The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About19830609 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 83-15 Meeting 83-15 ISOM MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415)965-4717 Special Meeting Board of Directors Thursday 375 Distei Circle, D-1 June 9, 1983 Los Altos, California AGENDA (7:30) ROLL CALL ADOPTION OF AGENDA NEW BUSINESS WITH NO ACTION REQUESTED (7:35) 1. Presentation of 1983-1984 Salary Survey -- H. Grench (8:05) CLOSED SESSION (Personnel Matters) ADJOURNMENT i I Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duft Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko.Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.VVendin R-83-22 (Meeting 83-15 June 9, 1983) MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REPORT June 2, 1983 TO: Board of Directors FROM: H. Grench, General Manager PREPARED BY: J. Fiddes, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Presentation of 1983-1984 Salary Survey Introduction: The salary survey for the 1983-1984 fiscal year is in the process of being completed in accordance with the May 1979 comprehensive report on Salary, Fringe Benefits and Personnel Systems prepared by Gary Foss, the District's Ter- sonnet Consultant see report R-79-13 of May 16, 1979). The process involved, survey results to date, and a general discussion of your policies regarding salary changes are included herein. As of the writing of this report, four of the nine organizations surveyed were in the process of conducting salary negotiations, and it is not known at this time whether all desired salary data will be available at your meeting of June 22, 1983. At that meeting, I will make my recommendations to you on proposed salary range changes, and therefore, no action is being requested of you at this time. Discussion: A. Procedure: The salary survey for the 1983-84 fiscal year was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in Mr. Foss ' May 1979 report and his November 1979 Salary Survey Study, the update and fine-tuning of the May report. The District classes of Secretary, Ranger, Real Estate Research Analyst, Open Space Planner, Administrative Assistant, Public Communications Coordinator, and Land Acquisiton Manager were surveyed. Prior to the commencement of the salary survey, it was determined, based on information provided by Program Leaders, that the District jobs had not changed appreciably during the past year. In addition, based on the recommendation of the District's Personnel Consultant, all employees were given the opportunity this year to provide written comments on their job, salary, benefits, and working conditions. Responses received from employees who chose to complete the Employee Input Questionnaires were quite varied, and it was not possible to address all relevant employee questions and concerns prior to the commencement of the salary survey. However, Mr. Foss and I have formulated the process by which employees' comments will be reviewed and evaluated, and as I note later in this report, in the event Board approved changes are warranted in an employee`s job specification, salary range, benefits, and/or working conditions, I will return to you at a later date with my recommendations. The following governmental entities within the greater San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan geographical area were contacted for salary survey information: City of Palo Alto City of San Mateo City of Sunnyvale I R-83-22 Page two City of Hayward County of Santa Clara County of San Mateo East Bay Regional Park District East Bay Municipal Utility District Association of Bay Area Governments Pertinent information was requested from each organization about general salary changes or negotiations that had occurred since the District's last salary survey or that were expected to occur in the near future. Each position used as a comparable at a given organization was then reviewed to determine if any changes (i .e. , qualifications, concept, responsibilities, changed status) had occurred which would indicate that the position was no longer a valid comparable. Once it was ascertained that the comparables were still valid, necessary salary information was gathered, including current salary, date of last increase or future increase, and schedule of future salary reviews for each com- parable position in the organization. B. Salary Survey Data: The information gathered was recorded on data sheets for the seven District positions surveyed. These worksheets, which are available for re- view at the District office, were used to compile the information displayed on the attached graphs entitled "Salary Survey Comparables". In addition, the attached Tables A and B, "June 1983 Salary Survey" and "Salary Increases for Surveyed Or- ganizations", recap general salary data gathered during the survey. At the writing of this report, the following organizations could not provide salary increase data since they were still in the process of salary negotiations: 1 . City of Palo Alto 2. City of Sunnyvale 3. Santa Clara County In addition, the City of San Mateo had not completed negotiations with the Manage- ment Unit. The City of Palo Alto will adjust its management salaries in July. Therefore, salary increase data for the City's positions of Management Assistant and Director of Planning and Community Environment, comparables for the District's positions of Administrative Assistant and Land Manager, respectively, are not available at this time. Based on data available at this time, the total range of salary increases at six of the nine comparable organizations surveyed varies from a O% salary change to 10% salary change. Most organizations gave an across-the-board increase to their employees, and as noted on the attached Table B, "Salary Increases for Surveyed Organizations", most organizations that tied multi-year salary contracts to cost of living data gave lower salary increases than those organizations with salary contracts that did not include CPI adjustment factors. Salary survey data for the private sector provided by the 1983 Western Management Group Survey for the positions of Secretary and Administrative Assistant, indicates salary increase rates of 5.8% and 6.2%, respectively. Overall , according to the District's Personnel Consultant, general salary increase trends for the private sector in the Bay Area are running between 4.5 - 5%, after subtracting out merit increase amounts. R-83-22 Page three C. Salary Changes: According to your policies, you consider the following factors in making salary range changes: 1 ) the District's salaries with respect to the surveyed groups, 2) current trends in the private sector, and 3) the change in the cost of living. Each factor will be discussed in turn. It should be emphasized that it is a policy decision of the Board as to the relative importance of these three factors in setting wage scales. 1 ) Salary y Surve Data: The attached graph, entitled "Salary Survey Comparables", shows the array of comparable salaries for each of the seven District positions surveyed. Current District salaries for each of the positions surveyea are plotted on the graph, as well as District salaries for zero point, five point (5.3%), and ten point (10.5%) salary increases for reference. As I have emphasized in previous reports, it is important to remember that the use of salaries in comparing positions is not an exact science, since there is no perfect comparable for any position. Also, the District' s salary structure takes into account various factors such as the relative importance, responsibility, and training needed for the jobs in each of the District's programs, as well as comparisons of those positions relative to the labor market. 2) Private Sector Increases: As noted in previous salary survey reports, reliable data is very difficult to obtain on private sector wage increases in the Bay Area, since wages are constantly fluctuating according to demands the market is having to meet in the filling of various staffing positions. According to Mr. Foss, general salary trends for the private sector are running between 4.5 - 5%. As Mr. Foss noted last year, private sector increases traditionally cover both merit and market value increases, and historically, the private sec- tor increases an employee's earning capacity by individual evaluations of performance, as well as job skills and value to the company. Thus, employees are usually treated individually and not by formal salary range changes common to the public sector. Traditionally, salary range adjustments in the public sector are made in order to keep salary ranges competitive. As you are aware, you are only being asked to approve a salary range adjustment at your June 22 meeting. Each District employee would also be eligible, unless at the top of his or her range, for up to a 5 point merit increase, based on performance, at some point during the 1983-1984 fiscal year. 3) Cost of Living: The San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Area Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers is used by the District to track cost of living changes. According to information released on May 2, the above-noted CPI 0 increased 0.2 percent from April 1982 to April 1983, compared with a 10.5% change for the same twelve month period last year. The following table summarizes the various salary increase considerations that should be discussed in the determination of salary ranges adjustments: I. Public Agency Comparables A. Average of comparables from surveyed public 4.8 - 5.4% agencies for surveyed positions (1982 to 1983) --incomplete data R-83-22 Page four II. Private Sector Data i A. Western Management Group Survey 6% (1982 to 1983) B. Other private trends 4.5 - 5% (1982 to 1983) III. Consumer Price Index 0.2% April 1982 to April 1983) IV. Strengthening of District Position to 3.5% Regain 1979 Status (1979 to 1982 I have included the last category of strengthening of the District's position to regain 1979 status, the date when you first adopted Mr. Foss' salary plan, after a careful , year-to-year analysis of salary data for the surveyed District positions. Although salaries remained at or somewhat above the midpoint of the comparables in accord with your policy, the study showed that each of the District's salaries had indeed slipped with respect to the average of the comparables. The average slippage was 3.5%. Therefore, an additional 3.5% adjustment at this time would strengthen the District's position in the labor market and would allow the District an even better ability to attract and retain the type of staff -- highly qualified, re- sponsible, motivated, and truly interested in the District -- which currently exists. D. Fringe Benefits: Based on research done by the Personnel Consultant last year and on information gathered during the salary survey this year, the District' s benefits continue to be on a competitive level as to the type and value of benefits provided at other organizations. Therefore, at this time, I am not recommending any change in the District's fringe benefit package. However, it should be noted that once all input from the Employee Input Survey has been processed and researched and once discussions regarding the "cafeteria" benefit plan have been concluded, it may be appropriate for me to return to you to discuss possible changes in the District's current benefit system. No funds are currently budgeted for the "cafeteria" bene- fits plan. E. Internal Relationships: The Employee Input Survey provided some questions from certain employees regarding job descriptions, duties performed, and assigned salary ranges. Questions and comments regarding job specifications and salary concerns discussed by employees who completed the Employee Input Survey will be investigated, and the findings may call for internal salary adjustments at a later date. I am, however, at this time, not recommending any changes in the internal relationships of District positions. F. Effective Date: In accordance with policy you adopted in June, 1980, any salary range changes you adopt for the 1983-84 fiscal year would be implemented on July 1 , 1983. Recommendation: As I indicated at the beginning of this report, you are not being asked to take any action on the adoption of new salary ranges for General Manager appointees at this time. I will return to you at your meeting of June 22 with my proposed salary ranges changes and will request Board action at that time. June 1983 SALARY SURVEY kr TABLE A Percentage Salary Increases for Comparable Organizations for . 1983-84 (N/C = no comparable position) Real Estate Open Space Public Corm. Administrative. Land Acq. Secretary Ranger Research/Analy. Planner Coordinator Assistant Manager t Management Positions-- Palo Alto Negotiations Negotiations N/C Negotiations N/C increase not uiown at this time 5.53% sal 5.53% sal Management Positions-- differential ' differentia % increase not jalowm San Mateo or 7% PERS N/C or 7% PERS N/C N/C contribution contribution at this time Management positions--% increase not Sunnyvale Negotiations N/C Negotiations N/C ]mown at this time Hayward 10% N/C 6.5% 10% N/C 6.5% 6.5% Mgnt. Santa Clara Position County Negotiations Negotiations Negotiations N/C Negotiations Negotiations % Pcrease deter- mined San Mateo County 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 5.5% (7% - for 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% EBRPD reference only) EBMUD 8% 8% N/C N/C 8% 8% N/C ABAG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Western Mgmt. Group Survey 5.8% N/C N/C N/C N/C 6.2% N/C TABLE B SALARY INCREASES FOR SURVEYED ORGANIZATIONS -City of Palo Alto 'Second year of two-year contract for non-management, non-fire, non-police employees. Salary increase was to have been based on Feb.-Feb. CPI up to a maximum of 7%. Since CPI was 0.005 for period, the City, upon the Union' s request, reopened salary negotia- tions. Salaries to changeJuly 1. Management sala- ries to change July 1, but amount of increases un- known at this time. City of Sunnyvale Second year of two-year contract. . Opened negotia- tions for salaries only the week of May 23. No data available at this time. City of Hayward Clerical and related employees union settled a one- year contract with a 6% salary increase. Management employees received a 6.5% increase effective l/1/83 and confidential employees received a 10% increase on l/1/83 as part of the second year of a twenty-four month resolution. City of San Mateo First year of a two and one-half year contract with General Unit Union. Effective June 5 , employees select either a 5.53% salaty differential on existing salary ranges or have the City pay their 7% PERS contribution. Year II calls for a 6% increase in salary ranges, while Year III calls for a 2% increase in ranges. Contract expires September, 1985. Man- agement Unit has yet to settle salary negotiations. Santa Clara County Negotiations currently in progress. No data avail- able at this time. San Mateo County Second year of two-year contract. Salary changes were to be based on CPI and employees received the minimum 3.5%, effective 1/2/83. management salaries also increased 3. 5%. East Bay Regional Third year of a three-year contract. Effective Park District 4/1/83 , employees received a 5. 5% cost-of-living adjustment, the minimum amount set forth in the contract. Public Safety Officers received a 7% increase (Year II of a three-year contract) . Man- agement salaries increased 5. 5%. East Bay Municipal Second year of a three-year contract. Effective Utility District May 1, represented classes and supervisory personnel received an 8% increase. Changes in management salaries varied based on performance. Association of Bay All salaries frozen last year. Was supposed to have Area Governments been second year of two-year contract with a 7. 5% increase effective ll/1/82 . Salary increase was de- layed eleven months to October 1, 1983. To avoid layoffs , employees also agreed to take one day of leave without pay each month. R-83-22 SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES SECRETARY M ROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 2000 1930 EBMUD 1900 1877 EBRPD 10 pt 1832 1800 ( 1806) (*City of Sunnyvale) 1782 City of San Mateo ** 5 Pt 1743 a 1726 City of Hayward 1700 ( 1703) (*City of Palo Alto) cn a 0 pt 1658 H z 0 1600 1531 ABAG ( 1500 1516) (*Santa Clara County) 1444 San Mateo County 1400 1300 *Negotiations in progress; current salaries shown* **5. 53% salary differential taken on current range. R-83-22 SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES -RANGER R MROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 2400 ( 2330 ) (EBRPD-Public Safety Officer) 2300 REFERENCE ONLY 2200 2 10 pt 2126 134 EBMUD 2100 a x 2 5 pt 2023 0 2000 0 pt 1925 { 1917) (**City of Palo Alto) 1900 1818 San Mateo County 1800 ( 1786) (**Santa Clara County) 1700 *Salary for Public Safety Officer - Reference only. This is a stronger job classification than EBRPD Park Worker ($1882 monthly) . **Negotiations in progress; current salaries shown. R-93-22 SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES 'REAL ESTATE RESEARCH ANALYST i�IROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 2400 ( 2331) (*City of Sunnyvale) 2300 2200 2189 EBRPD 2156 City of San Mateo** tn- 10 pt 2126 2100 2076 City of Hayward 5 pt 2023 2023 San Mateo County E z0 2000 0 pt 1925 19 00 1800 ( 1783) (*Santa Clara County) 1732 ABAG 1700 *Negotiations in progress; current salaries shown. **5. 53% salary differential taken on current range. R-83-22 SAiu,RY SURVEY COMPARABLES OPEN SPACE PLANNER MROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 3100 3,0 0 0 2981 City of Hayward yr 2900 10 pt— 2839 2800 EA 2700 5 per" 2700 2704 San Mateo County 2667) (*City of Palo Alto) 2600 0 pt 2569 2500 2511 ABAG 2423 EBRPD 2400 *Negotiations in progress. Current salary shown. LARY SURVEY COMPARABLES R-83-22 nilMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT a MROSD POINT SURVEY j ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION I f 3700 3612 EBMUD 3500 3300 r 3100 * (2948) ( City of Sunnyvale) a 2944 City of Hayward 2900 10 pt 2839 a x H z � 2700 5 pt 2700 2668) (*City of San Mateo) 2628 EBRPD 0 pt 2569 2500 2373 San Mateo County 2300 ( 2256) (*City of Palo Alto) ( 2168) (*Santa Clara County) 2100 2082 ABAG *Negotiations in progress current salaries shown. 1900 SSi' -2Y SURVEY COMPARABLES R-83-22 _ PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR MROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 3600 3482) (*City of Sunnyvale) 3400 3200 3086 San Mateo County 3000 cn 10 pt —2924 2916 EBMUD 2800 _2835) (*Santa Clara County) 5 pt _2782 0 pt _2647 2600 2400 2423 EBRPD 2200 —2082 ABAG 2000 *Negotiations in progress; current salaries shown. R=83-22 SA Y SURVEY COMPARABLES I,AN,., ACQUISITION MANAGER R MROSD POINT SURVEY 4900 ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 4 700 ( 4632) (*City of Palo Alto) I 4500 4534 City of Hayward yr y, 10 pt 4354 4300 4323 San Mateo County 427g RPD E( Santa Clara County) a x 5 pt ,_r 4142 O 4100 0 t 3941 p ( 3941) (*City of Sunnyvale) 3900 3858 ABAG ( 3796) (*City of San Mateo) 3700 3500 *Negotiations in progress; current salaries shown. I p i g I g 3 June 19 8 3 SALARY SURVEY TABLE A Percentage Salary Increases for Comparable Organizations for . 1983-84 T (N/C = no comparable position) J Real Estate Open Space Com. Administrative. Land Acq. Secretary Ranger Research/Analy. Planner Coordinator Assistant Manager 390 Management Posi ions-- Palo Alto ��*--_�__�____ N/C N/C % increase not own .. Q�wncx l's--- r oak Clu'viu is ere at this time s - -- --- 53 o 5.53% salary . 5.53o salaarryy flu differential differential San Mateo or 7% PERS N/C or 7% PERS N/C N/C +:al e9r- contribution contribution - S Management positions--o increas not Sun- vale Negotiations N/C Negotiations N/C }mown at this :ime Hayward 10% N/C 6.5% 10% N/C 6.5% 6,'5% - - - Mgnt. Santa Clara Position County Negotiations Negotiations Negotiations N/C Negotiations Negotiations not deter I mine a San Mateo County 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5 EBI 5.5% (7% - for 5.5% 5.5% 5.5$ 5.5% 5.50° reference only) �EBMTJD 8% 8% N/C N/C 8% 8% N/C ABAG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Western Mgmt.. Group Survey 5.8% N/C N/C N/C N/C 6.2% N/C TABLE B SALARY INCREASES FOR SURVEYED ORGANIZATIONS //�� -City of Palo Alto Second year of two-year contract for non-manaryeme ' l�vl��-lt 'ko ook d'v (+J &-vx non-fire, non-police employees. Salar ease was Qty,o�et �`.},YQL+ : �_ to have been based on Feb. -Feb. p to a maximum A 390 iKC,.C� � �-(-c�� . Since CPI was 0. 00 r period , the City, the Union' s re _ , reopened salary negotia- tions. Sal to change July 1. Management sala- ia�.�.L 1g85 ries ange July 1, but amount of increases un- C 1 814 4cnown at this time. City of Sunnyvale Se and year of two-year contract. . Opened negotia- tions for salaries only the week of May 23. No data available at this time. City of Hayward Clerical and related employees union settled a one- year contract with a 6% salary increase. Management employees received a 6 .5% increase effective 1 1 83 and confidential employees received a 10% increase on 1/1/83 as part of the second year of a twenty-four month resolution. City of San Mateo First year of a two and one-half year contract with General Unit Union. Effective June 5 , employees select either a 5. 53% salary differential on existing salary ranges or have the City pay their 7% PERS contribution. Year II calls for a 6% increase in salary ranges , while Year III calls for a 20 increase in ranges . Contract expires September, 1985 . Man- agement Unit 5� oh 5.53 g Ma•vyy edr }90 P 'try 1 + a r d{` �- �/ta�+r efn;Y'c� + . Santa Clara County Negotiations currently in progress . NO data avail- able at this time. San Mateo County Second year of two-year contract. Salary changes were to be based on CPI and employees received the minimum 3 . 5% , effective 1/2/83. Management salaries also increased 3. 5%. East Bay Regional Third year of a three-year contract. Effective Park District 4/l/83 , employees received a 5. 5% cost-of-living adjustment, the minimum amount set forth in the contract. Public Safety Officers received a 7% increase (Year II of a three-year contract) . Man- agement salaries increased 5 . 5%. East Bay Municipal Second year of a three-year contract. Effective Utility District May 1, represented classes and supervisory personnel received an 8% increase. Changes in management salaries varied based on performance. Association of Bay All salaries frozen last year. Was supposed to have Area Governments been second year of two-year contract with a 7 . 5% increase effective 11/1/82 . Salary increase was de- layed eleven months to October 1 , 1983. To avoid layoffs , employees also agreed to take one day of leave without pay each month. R-83-22 PLO SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES SECRETARY MROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 2000 1930 EBMUD 1900 1877EBRPD 1832 ( --1806) - (*City of Sunnyvale) -- — _ 1782 City of San Mateo *fir S .pt _. 1743 -- a 1726 City df- Hayward 1700_ a : 0 pt' 1658 H O - 1600 _ - - - _ �. 1531 ABAG 1500 _.a. - _ - - - --- (: I516) - (*Santa Clara County)��_-.:-- -- - 1444 San Mateo County - 1400 1300 -- Negotiations in progress; current salaries shown, **5. 53% salary differential taken on current range. OL Or - -- R-83-22 SA.uriRY SURVEY COMPARABLES � RANGER MROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 2400 - ( 2330*) (EBRPD-Public Safety Officer) REFERENCE ONLY 2300 7 77- 2134 EBMUD ,_- �, pt ;...; -2126 :. 2100 E, 5 pt 2023 - - 2.000 T _ 1900 _ 1818 San Mateo _Count - - 1800 - _. - , ( 1786) _ .� (**Santa Clara County) . - . 1700 - *Salary for Public Safety Officer - Reference only. This is a stronger ` job classification than EBRPD Park Worker ($1882 monthly) . **Negotiations in progress; - current salaries shown. - ._;__ : R-$`3-22 S ALARY SURVEY COMPARABLES REAL ESTATE RESEARCH ANALYST MROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION _2400 ( 2331) (*City of Sunnyvale) 2300 ;.,2200 - 2156 City of San Mateo** 10 pt 2126 a 2100 - - 2076 City 'of Hayward _ ._ x 5 pt 2023 _. 2023 San Mateo_. County. . . ..__ 2 2000 1925 - 19001800 1783)_ (*Santa Clara. County) - - - - 1732 ABAG _ 1700 *Negotiations in progress; current salaries shown. **5. 53o salary differential taken on current range. R-83=22 SA Y SURVEY COMPARABLES Q.'"A OPEN SPACE PLANNER MROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION - 310 10 0 2981. City of Hayward 294 '10 pt— _2839 - 2700 Y ---2704 _ San Mateo Count _ . .. p - _2700 . . . _: _- . .- 2600 2 511 - . : � : ABAG 2500 a. 2423 _ EBRPD *Negotiations in progress. Current salary shown. -: 1 �E ►: Cam � 3'� - : :: °�"'-.. �� : --_. _�- • SALARY SURVEY COMPARABLY'- R-83-22 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTAN'. -,SPA MROSD POINT SURVEY ccICL a3 ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 3700 3 612 EBMUD _. 3500 3300 3100 . (2 9 4 8) (*City of- Sunnyvale) . 2944 City of_Hayward _ 2900 a _ ui _ �- 10 pt 2839 O 2700 5 pt - 2700 2668 City of San Mateo 2628 - EBRPD -- _ 0 pt 2500 - -- --- -- - - - _ . . 2373 San Mateo County 2300 — ( 2256) (*City of Palo Alto) 2168) :: : :: _(*Santa Clara County)'__. 2100 2 082 A$AG _.- *Negotiations in progress; current salaries shown. 1900 R-83-22 S- 2Y SURVEY COMPARABLES PUBLIC. -OMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR MROSD POINT SURVEY ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGANIZATION 3600 ( 3482) (*City of Sunnyvale) - - 3400 3200 3086 San Mateo_County 3000 En : >+ 10 pt 2924 _ - _ 2916 EBMUD _ H zo . . . . .. 2835) . --- ----- (*Santa Clara_CountY?: 2800 _- 5 :pt 2782 - i .L l' 0 pt - 2647 2600 _ _.__ _.. : -_ __ - - - - - - -_ _ -77- -- _. .--- - - - - - --- - - - `2423 - EBRPD - 2400 .� 2200 - 2082 2000 *Negotiations in progress ; current salaries shown. ~ R-83-22 SA SURVEY COMPARABLES iztC51Ga A 1, LANv ACQUISITION MANAGER (1+ t 6 MROSD POINT SURVEY 4900 ADJUSTMENT DATA ORGA14IZATION 4700 ( 4632) (*City of Palo Alto) ...__.: 4534 City 4500 of Hayward r - _ 10 pt 4354 - - - - - - - - °� 4300 : 4323 San Mateo County - -_. 9 ( 4257) E(*SPD anta Clara County) ^- F' 5 pt,- 4142. : . z 0 4100 _ _ � - - . .. • . . _ - _... 0 pt 3941 _ : _ 3941). :. : ---(*C ty of Sunnyvale) 3900 _. k 8 ABAG 3796 City -,of--San Mateo. _ -- -- - - - �. I *Negotiations in progress; current salaries shown. E j1tkar obi-� 't�:K. � _- •Y :t?-�t ['. :rr - -- =-- - - _