At its previous meetings, the Committee arrived at a consensus on the following points:
-
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
-
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 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 excluding county contributions to future benefits (such as retirement and deferred compensation) for other counties should be corrected for geographic cost of living differences. For the current analysis, the Committee will rely on data from RelocationEssentials.com and the U.S. Census.
-
The comparison should be based on salary plus the following additional elements of compensation: county normal contribution to pension, county contribution to health/dental coverage, deferred compensation or like benefit, auto allowance, and any other cash benefit. Retiree health, life insurance, and estimated annual pension benefit at 55 with 8 years of service, will be excluded but may be considered on a qualitative basis. Other agency stipends should be included provided there is meaningful data available for such a comparison. For the current analysis, such data was not sufficiently available.
-
The Board should be paid at a percentile of market compensation commensurate with County employees, provided there is meaningful data available for such a comparison.
-
Board members should continue to receive the auto allowance but should not receive mileage reimbursement in addition to the auto allowance.
-
Significant Board salary adjustments should be granted in 2 or 3 increments.
-
Compensation factors to be quantified and compared should include salary, County normal basic pension contribution, County health/dental contribution, auto allowance, County deferred compensation contribution, and other cash benefits.
-
Compensation for post-employment benefits (pension and deferred compensation) should not be adjusted for geographic differences in cost of living.
After reviewing two drafts of their report at its June 11 and 18 meetings, the Committee decided to make the following recommendations to the Board:
-
To increase the Board’s salary from the June 1, 1015 level by 12% over three years, which equates to approx. 3.855% (with compounding) per year for the next three years: 1/1/16, 1/1/17, 1/1/18
-
Convene an independent salary committee to review Board compensation every three years, with the next one to be convened in 2018
-
Apply no COLA or other increases to the Board’s salary between the independent salary reviews
-
Apply to the Board’s salary via ordinance any permanent salary reduction taken by County employees
-
Modify the Board’s auto benefit from “$600/mo + all mileage” to “$600/mo + out-of-county mileage”
The Committee directed staff to prepare the final report and presentation for Committee consideration on June 25. |