In one fell swoop, the Upland City Council will confer across-the-board pay raises for city employees and simultaneously reward its own members and the city treasurer with a salary/stipend boost and taxpayer funded medical coverage for them and their family members.
The action comes seven months after Upland’s voters solidly rejected imposing one-cent sales tax override on all transactions in the city.
Since its inception as San Bernardino County’s fourth incorporated city in 1906, Upland and its political leadership has accepted its position as one of the county’s least dynamic municipal entities economically, having lagged forever behind the county seat San Bernardino; neighboring Ontario, to which it served as the “bedroom community” host of the impressive homes built by that city’s successful entrepreneurs and the resort community Redlands, which was a West Coast stomping grounds for millionaires from back east, primarily Chicago.
When Chino, with its intensive farmland, incorporated in 1910, Upland, which had a secondary claim to fame of being an agricultural community, fell further behind in its significance. With the incorporation of Needles, a major railroad town in 1913, Upland was yet being overlooked as a place of significance on the San Bernardino County map, although it and its elegant Magnolia downtown district was garnering distinction as a gracious residential area.
Not until Rialto incorporated in 1911, was there a city in San Bernardino County upon which Upland, as a municipality, could look down upon.
During that era, with the United States just a few years later gearing up for entering what was then called “the Great War” and finally entering what is now known as the First World War, the unincorporated west Mojave Desert San Bernardino County community of Trona, with its readily available potash, grew into an area of greater significance than Upland as America raced to produce gunpowder.
After the Second World War, when the railroad town of Barstow incorporated in 1947, that city’s existence as a place where the railroads and Trans-American Highway 66, standing as a way station between Los Angeles and the burgeoning gambling mecca of Las Vegas converged, took on meaning as a city that had eluded Upland.
Indeed, throughout its 117-year history, Upland had seemed to accept its place as the “City of Gracious Living,” with its location along Route 66 just at the gate to Los Angeles County and its stately Euclid Avenue featuring on either side of an urban forest median nice homes giving way to even nicer ones, which gradually transition into mansions ultimately punctuated by manors as it stretches northward toward Mount San Antonio.
Still as nice as those palatial homes and the neighborhoods that contained them were, in the arena in which cities compete, Upland remained and remains a “bedroom community,” one without the super-intensive commercial or industrial might that generates mega-millions of income for City Hall. Insofar as the normal calculus of the financial standing of San Bernardino County’s 24 municipalities, consisting of 22 cites and two incorporated towns, Upland was until just two years ago in 12th place, at the very bottom of the top half of all of the county’s [municipal] jurisdictions, lagging behind Ontario, Victorville, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Colton, Chino, Chino Hills, Redlands, Hesperia and Apple Valley.
In 2012, slightly more than four years after the onset of the economic downturn that had begun at the end of 2007 and had come to be known as “the Great Recession,” Upland was struggling financially, even more than most cities. That year, an auditor’s opinion from the certified public accounting firm Mayer Hoffman and McCann stated there were serious questions with regard to the city’s solvency to the point that in a short while “it will be unable to continue as a going concern.” Though its officials engaged in hefty denials as to the reality, Upland found itself in the company of two other San Bernardino County cities, those being San Bernardino, which in August 2012, declared bankruptcy and Adelanto, which in 2014 staved off such a fate by making a clean sweep of the mayor and two of its city council members up for reelection that year and immediately embarked on what the then-newly-elected mayor declared was an effort to transform Adelanto into the “marijuana capital of the world,” by switching the city to a cannabis-based economy.
Upland managed to avoid falling into the same abyss as San Bernardino and Adelanto, but just barely. Austerity remained the watchword within the City of Gracious Living.
In 2010, Mayor John Pomierski had been indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with bribetaking, forcing his resignation from office. In 2012, Pomierski’s handpicked city manager, Robert Quincey, was arrested and charged with three counts of political/governmental corruption. Thereafter, Upland officials, chastened by events, sought to avoid any appearance of impropriety or hint of self-dealing by their positions at City Hall. With city finances in a state of touch-and-go, the city’s elected officials – the mayor, council members and city treasurer – were unwilling to up the modest stipends they received for attending meetings. So concerned were they, in fact, with appearances that they might be profiting or benefiting by their holding of public office in Upland that they refused to accept the insurance or medical coverage provided to city employees that elected officials in many other cities had chosen to provide themselves. Ray Musser had been Pomierski’s primary political rival on the city council during the graft-ridden years of Pomierski’s reign. Musser had been chosen to succeed the disgraced Pomierski after his fall from power. When Musser, who ran an insurance agency in Upland, believing that he should be and was entitled to something to make up for his devotion to serving as mayor, which was detracting from the time he could spend running his insurance business, accepted the city’s provision of health benefits for himself and his wife. When this became known, it turned into a mini-scandal in Upland. While nowhere near the order of ignominy that had come about over Pomierski’s soliciting and acceptance of payoffs, Musser’s mere acceptance, as an elected official in Upland, of a completely legal but taxpayer-defrayed benefit offered to all of the city’s employees cast him in, at least for some, a negative light.
Last year, Upland city officials, seeking to come to terms with their City Hall having a lower financial status than the social ranking of the city’s residents, appealed to them to impose upon themselves, or more accurately all of those shopping in the city’s retail establishments, an additional one cent per dollar – one percent – sales tax. The initiative – dubbed Measure L – would generate, city officials said, $16 million annually in revenue to the city. If approved, city officials said, 41.5 percent of the money – $6.64 million – would be used for public works projects, including fixing streets, alleys and sidewalks, filling potholes in San Bernardino County’s tenth largest of 24 municipalities population-wise and sixth smallest geographically. Another 37.5 percent, or $6 million, was to be used for public safety, which was to cover hiring more police officers, stricter gang and drug law enforcement, enhanced 9-1-1 response and eradicating or reducing vandalism. The remaining 21 percent was to be used for what were deemed “citywide services,” youth and senior citizen programs, park maintenance and improvements and dealing with the homeless among programs.
At the same time, those officials said, if the city’s voters proved stingy and refused to give Measure L passage, the city’s extended chapter of belt-tightening would continue, and residents would suffer by seeing further reductions in critical municipal services.
City officials were relatively confident of the measure’s passage, to the point where commitments – or semi-commitments – were being made to city employees. Upon the measure’s passage, the city’s rank and file were assured, the city would more than match the anticipated rise in inflation, such that they would receive $5,000 raises that would go into effect in 2023-24. The city’s department heads would be due a $10,000 upswing in their pay. At the same time, City Manager Mike Blay and Police Chief Marcelo Blanco were to come in for a $20,000 annual raise.
One element of the city’s confidence consisted in the support provided to the campaign in favor of Measure L, which came from the political supporters of the city council.
The city encountered, however, rough sledding in trying to get Measure L approved, as a closely knit but sophisticated and efficient opposition to the measure manifested. Three days after the November 8 voting with the lion’s share of the votes to come in as a consequence of the Upland municipal election that was part of the 2020 ballot, it was clear that Measure L had gone down to defeat, with the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters reporting that of the 13,268 votes cast by Upland’s voters counted to that point, 5,967 or 44.97 percent were in favor of the tax add-on and 7,301 or 55.03 percent were against it.
Discomfiture among Upland officials was pronounced. Not only, did it seem, that the promised pay increases at City Hall would have to be put on hold, other forms of drastic reductions in service in the City of Gracious Living would be on tap.
Unmentioned throughout the campaigns waged in favor of Measure L was the degree to which the escalation in the pension payouts now received by already retired Upland city employees and to be received by yet-to-retire Upland employees in the future is a factor in the city’s ongoing financial challenge.
Presently, the city’s pension debt, the amount of money owed to the California Public Employees Retirement System, has exceeded $140 million. Since the city is not capable of paying that entire amount off at once, it has financed the debt, paying an amount of money to the California Public Employees Retirement System annually which the system’s administrators accept, and which is used to pay the city’s current crop of retirees their pensions. Viewed in this way, the city is shelling out on a yearly basis more than $11 million to provide pensions to people who are no longer working for Upland and pay the interest on financing that debt. In considering the City of Upland’s current financial circumstance, when the one-time infusions of federal CARES Act and American Rescue Act funding augmentation are left out of the equation, the city is shown to have a $46.5 million general fund budget.
Former Police Chief Kenneth Jeff Mendenhall, who had 34.07 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $205,691.25. His wife, former City Clerk Stephanie Mendenhall, who had 28.04 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $111,625.69. Former City Manager Michael Milhiser, who had 34.33 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $199,858.44. Former Police Chief Marty Thouvenell, who had 33.63 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $174,028.04. Former Police Captain Arlis Garner, who had 34.07 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $170,950.66. Former Development Director Jeff Zwack, who had 33.8 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $140,190.96. Former Police Chief Steve Adams, who had 27.05 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $127,446.92. Steven Dukett, who had 34.43 years working as a public employee in the California Public Employees Retirement System, is receiving an annual pension of $122,467.36. Former City Manager Jeannette Vagnozzi, who had 25 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $119,166.24. Former City Manager Stephen Dunn, who had 28.55 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $113,908.35. Police Captain Kenneth Bonson, who had 22.19 years working as a public employee, is receiving an annual pension of $113,694.92. Those represent but a fraction of the former Upland employees receiving pensions. Others are progressing toward retirement, and they too will soon be collecting generous retirement benefits.
To deal with that reality, which in the fullness of time will encroach on the city’s solvency to the point that by as early as 2032 it may face, as San Bernardino did in 2012, no alternative to declaring bankruptcy, city officials last November were contemplating what for them were either highly unpalatable or outright unthinkable solutions.
Roughly 61 percent of the city’s budget is consumed by the operation of the police department. Voters’ rejection of Measure L revived serious discussion of the dissolution of the Upland Police Department in favor of the City of Gracious Living contracting with the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for the provision of law enforcement services. Upland – the City Gracious Living – takes considerable pride in its police department. Of the county’s 24 municipalities, ten at present – Upland, Barstow, Chino, Colton, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Redlands, Rialto and San Bernardino – have their own police departments. The other 12 towns and both incorporated town contract with the sheriff’s department for the provision of law enforcement service. In Upland, from 1941 until 1950, Eugene Mueller was police chief. In 1950, he was elected San Bernardino County sheriff. Later, Mueller would be appointed by California Governor Goodwin Knight as part of a two-man task force that included attorney Jim Cox dedicated to rooting out racketeering in boxing. Mueller was subsequently the police chief in Culver City.
As undesirable as shuttering the Upland Police Department is to some, it is not impossible. In 1906, one of the justifications for incorporating Upland rather than allowing it to simply be absorbed by its south-lying neighbor and becoming north Ontario, was that it would have a local police department and local police department. In 2017, as a means of dealing with the city’s financial challenges, Upland closed down its municipal fire department and had the San Bernardino County Fire Department take over the 111-year-old institution. In short order, should economic reality so dictate, the Upland Police Department could become a discarded relic.
With Upland on the ropes financially, it is now curious to many how it is that on Monday, June 12, the city council will be in the position of giving City Manager Michael Blay at salary raise to $316,685.78 as of June 25 of this year, $329,363.29 as of June 23, 2024 and $339,244.52 as of June 22, 2025; Police Chief Marcello Blanco a salary raise to $279,912.93 as of June 25 this year, $291,109.44 as of June 23, 2024 and $299,842.73 as of June 22, 2025; Assistant City Manager Stephen Parker $253,587.30 as of June 25 of this year, $263,730.79 by June 23, 2024 and $271,642.71 as of June 22, 2025; Development Services Director Robert Dalquest $213,334.18 as of June 25 of this year, $221,867.54 as of June 23, 2024, $228,523.57 as of June 22, 2025, Public Works Director Braden Yu $208,130.90 as of June 25 of this year, $216,456.14 as of June 23, 2024 and $222,949.82 as of June 22, 2025.
At the same time, the city is offering to increase the pay of its executive management employees by 5 percent effective June 25, 2023, a 2 percent raise effective June 23, 2024, and 3 raise percent June 22, 2025.
So-called non-represented/confidential employees, which included the city’s accounting supervisor, the city clerk, the deputy director of human resources/risk management, the executive assistant to the city manager, the city’s finance officer and human resources analyst I/II, are to receive a 5 percent salary increase in base salary, effective June 25, 2023, a two percent raise, effective June 23, 2024, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective December 8, 2024, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective June 22, 2025 and another 2 percent increase in base salary, effective December 7, 2025. In addition, among other benefit increases such as cell phone allowances, increased retirement benefits, , these non-represented/confidential employees are to receive 2.5 percent, 5 percent and 7.5 percent raises above base salary for getting, respectively, associate’s, bachelor’s’ or master’s degrees and they are to receive longevity pay of 2.5 percent increases in base pay for lasting for five years, 5 percent increases for lasting in a position for ten years and 7.5 percent for remaining in a position for 20 years. With non-represented/confidential employees, the city manager has discretion to give them a 5 percent increase for what is termed merit pay.
Midmanagement level employees are to level are to receive a 5 percent salary increase in base salary, effective June 25, 2023, a two percent raise, effective June 23, 2024, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective December 8, 2024, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective June 22, 2025 and another 2 percent increase in base salary, effective December 7, 2025. Mid-management employees are also eligible for pay increases similar to those provided to the non-represented employees on the basis of education, longevity and merit.
The city’s regular staff, those represented by Upland City Employees Association are to receive a 5 percent increase in base salary, effective June 25, 2023, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective June 23, 2024, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective December 8, 2024, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective June 22, 2025, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective December 7, 2025, a 3 percent increase in base salary, effective June 21, 2026, and a 3 percent increase in base salary, effective June 20, 2027. In addition, the Upland City Employees Association wangled for its members a bonus to those employees who simply show up for work. The city is to issue a one-time payment called “Essential Worker Premium Pay” of up to $5,000 to each employee who physically reported to work and has been actively employed by the city during the time period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 and remains currently employed as of the scheduled payment date.
Employees are further entitled to longevity pay if they say on the job for 10 years, thereby receiving a 3 percent increase in base salary a 4 percent increase in base salary for remaining place for 15 years and a five percent increase in base salary for staying as a city employee for 20 years.
The city council is to ratify a deal with the Upland Police Management Association is to ratify on Monday night a deal giving sergeants nine ranges of pay with the top step providing pay 25 percent greater than that provided to a top pay detective with the department; providing lieutenants with the department nine ranges of pay, with the top step paying 25 percent above that paid to a sergeant at the top step; and providing police captains six ranges of pay above the top set for a police lieutenant, with the top step at 16 percent above that for a top step lieutenant. The city will also pay police management members a one-time bonus of $5,000, for being an essential worker who showed up for assignments during the time period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023.
Police management who remain with the department for five years will receive a 2.5% increase in base salary and an additional 2.5 percent increase if they remain on the force for ten years and another 2.5 percent pay increase for staying in place for 15 years.
Police management employees are eligible for the same salary enhancements as other employees who obtain associate’s, bachelor’s or master’s or doctorate degrees. Additionally, those who complete Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) courses, are given financial rewards. These include a 2.5 percent jump in base salary for an Intermediate POST Certificate or a 7.5 percent increase of base salary for an Advanced POST Certificate or a 10 percent increase in base salary for a Supervisory POST Certificate or a 15 percent increase in base salary for a Management POST Certificate.
The city’s police officers are to receive are to receive a 5 percent increase in base salary, effective June 25, 2023, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective June 23, 2024, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective December 8, 2024, a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective June 22, 2025 and a 2 percent increase in base salary, effective December 7, 2025. The police officers, who are members of the Upland Police Officers Association, are to be eligible for the benefits and incentives given to other city employees, with 2.5 increase in base salary for those earning an Associate’s Degree or equivalent college units, or a 5 percent increase in base salary for a Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent college units, as well as a 2.5 percent increase in pay for an Intermediate POST Certificate or 7.5 percent increase in pay for an Advanced POST Certificate.
Slipped in with those increases is that the city council will also make its members eligible to receive the health benefits normally extended to the city’s employees, meaning that the members of the council, their spouses and minor or dependent children will also receive taxpayer-defrayed medical care.
Additionally, after 2026, the members of the city council are to be eligible to receive travel and health benefit allowances which mate the benefits that are provided to member of the Upland Police Management Association.
How, precisely, the City of Upland was able to transition from a position following the failure of Measure L in November when it was in danger of sliding over a slippery financial precipice into bankruptcy to the point that it is now flush with cash and is thus be able to make across-the-board pay raises and let the members of the city council and the city treasurer dip into that largesse for benefits as well has not been given explanation, other than for references to Assistant City Manager Stephen Parker, who city employees commend as being “a financial genius,” working the arrangement out.
Within the last three to four years, the city’s financial picture consisted of a general fund that hovered around the $42 million mark, taken together with the city’s enterprise funds, including the money that was channeled through the city’s water utility account. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the city saw an infusion of money from the federal government in the form of one-time augmentations consisting of CARES Act and American Rescue Act grants and funding. In addition, the city council, after it failed to issue some $20 million in so-called obligation bonds in 2021, engage in some creative financing by converting money it had obtained by issuing water bonds to capital to be used in servicing some of the city’s pension debt. None of those financial maneuverings, however, fully explicate the sleight-of-hand city officials, led by Parker, were able to engage in to declare on paper that the city now has $146 million running through all of its various municipal funds.
It is through the $146 million at the city’s disposal, and various borrowings against it, city officials have suggested, the city has now gotten on its feet financially, and can afford the outlays it will commit to on Monday night.