HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2015 B2 GradyCOUNCIL MEETING: 0 61 VZ I
May 29, 2015 MAY t ��; ;` ITEM NO.: -
SLO City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Marx and City Council members,
I am writing in regards to the agenda item proposal scheduled for hearing on June 2,
2015 to increase the salary of our City Attorney by 7% as well as provide our City
Manager a monthly car allowance of $450 and a lump sum `incentive payment of $7,600.
First allow me to provide a bit of context for my remarks related to this agenda item.
It has baffled me for many years now why you, who represent the electorate and residents
of our city and who must be good stewards of our limited financial resources, continually
vote to pay exorbitant salaries to those in leadership positions within our city staff.
Why do you believe that our city must pay administrators above market rates to attract
and retain top quality employees? As I'm sure you've heard from many of your
constituents over and over again, most of us who live here came for the quality oflife,
not for the money. In fact, most professionals living here realize they could make much
more money in Los Angeles or San Francisco, but they choose to stay here nonetheless.
Please ask yourselves, how well has this worked out over recent years - paying above
average salaries to our department heads? Not so well by my analysis. How many
department heads have either resigned or been asked to leave in the past five years?
And what is the cost for this turnover - including the pay raise to the new department
head (as you always like to pay someone new more than the last guy), the loss of
productivity as the new hire gets up to speed, and most recently the $120,000 cost of
taxpayer dollars to have Police Chief Gesell go quietly away?
Money does not seem to buy happiness or productivity or a lasting tenure in this town.
So perhaps your focus should shift more towards character and skill set and the real
desire to live here, rather than dangling dollars to attract people here. Perhaps fewer
dollars would attract someone more sincere who is looking for something more tangible
and important than money?
Comments on Item B2= Appointed Officials; Evaluations and Compensation Resolution.
Council met with a consultant in closed session on April 22, 2015, to discuss the
appointed officials' performance and compensation.
I understand that personnel matters are private, but I believe discussions about our city
manager's and city attorney's salaries should be held in open session. These are the
residents' tax dollars you are spending, so why shouldn't this be an open, transparent
process? And do you really need to pay an outside consultant to help you come to a
consensus as to what is a reasonable salary?
2. A greater concern I have is with your current process. Your agenda packet states
"Council considered the commendable performance of the City Manager and City
Attorney, accomplishment of goals, Council's desire to retain these highly qualified
and experienced individuals, the current compensation of the City Manager and
City Attorney, and market data for comparable positions. Council concluded
adjustments to compensation were appropriate."
But previously in the agenda packet it states:
In 2013, Council amended the contract of the City Attorney removing emphasis from
the Management Pay for Performance System used with unrepresented
management and department head employees and placing emphasis on market
comparisons for Council's consideration of compensation. The same language is
recommended for inclusion in the City Manager's contract to more accurately
reflect Council's compensation considerations. This change recognizes that the
appointed officials differ from other management employees in that they are hired
by, and serve at the will of, the City Council.
So while you decided in 2013 to remove the emphasis from `Pay for Performance' and
instead place an emphasis "on market comparisons" , you are now justifying these
proposed salary increases upon their "commendable performance "? You are completely
contradicting yourselves and the direction you chose just two years ago.
And in your rationale for these pay raises you claim to have considered "market data for
comparable positions ". I question if you have any such data. If you have market data to
support these proposed salary increases, where is it? Why isn't this made public as part
of the agenda packet and rationale staff suggests you use for these salary increases?
Where is the transparency here and supporting data you claim to have for your actions?
Lastly, since you provided no market data for comparable positions, I spent time
gathering together market data for cities of equal and much larger populations and
compiled a list of the salaries they offer to their city managers and city attorneys. And a
couple of the cities are ones this council has offered in the past as comparable cities,
including Napa and Davis. Not surprisingly, San Luis Obispo is very close to the Log o
the list for having the highest salaries paid for these two positions, while we are at the
bottom o
f the list with regards to population. In fact, the only city with a higher salary
paid to its city manager and city attorney is San Jose, with a population over 21 times
that of San Luis Obispo, at 998,000! And their salaries are not all that greater than ours.
A table of comparison cities follows on the next page - ranked by salaries from lowest
salary to highest salary. Note the position of San Luis Obispo (and relative populations).
C-Ifty
Population
City Manager Salary
City Attorney Salary
Lodi
63,300
$179,029
$140,000
Woodland
56,600
$188,000
Not listed - perhaps
they use consultant ?)
Napa
79,000
$203,940
$173,412
Santa Maria
102,000
$206,000
$180,500
(mid -pt of range)
(mid -pt of range)
Salinas
155,000
$215,000
$180,800
Davis
66,200
$217,200
Not listed - perhaps
they use consultant ?)
San Luis Obispo
46,000
$221,500
$175,002 (Current)
$187,252 (Proposed)
San Jose
998,000
$253,700
$211,000
While you claim to have considered "market data for comparable positions" as one
justification for your proposed salary increases, where is your data? And perhaps you
will take issue with some of the cities above, but I have selected cities of larger
populations in a random manner. I know Davis, Napa, (and I believe Woodland) have
been used by City Council in the past as `comparable cities'. I believe housing and cost
of living are comparable (or perhaps even higher) in Davis, Napa and Woodland. And I
thought too that council decided to start also incorporating private sector salaries?
How can you justify salaries greater than offered in Davis, a city over 40% larger than
ours? Why should you (we) pay salaries greater than Napa, a city 170% the size of ours?
And San Jose, a city 21 times our size pays not that much more salary for either position.
I urge you reject a one time $7,600 lump sum "incentive payment" (for what ?) to the city
manager, reject a $450 monthly car allowance to the city manager, and reject a 7%
annual salary increase to the city attorney. These positions are already more than
generously compensated and you have provided no evidence or justification for yet a
further increase. In the midst of your ongoing salary negotiations with all the organized
labor groups, representing nearly the entire city staff, approval of these salary increases
would set a bad precedent and greatly undermine your bargaining position in these talks.
Regards,
John Grady
San Luis Obispo, CA