Print Return
 
AD HOC CTE ON BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMPENSATION - SPECIAL
Meeting Date: 05/12/2015  
Subject:    STAFF RESEARCH ON ITEMS REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON MAY 7
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 April 23 and May 7 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 following counties should be used for comparison, on the basis of general population, unincorporated area population, and budget: Alameda, San Mateo, Sacramento, Fresno, Kern, Ventura, Sonoma, and San Francisco
  • Compensation for other counties should be corrected for geographic cost of living differences.
  • The following elements of compensation should be included; however this may change as the data is refined: base salary, county normal contribution to pension, estimated annual pension benefit at 55 with 8 years of service, county contribution to health/dental coverage, deferred compensation or like benefit, auto allowance, any other cash benefit. Retiree health and life insurance will be excluded but may be considered on a qualitative basis.
  • The Board should be paid at a percentile of market commensurate with County employees, provided there is meaningful data available for such a comparison.
  • A commission should review the Board’s salary every three years.
  • No automatic salary escalator, such as CPI or general employee wage increase, should be applied between BOS salary reviews.

The following additional points will be reconsidered when staff has completed gathering all of the necessary data:
  • 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?
  • 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?
Referral Update:
At the May 7 meeting, staff was asked to:
  • consult the County's HR Consultant to find out if a study had been conducted that determined how for below market wages are County employee salaries.

Staff consulted the County Administrator and HR Consultant and learned that no Countywide study has been conducted to measure the County's wages against the labor market. However, the County Administrator indicated that it has been generally accepted that Contra Costa County salaries are 15-18% below market.
  • verify the veracity/reliability of RelocationEssentials.com data.

Staff was unable to independently verify the data used by RelocationEssentials. However, it has been in existence for at least 15 years and is widely referenced in the real estate industry. Attachment "I" is a 2001 magazine article about the site. Below are other sites that offer similar data and services; however, none of the other sites offer a salary converter on a county-by-county basis.

Moving.com
Simplest of the calculators on this page. Forensic Scientists can select the "Research & Science" field, then select the most similar job description.
Bestplaces.net Salary Calculator
Even "from" DC it will ask you to also pick a city.
Salary.com
Minimal details, but nice graphic of salary vs. cost of living for comparisons.
CNN.com
City choices limited and difficult to pick-out from the odd by-state listing.
  • refine the non-salary compensation data fur future consideration by the Committee.

Attachment G continues to be a work in progress. It has been updated with additional data and reformatted to show both Total Annual Compensation and Total Compensation, so that the Committee can see the effect that the pension benefit has on compensation.
  • compile one or more economic benchmarks for Contra Costa and the eight peer counties

Attachment B has been updated to include two new economic benchmarks for the eight peer counties: Cost of Living as Compared to the National Average, and Median Household Income.


To assist the committee in its study, the attachments from the last meeting are included below along with new attachments H and I, and updates to Attachments B and G:
  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 - UPDATED
  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 - UPDATED
  8. Michael Moore Pension Benefit Estimate
  9. 2001 Realtor article about RelocationEssentials.com
  10. 5-11-15 Sacramento Bee news article announcing 3% pay raise for State Legislators, Governor
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE compilation of research data requested by the Committee on May 7 and provide direction to staff on next steps.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None. This is an informational item only.
Attachments
Attachment A_Santa Barbara County BOS Salary Setting Process
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_Peer County Compensation Comparison (In Progress) UPDATED 5-12-15
Attachment H_Michael Moore Pension Benefit Analysis
Attachment I_2001 Realtor Article on RelocationEssentials.com
Attachment J_Capitol Alert Article Announcing 3% Legislature Pay Raise
Attachment G_Peer County Compensation Comparison (In Progress) UPDATED 5-12-15

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