Print Return
 
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMPENSATION
Meeting Date: 05/07/2015  
Subject:    STAFF RESEARCH ON ITEMS REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON APRIL 16
Submitted For: Stephen L. Weir
Department: County Administrator  
Referral No.:  
Referral Name:
Presenter: Steve Weir Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea 925.335.1077
Information
Referral History:
At the April 23 meeting, the Committee was provided a compilation of information on county health benefit trends, County auto allowance and mileage reimbursement, and supplemental pays; historical data on adjustments to the Board’s salary in addition to general salary and health benefit changes for selected labor groups; information about what compensation elements are pensionable; and information on San Francisco Civil Service Commission salary-setting procedures and other examples where such a salary setting commission operates.
The Committee established the following points of consensus through its prior meetings:
  • The job of County Supervisor should be compensated as a full time job
  • The salary should not be tied to a judge or any position not related or comparable to a County Supervisor
  • The salary should not be tied to another County job classification
  • An independent commission should review the Board’s salary at regular intervals
  • The Board’s salary should be based on the duties and responsibilities of the position rather than on performance of the official (performance to be decided by the electorate)
  • While salary is not the guiding factor for Supervisorial candidates, it should not be so low as to be a barrier to public service and should be high enough to attract good candidates
  • The methodology for future salary setting should embody the leadership principle of sharing the pain during tough times
  • The methodology for future salary setting should attempt to de-politicize the determination of Board compensation

The Committee asked staff to continue to refine the salary chart (Attachment H, April 23rd meeting packet) comparing total compensation for Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo Counties. Because the Category of "Pension Contribution" was deemed not a true measure of benefit, the Committee directed staff to exclude that data from the analysis and study the Retiree Health Benefits to see if it could be made a valid element for comparison in total compensation. Staff committed to work on the areas identified by the Committee and also attempt to refine Pension Contribution and look for geographic pay differential data for the Bay Area.
Referral Update:
In order to develop a salary recommendation and salary setting methodology, the following points require further consideration:
  • What counties should be used for comparison and on what basis? Are Alameda and San Mateo sufficient for the current analysis and an ongoing methodology?
  • If counties outside of the Bay Area are to be used, should their compensation be corrected for cost of living (geographic pay differential) differences?
  • On what factors should the compensation comparison be based: salary, salary plus cash benefits, or an estimate of total compensation (which may involve subjective assumptions)?
  • At what percent of median/percentile should the BOS salary be placed?
  • How frequently should a commission review the Board’s salary?
  • Should an automatic escalator be applied in the intervening years? If yes, what kind of escalator, e.g., CPI, rank & file adjustment, a combination of the two? Should a mid-term review ever result in a salary reduction?
  • Should any of the current cash benefits be eliminated and/or rolled into the base salary?
  • Whatever the final outcome of the analysis, should the next adjustment be phased in over time or applied all at once? If phased in, on what schedule?

To assist the committee in its consideration of the above decision points, attached please find the following information:
  1. Final report on Setting Compensation of Members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
  2. Comparison of Key Characteristics of Staff-Selected Counties
  3. Comparison Bar Charts of Key Characteristics: County Population, Unincorporated County Population, Budget
  4. 2007 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Salary Adjusted for CPI
  5. 2015 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Salary Comparison with Staff-Selected Counties
  6. Sample “Relocation Essentials” Cost of Living Analysis: Contra Costa Compared to San Mateo
  7. Updated Tri-County Total Compensation Comparison: Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE compilation of research data requested by the Committee on April 23 and provide direction to staff on next steps.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None. This is an informational item only.
Attachments
Attachment A_Final report on Setting Compensation of Members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors
Attachment B_Comparison of Key Characteristics of Staff-Selected Counties
Attachment C_Comparison Bar Charts of Key Characteristics: County Population, Unincorporated County Population, Budget
Attachment D_2007 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Salary Adjusted for CPI
Attachment E_2015 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Salary Comparison with Staff-Selected Counties
Attachment F_Sample “Relocation Essentials” Cost of Living Analysis: Contra Costa Compared to San Mateo
Attachment G_Updated Tri-County Total Compensation Comparison: Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Mateo
Attachment B_Key Characteristics of Staff-Selected Counties - CORRECTED
Attachment H_Michael Moore's Tri-County Pension Analysis

AgendaQuick©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved