERVISORPARKSANDREC ADMIN$96,809.96$-$8,526.48$105,336.44
LAMY,JULIA SENIOR RECREATION SUPERVISORSENIORCENTER$101,650.77$-$5,394.38$107,045.15
MAHAN,DIANE
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORSTREETSDIVISION$99,070.79$-$8,261.72$107,332.51
CHAO,GARY
CITY PLANNERPLANNING$107,964.74$-$192.00$108,156.74
SQUARClA,LARRY
SR.BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$105,857.18$155.30$4,052.44$110,064.92
LYNAUGH,CARMEN
PUBLIC WORKS PROJ MANAGERPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$110,095.44$-$2,684.40$112,779.84
SMITH,KIMM
CITY CLERKCITY CLERK$110,647.44$-$5,324.28$115,971.72
KITSON,JR,RICHARDG
PUBLIC &ENV AFFAIRS DIRADMINISTRATION$122,290.69$-$3,551.88$125,842.57
SHRIVASTAVA,AARTI
DIRECTOR OF COMM DEVELOPPLANNING$123,057.63$-$3,039.20$126,096.83
SERRATOS,MARIYAH
INFO TECHNOLOGY MANAGERINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY$125,061.12$-$2,540.40$127,601.52
KILIAN,CHARLEST
CITY ATTORNEYCITY ATTORNEY$3,822.89$-$125,742.37$129,565.26
SEEDS,GAIL
STEVENS CREEK CORR PREV MNRPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$129,835.29$-$552.00$130,387.29
WOO,DAVID
FINANCE DIRECTORFINANCE$129,835.29$-$1,068.47$130,903.76
KLINE,KELLY
REDEV/ECON DEVELOP MNGRPLANNING$129,835.29$-$1,422.53$131,257.82
STILLMAN,DAVID
SR.CIVIL ENGINEERPUBLICWORKS ADMIN/ENG$132,835.17$-$216.00$133,051.17
GREENE,TERRY
CITY ARCHITECTPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$129,835.29$-$4,583.88$134,419.17
CASTEEL,GREGORYJ
BUILDING OFFICIALBUILDING$129,835.29$-$5,459.78$135,295.07
LEE,ROGER
ASSIST DIRECTOR OF PW MTCFACILITIESDIVISION$135,750.81$-$240.00$135,990.81
GOEPFERT,GLENN
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PWPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$142,214.41$-$4,031.88$146,246.29
QUALLS,JR,RALPH
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSPUBLICWORKSADMIN/ENG$160,990.57$-$8,345.24$169,335.81
LINDER,MARK
DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECPARKSANDREC ADMIN$164,793.20$-$5,183.96$169,977.16
ATWOOD,CAROLA
DIRECTOR OF ADMIN SERVICEADMINSERVICES$175,310.98$-$11,010.66$186,321.64
KNAPP,DAVIDW.
CITY MANAGERADMINISTRATION$220,632.75$-$13,973.20$234,605.95
$11,612,809.05 $145,708.30 $729,402.62 $12,487,919.97
'$..791S40~89 I
Median Gross Salary =employee #79,Susan Winslow.
Fully loaded benefit multiplier
Median Salary and Benefits -2009,City of Cupertino
$71,089.44
x 1.45%
$103,080.00
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council; Kristina Alfaro; Matt Morley
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2023-11-07 City Council REGULAR Meeting-Agenda Item6 MGT Salary and Benefits QUESTIONS
Date:Monday, November 6, 2023 12:19:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Manager Guerra, City Council and Staff,
At a time when finances are tight, I do not understand why you are adding 3 additional fully paid holidays to the city
calendar!
Q1: How many holidays are you adding? The Staff Report says 2 but Attachment D indicates 3. Is it 2 or 3 new
holidays?
Q2: How much does adding 1 fully paid holiday cost our city in dollars?
REFERENCE: Attachment D-Appointed Comp Program-Redline.pdf, on page 26 of 26 below
Q3: Does this mean the salary range of the City Manager position will increase $912?
Q4: Does this mean the City Manager will receive a raise?
Management salaries are far higher than union workers. Giving the same percentage increase to higher paid workers
does not make financial sense when finances are tight. Often, as the salary increases, the percentage of salary increase
decreases. I do not see this here.
Q5: Will management get the same percentage increase as the union represented employees who are paid less?
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin