Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-29-2019 CCC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Agenda COUNCIL COMPENSATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 29, 2019 5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Dan Rivoire ROLL CALL : Committee Members Audrey Bigelow, Garrett Otto, Cal Stevens, Jenn Stubbs, Ron Yukelson, Vice Chair Kim Bisheff and Chair Dan Rivoire PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the Council Compensation Committee of September 24, 2019 BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Discuss goals and objectives of the Committee regarding Council Compensation. Recommendation: Discuss and determine goals and objectives of the Committee. 3. Overview of approaches to Council Compensation from a variety of Cities Recommendation: Receive and file presentation. 4. Public outreach processes used by the City to gather community input. Recommendation: Receive and file presentation. Council Compensation Committee Agenda for October 29, 2019 Page 2 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5. Staff Updates ADJOURNMENT The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meet ings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following web address: http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1/fol/61028/Row1.aspx DRAFT Minutes – Council Compensation Committee Meeting of September 24, 2019 Page 1 Minutes - DRAFT COUNCIL COMPENSATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 24, 2019 Regular Meeting of the Council Compensation Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Council Compensation Committee was called to order on, Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Deputy City Manager Greg Hermann. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Audrey Bigelow, Kim Bisheff, Garrett Otto, Dan Rivoire, Cal Stevens, Jenn Stubbs, and Ron Yukelson Absent: None Staff: Greg Hermann Deputy City Manager, Monica Irons, Human Resources Director, Brittani Roltgen, Human Resources Analyst and Teresa Purrington, City Clerk OATH OF OFFICE/INTRODUCTIONS 1. City Clerk Purrington administered the Oath of Office and the Committee Members introduced themselves. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None --End of Public Comment-- BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair Public Comment None. --End of Public Comment-- Greg Hermann Deputy City Manager called for nominations for Chair. Committee Member Otto nominated Committee Member Rivoire. Committee Member Rivoire accepted the nomination. No other nominations were made. Packet Page 1 DRAFT Minutes – Council Compensation Committee Meeting of September 24, 2019 Page 2 ACTION: CARRIED 7 – 0 Committee Member Dan Rivoire was selected as Chair. Deputy City Manager Hermann turned the meeting over to Chair Rivoire. Chair Rivoire called for nominations for Vice Chair. Committee Member Yukelson nominated Committee Member Bisheff. Committee Member Bisheff accepted the nomination. No other nominations were made. ACTION: CARRIED 7 – 0 Committee Member Kim Bisheff was selected as Vice Chair. 3. ABCs of Open Government Laws, Purview of the Committee and Background Information Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager and Teresa Purrington, City Clerk provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to questions. Public Comment None --End of Public Comment-- ACTION: Receive and file no action taken. 4. Action Plan and Topics for Future Consideration Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager, Monica Irons, Human Resources Director, Brittani Roltgen, Human Resources Analyst and Teresa Purrington, City Clerk provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to questions. Public Comment None --End of Public Comment-- ACTION: By consensus the Committee provided the following direction regarding items t for the next meeting: • Discussion on values and goals of the Committee regarding Council Compensation. • Brief summary of different approaches to Council Compensation from a variety of Cities including demographics of the Council. • Update of the City Council and Advisory Body Compensation Survey from 2017. • Public outreach processes used by the City to gather community input. 5. Schedule of Future Meeting Dates Teresa Purrington, City Clerk will poll Committee Members for possible meeting date for the last week in October. Packet Page 2 DRAFT Minutes – Council Compensation Committee Meeting of September 24, 2019 Page 3 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 p.m. The next Council Compensation Committee meeting is scheduled forTuesday October 29, 2019 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL COMPENSATION COMMITTEE ON: XX/XX/2019 Packet Page 3 Council Compensation Committee Agenda Report Meeting Date: October 29, 2019 Item Number: 2 DATE: October 22, 2019 FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Prepared By: Teresa Purrington, City Clerk SUBJECT: Committee Goals and Objectives Discussion RECOMMENDATION 1. Discuss and determine the goals and objectives of the Committee. DISCUSSION During the first meeting on September 24 the Committee started the discussion around the goals of the group, City Council and community as it relates to City Council compensation. Staff suggested a clear statement of the purpose or objective of council compensation would help guide the most appropriate data to evaluate. Staff further suggested reviewing the City Council’s adopted Compensation Philosophy (Attachment A) may help the Committee formulate a statement of purpose or objectives. The Compensation Philosophy was developed in advance of the City conducting an employee compensation study. The Philosophy provides an overarching policy statement that guides compensation decisions. It defines the overall objective of employee compensation to “attract and retain well qualified employees who exemplify our organizational values” while providing Council complete discretion to determine what to do with market compensation data gathered and how they define “competitive.” Because employee compensation is primarily negotiated with labor groups, staff also attached Council’s adopted Labor Relations Objectives (Attachment B). The two documents reinforce the objective of attracting and retaining employees, while balancing the need for long-term fiscal sustainability and shared contributions towards health and retirements costs and avoiding any formulas that could tie Council’s hands. Discussion at the first Committee meeting led staff to believe the Committee may want to consider a different method of compensating Council. Staff suggests the Committee start by defining its goals for Council compensation, then consider how other agencies compensate Council members (Item 3). With that background and context, staff would gather any relevant and necessary data for the Committee to consider, thus staff is not presenting comparison city data at this meeting as it seems to be premature. An approach to defining Committee goals is to discuss what problems, roadblocks, or issues the Committee hopes to resolve through Council Compensation. Packet Page 4 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Committee Goals and Objectives October 22, 2019 Page 2 Addressing questions such as the following may help the Committee define objectives: 1. Is there satisfaction with the number and diversity of potential candidates, the quality of the candidates, and/or the likelihood that candidates will run for multiple terms? 2. Would a change in compensation help address item 1, and if so, is it a change in salary, the cost of health insurance, retirement benefits, and/or reimbursement for expenses? 3. What motivates candidates to run for Council? Would that motivation change with a change in compensation? These questions are not all encompassing, and the Committee may modify or expand as they see fit. Packet Page 5 RESOLUTION NO . 10248 (2011 Series ) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MODIFYING IT S COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY SUPERSEDING PREVIOU S RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLIC T WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo strives to provide excellent service to th e community at all times, and supports this standard by promoting organizational values includin g customer service, productivity, accountability, innovation, initiative, stewardship, and ethics ; an d WHEREAS,to achieve our service standards, the City must attract and retain wel l qualified employees who exemplify our organizational values ; an d WHEREAS,fostering an environment attractive to such employees depends upon man y factors, including a competitive compensation program . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s Obispo that the City's compensation philosophy is adopted as follows : SECTION 1 .The City is committed to providing competitive compensation as part o f an overall strategy of attracting and retaining well qualified employees who exemplify ou r organizational values . SECTION 2 . The City will consider total compensation, including but not limited to , salary, health, retirement, and time off benefits . SECTION 3 .In evaluating competitive compensation, the City considers : A.Financial sustainability including the City's financial condition as reflecte d throughout the financial forecast, competing service priorities, maintenance needs, capita l improvement and other asset requirements, fund reserve levels, and revenue projections prior t o implementing changes in compensation . B.Community acceptability since taxpayers and ratepayers ultimately fund al l employee compensation . C.The "relevant labor market"that may vary depending upon classification and i s primarily defined by the geographic region (local, state-wide, or national) and key market s (municipal, other government agencies, private sector) where labor talent is found, recruite d from, and/or lost. When the relevant labor market is defined as "local"; local private sector compensation data wil l be considered along with local public sector compensation (municipal and other governmen t agencies . When the relevant labor market is statewide or national, the City will conside r compensation date for public sector agencies (municipal and other government) with severa l R 10248Packet Page 6 Resolution No . 10248 (2011 Series ) Page 2 comparable demographic data points including but not limited to population, median home price , median household income, median age, median education level, services provided, an d unemployment rate . Quality of life should also be considered when selecting comparable municipal and other government agencies . D."Internal relationships"referring to the relative value of classifications to on e another as determined by the City . Classifications performing comparable duties, wit h comparable responsibilities, requiring a similar level of skill, knowledge, ability, and judgment , will be valued similarly in the City's compensation structures . E.Other relevant factors may include unforeseen economic changes, natura l disasters, states of emergency, changes in City services, and changes in regulatory or lega l requirements . SECTION 4 .At least every five years, the City will evaluate its compensation structure , programs, and policies to assess market competitiveness, effectiveness, and compliance with Stat e Law . Adjustments to the compensation structure may be made as a result of this periodi c evaluation and will be done through the collective bargaining process, if applicable, or othe r appropriate Council-management processes . Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Council Member Carpenter, and o n the following vote : AYES : Council Members Carpenter, Carter and Smith, and Mayor Mar x NOES : Vice Mayor Ashbaug h ABSENT : Non e The foregoing resolution was adopted on March 15, 2011 . ATTEST : Elaina Cano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM : Packet Page 7 Labor Relations Objectives Adopted by Council September 23, 2014 Revised by Council March 20, 2018 1. Maintain fiscal responsibility by ensuring that fair and responsible employee compensation expenditures are supported by on-going revenues. (Theme – Fiscal Responsibility) 2. Continue to make progress in the area of long-term systemic pension cost containment and reduction, including reversing the unfunded pension liability trend and other actions consistent with State law. (Theme – Cost Containment/Reduction) 3. Continue to effectively manage escalating health benefit costs through balanced cost sharing and other means while maintaining comprehensive health care coverage for all eligible employees. (Theme – Cost Containment) 4. As necessary to attract and retain well qualified employees at all levels of the organization, provide competitive compensation as articulated in the City’s Compensation Philosophy, including relevant local, statewide or national labor markets. (Theme – Recruitment and Retention) 5. Employee labor agreements will be negotiated in good faith, in a timely manner that avoids retroactivity provisions unless there is a compelling need. (Theme – Cost Containment) 6. Contract provisions shall take into consideration the City’s ability to effectively and efficiently implement and administer them using the City’s financial and human resources systems to ensure accuracy and compliance with federal, state, and local laws. (Theme – Best Practices and Compliance) Packet Page 8 Council Compensation Committee Agenda Report Meeting Date: October 29, 2019 Item Number: 3 DATE: October 22, 2019 FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Prepared By: Teresa Purrington, City Clerk SUBJECT: Summary of Approaches to Council Compensation RECOMMENDATION Receive and file a report on various approaches in determining Council compensation. DISCUSSION At the September 24, 2019 meeting, the Committee asked staff to research other California cities to find approaches other cities have taken to determining Mayor/City Council compensation and to also look for studies on Council Compensation. Studies On a national level two documents were found, one was a survey done by the International City/County Management Association. Mayor/Council Member compensation was part of a larger survey titled “2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey” which was published in July 2019. Attachment A is the portion of the survey related to Mayor/Council Member compensation and demographics. The second was an article written by the National League of Cities entitled City Councils that provides an overview of City Councils with limited information on compensation and characteristics. (Attachment B) Cities in California Many of the cities, both general law and charter cities, researched found that compensation is set following Government Code Section 36516 et seq which sets the base salary by population and allows for a 5% increase each year. The following cities have established Mayor/Council compensation through another formula. City of Santa Barbara – Charter city – Attachment C • 2004 • Council compensation based on the one-person median income within Santa Barbara County as determined by US Department of Housing and Urban Development to be adjusted annually based on changes in median income. • Council Member is based on 80% of the median income and Mayor is 100%. • Current compensation o Mayor $63,647-annually o Council Member $50,684-annually Packet Page 9 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Approaches to Council Compensation October 22, 2019 Page 2 City of Goleta – General Law city – Attachment D • 2018 • To increase Council compensation based on single household median income of the City of Goleta published by the US Census Bureau Salary with annual adjustments be made using Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim. • Council Member compensation is based on 75% of median income and Mayor is 90%. • Current compensation o Mayor $50,561 annually o Council Member $42,134 annually City of Berkeley – Charter city – Attachment E • 1998 • Set compensation at $1800 per month for Council Members and $2850 for Mayor. The amount shall be adjusted upward by the increase in the cost of living for the San Francisco Bay Area as verified by official United States economic reports. • Current compensations o Mayor - $55,550 annually o Council Member - $38,972 annually City of Stockton – Charter city – Attachment F • 2015 As recommended by the Salary Setting Commission, who met four times after reviewing: o Salary and survey data from cities in California with similar population size, CPI historical data, job duties and descriptions relevant to Mayor and Council prepared by HR staff. o Data and information prepared by individual Commissioners, o Comments provided by the public at the meetings, and o Survey and compensation data compiled by the Mayor. • Councilmember salary remained unchanged at $23,927.40 annually and medical benefits were provided under the same terms and conditions as the Mayor. • Mayor monthly salary was decreased from $8,733 monthly ($104,790 annually) to $6,032 ($72384 annually) and life insurance would be provided at the same level as other full-time employees. • 2018 – Using a similar process as described above, Councilmember compensation increased to $2,224.50 monthly ($26,694 annually.) • Current compensation o Mayor - $72,384 annually o Council Member - $26,694 annually Packet Page 10 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Approaches to Council Compensation October 22, 2019 Page 3 City of Mountain View - Charter City – Attachment G • 2006 • Charter amendment on ballot to increase Council compensation to a new baseline amount of $1500 per month, with automatic future adjustments to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index • Current compensation o Mayor – $16,107 annually o Council Member - $12,319 annually Conclusion In summary, some communities have initiated automatic increases based on cost of living, typically increasing a “stipend-like” salary, others have determined a “wage” based on median household income or by evaluating specific points of data and setting the wage (like the Stockton example above.) If the Committee desires to consider any of these methods, staff can return with a model of the impact of projected cost of living increases and/or information on the City’s median household income or other economic data desired by the Committee. Packet Page 11 13 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey ▪ icma.org/research ▪ surveyresearch@icma.org Section 5 – Mayor/Council Compensation and Demographics Survey Highlights • Local elected officials are nearly always paid a salary or stipend. • Chief elected officials (mayors or the council president) are paid an average of $16,837 per year. • Full-time mayors are paid an average of $61,723. • Part-time council members are paid an average of $5,244 per year. • Some local governments symbolically pay their elected officials $1 per year. This typically only happens among council-manager communities in which elected officials do not provide day-to-day administration. • Among respondents, nearly three-quarters of council members in the U.S. were male (note that the survey was administered prior to the 2018 elections). • More than two in five council members in the U.S. are over the age of 60. • Council members are most commonly retirees. When not retired, they come from a variety of occupations, the most common being business executives or managers. Response Summary 16. Does the chief elected official (CEO) receive an annual salary or stipend for any of his/her services? (n=3,800) Percent of Respondents Yes 86.0% No 14.0% 16A. If yes, please indicate the approximate annual dollar amount that your CEO receives: (n=3,006) Annual Dollars Mean $16,837 Median $7,200 Minimum $1 Maximum $236,000 32. Are any council members (excluding the chief elected official) paid an annual salary or stipend for any of their services? (n=3,895) Percent of Respondents Yes 83.7% No 16.3% 32A. If yes, please indicate the approximate annual dollar amount that your council members receive. Full-time council member (n=200) Part-time council member (n=2,829) Mean $13,655 $5,245 Median $3,000 $3,331 Minimum $1 $1 Maximum $115,000 $72,000 Packet Page 12 14 2018 Municipal Form of Government Survey ▪ icma.org/research ▪ surveyresearch@icma.org The following statistics break down demographic information for the total amount (a) of council members reported by the number of local governments responding to each question (n). For example, 3,878 responding local governments reported gender information on a total of 22,509 council members across the entire U.S. Overall, 72.8% were identified as male, and 27.2% were identified as female. 33. Council member gender (n=3,878; a=22,509) Percent of Total Male 72.8% Female 27.2% 34. Council member age (n=3,580; a=20,855) Percent of Total Under 22 0.1% 22-29 1.4% 30-39 9.5% 40-49 17.7% 50-59 29.7% 60 and over 41.5% 35. Council member race/ethnicity (n=3,677; a=21,466) Percent of Total American Indian or Alaska Native 0.7% Hispanic or Latino 3.0% Asian or Pacific Islander 0.4% White, not of Hispanic origin 89.1% Black or African American 6.2% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.0% Middle Eastern or North African 0.2% Some other race, ethnicity, or origin 0.4% 36. Council member occupation (n=3,559; a=20,256) Percent of Total Legal services 4.4% Business executives/managers 15.4% Manufacturing 2.6% Service and sales employees 8.9% Finance, insurance, real estate 7.6% Agriculture, forestry, fishing 2.2% Construction 4.2% Law enforcement 1.8% Teachers or other educational personnel 6.1% Clergy 0.8% Other professionals (health, engineering, etc.) 9.8% Retiree 28.5% Other 7.7% Packet Page 13 10/16/2019 City Councils https://www.nlc.org/city-councils 1/9 City Councils Other Names The title for the members of city councils vary, and several titles exist according to local custom. These titles are: councilmember, alderman, selectman, freeholder, trustee or commissioner. Elections A survey done by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) in 2006 reveals that a candidate's political party is noted on the ballot in 20 percent of responding cities. Councilmembers in two-thirds of responding cities are elected at- large, rather than by district (x2568.xml). And once elected, most (65 percent) reported that councilmembers receive four-year terms. Council Size Packet Page 14 10/16/2019 City Councils https://www.nlc.org/city-councils 2/9 Councils can range in size from 5 to 51 across the nation, although the national average is six. While the number of councilmen is proportional to the population of the municipality, there is no national standard of proportion. In addition, the size of a council may reflect the complexity of services provided, the council's workload, the diversity and size of the population, the political dynamics and preferences of the city. This variability is illustrated by the large range in the number of councilmen per number of constituents, from 6,278 in Albany to over 250,000 in Los Angeles. Council Functions As local legislators, councilmembers are responsible for and responsive to the citizens who elected them. Depending on the city's charter (x2561.xml)and state laws, they may perform the following functions: Review and approve the annual budget; Establish long- and short-term objectives and priorities; Oversee performance of the local public employees; Oversee effectiveness of programs; Establish tax rates (x2576.xml); Enter into legal contracts; Borrow funds; Pass ordinances and resolutions; Modify the city's charter; Regulate land use through zoning laws; Regulate business activity through licensing and regulations; Regulate public health and safety; Packet Page 15 10/16/2019 City Councils https://www.nlc.org/city-councils 3/9 Committees The system of using issue-specific committees is common for city councils. Committees provide groups of councilmembers the opportunity to thoroughly consider particular items of business then recommend action on those items to the full council. This system reduces the amount of work each councilmember must perform and reduces the length or frequency of full council meetings. Additionally, it enables citizens to participate in matters of interest to them at the regular meetings of each committee. Task forces or ad-hoc committees may also be used to investigate and resolve specific issues that once addressed, are disbanded. In the past several decades, city councils have become more institutionalized in American cities, with more councils using committees to conduct their work and more councils hiring paid staff. According to survey data from the National League of Cities, 81 percent of city councils in 2001 relied on committees, which was an increase from 61 percent in 1979. Committee use was less common in cities with a council-manager form of government (x2560.xml) (64 percent) than in those with a mayor-council government (x2560.xml) (85 percent). In addition, the use of committees tends to increase with the size of cities and city councils. For example, New York City has 43 committees for its 51 councilmen. Exercise the power of eminent domain; Communicate policies and programs to residents; Respond to constituent needs and complaints; and Represent the community to other levels of government. Packet Page 16 10/16/2019 City Councils https://www.nlc.org/city-councils 4/9 Compensation Council members typically receive modest compensation for their work, usually because they serve on a part-time basis. The average number of hours spent per week on council-related matters in small, medium and large cities is 20, 25 and 42, respectively. Accordingly, only 2 percent of councilmembers from small cities (population: 25,000-70,000) and 7 percent of those from medium-sized cities (70,000-200,000) receive $20,000 or more in salary. Among those from large cities (200,000 and up), three-quarters of councilmembers receive $20,000 or more. Many state municipal leagues (x286.xml)collect data on salary and benefits for various municipal positions including elected officials. For more information, contact the state leagues directly. Characteristics In studies conducted by the National League of Cities in 1979, 1989, and 2001, several trends in the characteristics of those who serve on city councils can be observed: RACE AND ETHNICITY The percentage of people of color serving on city councils nearly doubled from 1979 to 2001, rising from 7 percent to 13 percent. African-American representation remained essentially the same between 1989 and 2001 (10 percent and 8 percent, respectively), maintaining gains made in the decade after 1979, when 5 percent of Packet Page 17 10/16/2019 City Councils https://www.nlc.org/city-councils 5/9 council members were African American. Between 1989 and 2001, Hispanic council membership increased substantially in medium and large cities, jumping from zero to 6 percent and 1 to 11 percent, respectively. During the same period, the proportion of Asian Americans serving on councils declined somewhat, from 3 percent to 1 percent. The percentage of White council members decreased from 92 percent in 1979 to 87 percent in 2001. Race and City Council Membership as a Percentage* White African- American Hispanic- Latino Asian Na Am 1979 92 5 1 0 ** 1989 86 10 1 3 ** 2001 87 8 3 1 1 GENDER Representation of women on America's city councils increased in all three city size categories between 1989 and 2001. The proportion of women grew from 21 to 25 percent in small cities, 25 to 36 percent in medium-sized cities, and 33 to 36 percent in large cities. These gains appear to have made up for a drop in gender diversity on city Packet Page 18 10/16/2019 City Councils https://www.nlc.org/city-councils 6/9 councils between 1979 and 1989 (from 32 percent to 26 percent), meaning there was no more gender diversity on America's city councils in 2001 (at 28 percent) than there was two decades before. IDEOLOGY AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION Although nonpartisan council elections are the rule in most cities, party identification remains an important indicator of attitudes that may influence council members' decisions. Political party identification is a self-description rather than actual party registration and refers to personal partisan identification regardless of whether one is elected in a partisan or nonpartisan election. In 1989, Democrats (35 percent) outnumbered Republicans (31 percent) among council members in all types of cities in 2001. This pattern was most pronounced in large cities, where Democrats were 52 percent of council members and Republicans 19 percent. Meanwhile, small cities showed a very close balance between the two parties (36 percent were Democrats and 34 percent Republicans). In nonpartisan councils, there are far more members who consider themselves to be independents than in cities that use partisan elections (35 percent versus 15 percent). Sources Krane, Dale, Platon Rigos, & Melvin B. Hill, Jr. Home Rule in America: A Fifty-State Handbook. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001. Svara, James H. "Two Decades of Continuity and Change in American City Councils (http://www.skidmore.edu/~bturner/Svara%20citycouncilrpt.pdf)." Packet Page 19 10/16/2019 City Councils https://www.nlc.org/city-councils 7/9 Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, September 2003. University at Buffalo Regional Institute. "Sizing Up Local Legislatures." Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo Regional Institute, September 2009. Woodwell, William H., Christiana Brennan, and Christopher Hoene. "Serving on America's City Councils." Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, September 2003. Packet Page 20 REVIEWED BY: __________Attorney Agenda Item No._________________ CITY OF SANTA BARBARA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA DATE: June 29, 2004 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: City Clerk’s Office, Administrative Services Department SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 2, 2004, SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION RECOMMENDATION: That Council: A. Adopt, by reading of title only, A Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special Municipal Election to Be Held in the City on Tuesday, November 2, 2004, for the Submission of Two Proposed Charter Amendments; B. Adopt, by reading of title only, A Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara to Consolidate a Special Municipal Election to Be Held on November 2, 2004, with the Statewide General Election to Be Held on That Date Pursuant to Section 10403 of the Elections Code; C. Adopt, by reading of title only, A Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analyses of the City’s Measures to Be Placed on the Ballot for the November 2, 2004, Special Municipal Election of the City of Santa Barbara; D. Determine whether the City Council or any member(s) of City Council will file an argument regarding the two proposed charter amendments relating to Charter Sections 502 and 814, and if so, adopt by reading of title only, A Resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Barbara Authorizing the Filing of Written Arguments Regarding the City Measures to be Placed on the Ballot for the November 2, 2004, Special Municipal Election; and E. Determine that the submission of rebuttal arguments will not be allowed. Packet Page 21 Council Agenda Report NOVEMBER 2, 2004, SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION June 29, 2004 Page 2 DISCUSSION: As requested by the City Council at the Council Meeting of May 25, 2004, staff has prepared two charter amendments for Council’s consideration. Proposed Charter Amendment No. 1 relates to Charter Section 502 regarding Mayor and Council compensation. As proposed, beginning January 1, 2005, the members of the City Council, except the Mayor, would receive an annual salary in the sum equal to 80% of the annual Area Median Income. The Mayor would receive an annual salary equal to 100% of the Area Median Income. The term “Area Median Income” refers to the annual Area Median Income for a one- person household within Santa Barbara County as determined and set by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or, if the Housing and Urban Development Area Median Income determination is not available for any reason, by a comparable index published by the state of California. The Mayor and City Council member salaries would also be adjusted each year as of the first day of April based on increases in the Area Median Income. Charter Amendment No. 2 relates to Charter Section 814 regarding the residency requirements of the nine members of the Architectural Board of Review (ABR). At present, the nine members must be qualified electors (and residents) of the City. Notwithstanding Charter Section 802, Charter Amendment No. 2 is intended to permit up to four ABR members to be non-City residents. The proposed change would model the residency requirements of the Historic Landmarks Commission. As required by the City Charter and the State Elections Code, we have prepared the appropriate resolutions calling for the special municipal election, requesting consolidation with the other elections to be conducted by Santa Barbara County, and directing the City Attorney to prepare impartial analyses of the proposed measures. The attached resolutions include the wording of the measures as they will appear on the ballot. At this Council meeting, the City Council may determine whether the City Council or any member(s) of the City Council will file arguments regarding the proposed measures. Arguments and Impartial Analyses Pursuant to State Elections Code Section 9280, the City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of a measure whenever any city measure qualifies for a place on the ballot. Elections Code Section 9282 provides that the legislative body, or any member or members of the legislative body, or any individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide association of citizens, or any combination of voters and associations may file a written argument for or against any City measure. Packet Page 22 Council Agenda Report NOVEMBER 2, 2004, SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION June 29, 2004 Page 3 Elections Code Section 9283 states that no more than five signatures shall appear with any argument submitted. Elections Code Section 9287 provides that an argument prepared and signed by the City Council or by one or more Councilmembers shall be given preference and priority for placement on the ballot by the City Elections Official. The 10-day period during which the City Attorney’s impartial analyses and the typewritten arguments in favor of or against the measures may be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office will be from July 19, 2004, to July 28, 2004. The public examination period of the City Attorney's impartial analyses and the arguments filed with the City Clerk's Office will be held during the period commencing July 29, 2004, and concluding August 9, 2004. Traditionally, rebuttal arguments have not been allowed by the City Council. Costs The proposed ballot measures will coincide with the Statewide General Election to be held on November 2, 2004. The County Elections Division staff roughly estimates that each ballot measure would cost between $1.00 and $1.50 per registered voter. Assuming there will be 45,000 registered voters, this puts the cost estimate in the $45,000 - $67,500 range per measure. The County will submit a bill for the actual incurred costs after the election has been conducted. PREPARED BY: Mabi Covarrubias Plisky, City Clerk Services Manager SUBMITTED BY: Joan M. Kent, Assistant City Administrator APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office Packet Page 23 Packet Page 24 Packet Page 25 Packet Page 26 Packet Page 27 Packet Page 28 Packet Page 29 Packet Page 30 Packet Page 31 Packet Page 32 Packet Page 33 5/25/2004 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT’D) 21. SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW APPROVAL FOR 3501 SEA LEDGE LANE (640.07) RECOMMENDATION: That Council: A. Continue the public hearing to August 24, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., per Appellant's letter dated May 17, 2004; and B. Continue the site visit to the property located at 3501 Sea Ledge Lane to August 23, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. DOCUMENTS: May 17, 2004, letter from Mindy A. Wolfe. MOTION: Councilmembers Secord/Horton to approve the recommendation. VOTE: Unanimous voice vote (Absent: Councilmembers Barnwell, Williams). PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to speak. Councilmembers Barnwell and Williams entered the meeting at 6:18 p.m. REQUEST FROM THE PUBLIC 22. SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING THE SALARIES OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL (110.01) DOCUMENTS: - May 4, 2004, letter from Steven A. Amerikaner. - May 12, 2004, letter from Steven A. Amerikaner. - May 19, 2004, letter from City Council Compensation Task Force. - May 20, 2004, letter from Steven A. Amerikaner. SPEAKERS: - Members of the public: City Council Compensation Task Force Chair Bill Mahan; George Thurlow, Downtown Organization/Old Town Merchants Association; Tim Allison; Brian Cearnal; Greg Helms, SB CAN; Michael Holliday, American Institute of Architects; Michael Neal Arnold, Santa Barbara Council of Real Estate Appraisers; Joe Armendariz; Lanny Ebenstein; Joe Campanelli, Santa Barbara Contractors Association; Marshall Rose; Steve Cushman, Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce. (Cont’d) Packet Page 34 5/25/2004 Santa Barbara City Council Minutes Page 10 22. (Cont’d) SPEAKERS (Cont’d): - Members of the Public (Cont’d): Joan M. Livingston, Westside Study Group; Naomi Kovacs, Citizens Planning Association; James Kyriaco; Arthur H. Mankin; Catherine McCammon, League of Women Voters; Pueblo: Harley Augustino, Esther Aguilera, Lucero Márquez, Miguel Ramirez, Gretchen Maglia; Richard Hidalgo. - Staff: City Attorney Stephen P. Wiley. MOTION: Councilmembers Williams/Falcone to direct staff to prepare a ballot measure for the November 2004 ballot and return to the Council in 2 weeks to 1 month. REVISED MOTION: Councilmembers Williams/Falcone to direct staff to prepare a charter amendment for consideration in one month. VOTE: Unanimous voice vote. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 23. SUBJECT: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW CITY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT (COUNCILMEMBER BARNWELL) (110.01) SPEAKERS: - Staff: Community Development Director Paul Casey, City Attorney Stephen P. Wiley. - Planning Commission: Commissioner Bill Mahan. Councilmember Falcone left the meeting at 7:28 p.m.; Councilmember Falcone entered the meeting at 7:45 p.m. MOTION: Councilmembers Barnwell/Schneider to direct the City Attorney to draft a charter amendment to expand the Architectural Board of Review geographical requirements, modeling the Historic Landmarks Commission. VOTE: Unanimous voice vote. Packet Page 35 Packet Page 36 Packet Page 37 Agenda Item G.2 DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Carmen Nichols, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Council Compensation RECOMMENDATION: A. Consider a Draft Option 1 Ordinance No. ____ entitled, “A City Council Sponsored Ordinance of the City Of Goleta Adjusting the Salary for City Council Members and Amending the Goleta Municipal Code” that uses the US Census Bureau index on nonfamily household median income based on the 93117 Zip Code; or B. Consider a Draft Option 2 Ordinance No. ____ entitled, “A City Council Sponsored Ordinance of the City of Goleta Adjusting the Salary for City Council Members and Amending the Goleta Municipal Code” that uses the US Census Bureau index on nonfamily household median income based on the City of Goleta; and C. Direct Staff to place a Council-initiated ordinance regarding compensation rates for the Mayor and City Council on the November 6, 2018 ballot; and D. Direct the City Clerk to forward the Council-initiated Ordinance to the City Attorney for preparation of an Impartial Analysis. BACKGROUND: The City Council requested staff to perform an analysis of City Council compensation for their consideration, which addresses the question of whether a higher salary would increase resident participation in running for an elected position of Mayor or Councilmember. The matter of exploring whether City Councilmembers should be paid greater compensation, and if so, how much, is also one of the duties and responsibilities of the Public Engagement Commission (PEC) assigned by the City Council in the Resolution 17-18, as one of the items listed in the Conditional Settlement Agreement and Release between Lindsay Rojas and Hector Mendez. The City of Goleta is a general law city and is governed by California Government Code. Pursuant to California Government Code § 36516 (b), the question of whether Councilmembers shall receive a salary for services at a different level than set by state 1Packet Page 38 Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 law, and the amount of that salary, may be submitted in a ballot measure and must be approved by the majority of the electorate. At the April 17, 2018, City Council meeting, staff presented a report on Councilmembers’ current compensation, and the limitations of salary increases under California Government Code § 36516 (Goleta Municipal Code Section 2.01.080). The purpose of the study was to provide City Council and the PEC with salary information for the City of Goleta and other general law and charter cities and provide any findings as to how salary may affect candidate participation. The report also provided information on local ballot measures in two of the tri-county cities and an example of salary increase under an ordinance. City staff offered an example of salary options based on the model that City of Santa Barbara used in its 2004 measure increasing Council compensation that successfully passed. The City Council provided feedback and requested the Public Engagement Commission (PEC) provide input and recommendations on the matter. The City Council directed that if the PEC recommended a salary increase, then the PEC should also: • Provide a recommendation as to a salary amount; • Recommend an effective date of implementation; and, • Make a recommendation on an inflation rate. On May 2, 2018, staff presented the information to the PEC with six Commissioners present (Kyriaco recused himself prior to the presentation) and provided additional information for Goleta and other cities related to the responsibilities of City Council and their time commitments. The Commission was presented with the same salary models that had been presented to City Council on April 17, 2018: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the County of Santa Barbara for a single household and the US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months for a nonfamily household. The Commission voted 6-Aye, 1-Absent, with a recommendation to the Council to move forward with a ballot measure to increase City Council and Mayoral salary. The Commission also recommended: • Councilmembers receive 75% of the nonfamily household median income of the 93117 zip code, and that annual adjustments to salary be made to stay aligned with the median income. • Mayor receive 90% of the nonfamily household median income of the 93117 zip code and the annual adjustments to salary be made to stay aligned with the median income. • The salary be implemented following the November 2018 election. It was suggested City Council take affirmative action immediately, so that residents learn about the possibility of an income and encourage candidate participation in this upcoming Page 2 of 7 2Packet Page 39 Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 election. The intent of the Commission in recommending a salary based on a nonfamily household median income by zip code was to narrow down the income baseline used for City of Goleta to make it affordable to live in Goleta. Since staff’s research had not been on zip code, there was no further information to provide them at the time of their deliberation. The Commission was also interested in deciding on a salary that is reflective of Council’s duties. The Commission discussed that the cost of living of other cities should not be considered to determine a salary, for example, as a nonfamily household median income of Santa Barbara County takes into consideration all cities in the County. On May 15, 2018, the City Council received a staff report which included the PEC’s recommendation. The Council voted (4-1 with Councilmember Richards abstaining) to approve PEC’s recommendation. DISCUSSION: In addition to the PEC’s recommendation, the report to the City Council on May 15, 2018 also presented a staff recommendation, different from the PEC’s because an index based on zip code was not available at the time of the report and presentation to the City Council. Staff presented information on the nonfamily household median income for Goleta as published by the US Census Bureau. The City Council directed staff pursue a ballot measure setting the salary by zip code as recommended by the PEC. Following the meeting, staff pursued several statisticians to gain an index with this metric. City staff was able to retrieve a report using US Census Bureau data for nonfamily household by zip code 93117 and is presented as Attachment 1. Based on the index by zip code 93117, the nonfamily household median income is $29,253. This income is significantly less than the index for the City of Goleta nonfamily household median income of $56,179, presumably due to the inclusion of Isla Vista which includes college student residents’ data. The 93117 indices also does not include the most eastern portion of Goleta which then does not include many single family residences. MEDIAN INCOME – US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months – 2016 $29,253 – Nonfamily Households for 93117 Zip Code Median Household Monthly Annual Mayor at 90% $2,194 $26,328 Councilmember at 75% $1,828 $21,940 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates - 93117 Zip Code Page 3 of 7 3Packet Page 40 Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 MEDIAN INCOME – US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months – 2016 $56,179 – Nonfamily Households for Goleta Median Household Monthly Annual Mayor at 90% $4,213 $50,561 Councilmember at 75% $3,511 $42,134 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates - Goleta Draft Ordinance for Council Action Pursuant to City Council’s direction, the City Attorney has prepared two draft ordinances and draft ballot language adjusting the salary for City Council members and amending the Goleta Municipal Code. Option 1 reflects the nonfamily household median income for the 93117 zip code. Option 2 reflects the nonfamily household median income for the City of Goleta. The City Council is requested to approve either Option 1 or Option 2. Should the ballot measure be approved by the majority of voters in the 2018 General Election, the ordinance will become effective and repeal Ordinance 16.05, the current standing ordinance related to Councilmember pay. According to the proposed ordinance, the salary of each member of the City Council will be implemented at the first pay period following the swearing in of the newly elected officials. Future adjustments will be made annually on the first pay day of December, based on the US Census Bureau’s data available at that time. The first salary adjustment will occur in December 2019. Proposed Ballot Language This agenda item also gives City Council an opportunity to discuss the proposed ballot language and provide any comments before the resolution is adopted. The proposed ballot language can be no more than 75 words (not including the title). Following is the proposed language for Ordinance Option 1: MEASURE ____ Shall the annual salary of the members of the City Council be set at seventy five percent (75%) of the nonfamily household median income for the zip code 93117 (currently $21,940) and the annual salary of the Mayor to be set at ninety percent (90%) of the nonfamily household median income for the zip code 93117 (currently $26,328)? YES NO Page 4 of 7 4Packet Page 41 Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 Should the City Council give direction to Staff to proceed with a ballot measure based on the “City” nonfamily household median income as proposed in Ordinance Option 2, the ballot measure language will read: MEASURE ____ Shall the annual salary of the members of the City Council be set at seventy five percent (75%) of the nonfamily household median income for the City of Goleta (currently $42,134) and the annual salary of the Mayor to be set at ninety percent (90%) of the nonfamily household median income for the City of Goleta (currently $50,561)? YES NO In accordance with California Elections Code Section 9280, the governing body can direct the city elections official to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on existing law and the operation of the measure. The impartial analysis is required to not exceed 500 words. It is recommended that the City Clerk be directed to forward a copy of the measure to the City Attorney for preparation of an impartial analysis in accordance with state law. FISCAL IMPACTS The filing fees for a ballot measure in the upcoming November 2018 election will be approximately $10,200. The General Fund impact of increasing Councilmember and Mayor salary at Goleta’s nonfamily household income respectively at 75% and 90% for FY 2018-19 is approximately $66,553, or $120,674 when including benefits. This is assuming the salary increase is effective in December 2018. On an annualized basis the total salary cost is approximately $114,090 or $206,870 when including benefits. For FY 2019/20, anticipating a 2% cost of living increase, the annual fiscal impact is approximately $116,370 or $211,010 when including benefits. Below is a table providing a comparison between nonfamily household median income for 93117 and City of Goleta: Page 5 of 7 5Packet Page 42 Page 6 of 7 Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 ALTERNATIVES: The Council is under no obligation to pursue a ballot measure and may believe the timing or consideration is not desired at this time. Council can give direction to staff to stop work on this measure or to take a different approach. Alternatively, the City Council may decide to not take further action. Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By: ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ Carmen Nichols Michael Jenkins Michelle Greene Deputy City Manager City Attorney City Manager Nonfamily Household Median Income Comparison (FY 2018/19*) 93117 Goleta Variance % DIF Total Salary 66,553$ 127,808$ 61,256$ 92.0% Total Benefits 54,122$ 62,860$ 8,738 16.1% Total Cost 120,674$ 190,668$ 69,994$ 58.0% *Assumes December 2018 through June 2019 Nonfamily Household Median Income Comparison (Annual Basis) 93117 Goleta Variance % DIF Total Salary 114,090$ 219,100$ 105,010$ 92.0% Total Benefits 92,780 107,760 14,980 16.1% Total Cost 206,870$ 326,860$ 119,990$ 58.0% Nonfamily Household Median Income Comparison (2% Cost of Living Adjustment*) 93117 Goleta Variance % DIF Total Salary 115,460$ 221,730$ 106,270$ 92.0% Total Benefits 93,890$ 109,050$ 15,160 16.1% Total Cost 209,350$ 330,780$ 121,430$ 58.0% *Assumes 2% rate increase effective December 2019 6Packet Page 43 Meeting Date: June 5, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: 1.US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months-2016 -Nonfamily Household for 93117 Zip Code 2.US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months-2016 -Nonfamily Household for Goleta 3.Option 1-Draft Ordinance, No. _______ entitled “A City Council Sponsored Ordinance of the City of Goleta Adjusting the Salary for City Council Members and Amending the Goleta Municipal Code” 4.Option 2-Draft Ordinance, No. _______ entitled “A City Council Sponsored Ordinance of the City of Goleta Adjusting the Salary for City Council Members and Amending the Goleta Municipal Code ” Page 7 of 7 7Packet Page 44 Attachment 1 US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months-2016 -Nonfamily Household for 93117 Zip Code 9Packet Page 45 S1901 INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2016 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section. Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. Subject ZCTA5 93117 Households Families Married-couple families Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Total 15,684 +/-405 7,902 +/-332 5,738 Less than $10,000 11.5%+/-1.6 1.8%+/-0.8 1.1% $10,000 to $14,999 6.0%+/-1.5 2.1%+/-1.2 0.4% $15,000 to $24,999 9.0%+/-1.4 5.1%+/-1.5 3.2% $25,000 to $34,999 8.9%+/-1.5 7.1%+/-1.7 4.8% $35,000 to $49,999 8.7%+/-1.7 8.8%+/-2.3 7.8% $50,000 to $74,999 14.5%+/-1.9 17.7%+/-3.2 17.2% $75,000 to $99,999 11.7%+/-2.0 13.1%+/-3.0 12.3% $100,000 to $149,999 16.3%+/-1.9 22.8%+/-3.4 26.8% $150,000 to $199,999 7.0%+/-1.2 11.1%+/-2.1 13.5% $200,000 or more 6.4%+/-1.0 10.4%+/-1.8 13.1% Median income (dollars)60,239 +/-3,587 86,972 +/-6,424 101,718 Mean income (dollars)79,862 +/-3,539 107,793 +/-5,442 N PERCENT ALLOCATED Household income in the past 12 months 37.7%(X)(X)(X)(X) Family income in the past 12 months (X)(X)34.2%(X)(X) Nonfamily income in the past 12 months (X)(X)(X)(X)(X) 1 of 2 11Packet Page 46 Subject ZCTA5 93117 Married-couple families Nonfamily households Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Total +/-277 7,782 +/-402 Less than $10,000 +/-0.7 21.9%+/-3.4 $10,000 to $14,999 +/-0.3 10.5%+/-2.7 $15,000 to $24,999 +/-1.1 13.0%+/-2.5 $25,000 to $34,999 +/-1.8 10.8%+/-2.3 $35,000 to $49,999 +/-2.5 9.5%+/-2.4 $50,000 to $74,999 +/-3.7 12.2%+/-2.0 $75,000 to $99,999 +/-3.0 10.0%+/-2.4 $100,000 to $149,999 +/-4.0 7.9%+/-1.7 $150,000 to $199,999 +/-2.8 2.5%+/-0.9 $200,000 or more +/-2.2 1.8%+/-0.8 Median income (dollars)+/-3,016 29,253 +/-3,989 Mean income (dollars)N 47,243 +/-3,322 PERCENT ALLOCATED Household income in the past 12 months (X)(X)(X) Family income in the past 12 months (X)(X)(X) Nonfamily income in the past 12 months (X)40.0%(X) Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. When information is missing or inconsistent, the Census Bureau logically assigns an acceptable value using the response to a related question or questions. If a logical assignment is not possible, data are filled using a statistical process called allocation, which uses a similar individual or household to provide a donor value. The "Allocated" section is the number of respondents who received an allocated value for a particular subject. While the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities. Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Explanation of Symbols: 1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate. 2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available. 2 of 2 12Packet Page 47 Attachment 2 US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months-2016 -Nonfamily Household for Goleta 13Packet Page 48 S1901 INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2016 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section. Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. Subject Goleta city, California Households Families Married-couple families Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Total 11,006 +/-343 7,097 +/-283 5,142 Less than $10,000 4.1%+/-1.4 0.7%+/-0.5 0.5% $10,000 to $14,999 3.6%+/-1.5 2.2%+/-1.4 0.4% $15,000 to $24,999 5.2%+/-1.4 3.3%+/-1.5 1.8% $25,000 to $34,999 7.2%+/-1.4 6.3%+/-1.3 3.0% $35,000 to $49,999 7.5%+/-1.7 8.4%+/-2.2 6.7% $50,000 to $74,999 18.2%+/-2.4 19.3%+/-3.4 18.5% $75,000 to $99,999 14.8%+/-2.7 13.1%+/-3.3 12.7% $100,000 to $149,999 21.6%+/-2.5 25.2%+/-3.8 29.2% $150,000 to $199,999 9.8%+/-1.6 11.5%+/-2.2 13.9% $200,000 or more 8.0%+/-1.4 10.0%+/-2.1 13.2% Median income (dollars)81,398 +/-4,285 94,069 +/-10,376 104,065 Mean income (dollars)97,823 +/-4,025 110,084 +/-5,583 N PERCENT ALLOCATED Household income in the past 12 months 33.0%(X)(X)(X)(X) Family income in the past 12 months (X)(X)34.5%(X)(X) Nonfamily income in the past 12 months (X)(X)(X)(X)(X) 1 of 2 15018 15Packet Page 49 Subject Goleta city, California Married-couple families Nonfamily households Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Total +/-281 3,909 +/-335 Less than $10,000 +/-0.5 11.0%+/-3.9 $10,000 to $14,999 +/-0.6 7.0%+/-3.3 $15,000 to $24,999 +/-0.9 8.3%+/-2.6 $25,000 to $34,999 +/-1.2 10.0%+/-3.4 $35,000 to $49,999 +/-2.2 8.5%+/-2.9 $50,000 to $74,999 +/-3.9 17.5%+/-3.8 $75,000 to $99,999 +/-3.3 16.7%+/-3.8 $100,000 to $149,999 +/-4.5 12.1%+/-3.3 $150,000 to $199,999 +/-3.0 5.5%+/-1.8 $200,000 or more +/-2.7 3.3%+/-1.5 Median income (dollars)+/-6,185 56,179 +/-6,394 Mean income (dollars)N 67,322 +/-4,797 PERCENT ALLOCATED Household income in the past 12 months (X)(X)(X) Family income in the past 12 months (X)(X)(X) Nonfamily income in the past 12 months (X)28.6%(X) Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. When information is missing or inconsistent, the Census Bureau logically assigns an acceptable value using the response to a related question or questions. If a logical assignment is not possible, data are filled using a statistical process called allocation, which uses a similar individual or household to provide a donor value. The "Allocated" section is the number of respondents who received an allocated value for a particular subject. While the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities. Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Explanation of Symbols: 1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate. 2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available. 2 of 2 16Packet Page 50 Attachment 3 Draft Ordinance, No. _______ entitled “A CITY COUNCIL SPONSORED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GOLETA ADJUSTING THE SALARY FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND AMENDING THE GOLETA MUNICIPAL CODE” 17Packet Page 51 65266.00001\31121288.1 ORDINANCE NO._____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GOLETA ADJUSTING THE SALARY FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND AMENDING THE GOLETA MUNICIPAL CODE The People of the City of Goleta do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings. a. Municipal Code Section 2.01.080 establishes a salary for City Councilmembers in the amount allowed by California Government Code Section 36516(a). b. In accordance with subparagraph (b) of Section 36516, Councilmembers’ salary may be increased beyond the amounts allowed Section 36516(a) by majority vote of the electorate. c. The City’s Public Engagement Commission recommended to the City Council that a measure be placed on the ballot for consideration by the electorate for an increase in Councilmember salary in order to enhance community participation in City governance. d. Accordingly, on June 5, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. ___ to place this ordinance before the electorate at the November 6, 2018 election. Section 2. Section 2.01.080 of Title 2, Chapter 2.01 of the Goleta Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 2.72.040 Mayor and City Council Salary. In accordance with Section 36516(b) of the Government Code of the State of California, the salary for the Mayor shall be 90% of the nonfamily household median income for the as published annually by the United States Census Bureau and the salary for each member of the City Council shall be 75% of the nonfamily household median income in the 93117 zip code as published annually by the United States Census Bureau. The foregoing salaries will be adjusted annually to conform to the median income amounts published by the United States Census Bureau. Section 3. The increased salary provided for by Section 2 of this Ordinance shall first be paid for the first pay period following the date that councilmembers elected in the November 2018 election are sworn into office. Annual adjustments 19Packet Page 52 65266.00001\31121288.1 will be made in the first pay period of December of each year, beginning in December 2019. Section 4. Ordinance No. 16-05 is hereby repealed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GOLETA AT AN ELECTION HELD this 6th day of November 2018. ________________________________ MAYOR Attest: ___________________________ Deborah S. Lopez City Clerk 20Packet Page 53 ATTACHMENT 4 Option 2-Draft Ordinance, No. _______ entitled “A City Council Sponsored Ordinance of the City of Goleta Adjusting the Salary for City Council Members and Amending the Goleta Municipal Code ” 21Packet Page 54 65266.00001\31121288.1 ORDINANCE NO._____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GOLETA ADJUSTING THE SALARY FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND AMENDING THE GOLETA MUNICIPAL CODE The People of the City of Goleta do hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings. a. Municipal Code Section 2.01.080 establishes a salary for City Councilmembers in the amount allowed by California Government Code Section 36516(a). b. In accordance with subparagraph (b) of Section 36516, Councilmembers’ salary may be increased beyond the amounts allowed Section 36516(a) by majority vote of the electorate. c. The City’s Public Engagement Commission recommended to the City Council that a measure be placed on the ballot for consideration by the electorate for an increase in Councilmember salary in order to enhance community participation in City governance. d. Accordingly, on June 5, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. ___ to place this ordinance before the electorate at the November 6, 2018 election. Section 2. Section 2.01.080 of Title 2, Chapter 2.01 of the Goleta Municipal Code is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 2.72.040 Mayor and City Council Salary. In accordance with Section 36516(b) of the Government Code of the State of California, the salary for the Mayor shall be 90% of the nonfamily household median income for the City of Goleta as published annually by the United States Census Bureau and the salary for each member of the City Council shall be 75% of the nonfamily household median income for the City of Goleta as published annually by the United States Census Bureau. The foregoing salaries will be adjusted annually to conform to the median income amounts published by the United States Census Bureau. Section 3. The increased salary provided for by Section 2 of this Ordinance shall first be paid for the first pay period following the date that councilmembers elected in the November 2018 election are sworn into office. Annual adjustments will be made in the first pay period of December of each year, beginning in December 2019. 23Packet Page 55 65266.00001\31121288.1 Section 4. Ordinance No. 16-05 is hereby repealed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF GOLETA AT AN ELECTION HELD this 6th day of November 2018. ________________________________ MAYOR Attest: ___________________________ Deborah S. Lopez City Clerk 24Packet Page 56 Agenda Item F.2 DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM Meeting Date: May 15, 2018 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Carmen Nichols, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Council Compensation RECOMMENDATION: A. Consider placing a measure on the November 2018 Ballot to be acted upon by the Electors providing the Mayor and City Councilmembers an increased salary; B. If Council authorizes moving forward with a ballot measure, direct staff to prepare all documents necessary, including ballot language, for adoption of an Ordinance for a City Council-initiated ballot measure for the November 2018 election. BACKGROUND: The City Council requested that staff perform an analysis of City Council compensation for their consideration, which addressed the question of whether a higher salary would increase resident participation in running for an elected position of Mayor or Councilmember. The matter of exploring whether City Councilmembers should be paid greater compensation, and if so, how much, is also one of the duties and responsibilities of the Public Engagement Commission (PEC) assigned by the City Council in the Resolution 17-18, as one of the items listed in the Conditional Settlement Agreement and Release between Lindsay Rojas and Hector Mendez. The City of Goleta is a general law city and is governed by California Government Code that allows for a Councilmember’s or mayor’s salary to be set by a majority of voters in an election, if compensation is at a different level than state guidelines. Pursuant to California Government Code § 36516 (b), the questions of whether Councilmembers shall receive a salary for services and the amount of that salary may be submitted in a ballot measure and must be approved by the majority of the electorate. At the April 17, 2018, City Council meeting, staff presented a report on Councilmembers’ current compensation, and the limitations of salary increases under California Government Code § 36516 (Goleta Municipal Code Section 2.01.080), since City of Goleta is a general law city. 1Packet Page 57 Meeting Date: May 15, 2018 The purpose of the study was to provide City Council and the PEC salary information for the City of Goleta and other general law and charter cities and provide any findings as to how salary may affect candidate participation. Staff identified that most general law cities follow the state guidelines in applying salary increases and that for general law cities, population was not a factor in determining salary, except in very large cities (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno). Examples were provided where both general law and charter cities are adjusting salary (increasing or decreasing) or limiting salary increases by ballot measure. The report also provided information on local ballot measures in two of the tri-county cities and an example of salary increase under an ordinance. In these three examples (Santa Barbara 2004, Paso Robles and Pismo Beach 2018), a driving factor for a salary increase was attributed not only to attracting candidates, but also in recognizing the time commitments and responsibilities of a Councilmember. The City Council provided feedback and requested the Public Engagement Commission (PEC) provide input and recommendations on the matter. A sentiment shared by the City Council is that a reasonable salary could encourage those that are not otherwise able to give up their current salary, or who could not afford a reduction in pay from their current job to focus on the time commitments necessary to serve as a public official. The City Council suggested that a higher salary could expand the pool of candidates beyond those who may have a pension (retirees) or other financial resources that the general public does not. These sentiments are similar to those shared by the Santa Barbara community in the 2004 election, according to a former administrator. The City Council directed that if the PEC recommended a salary increase, then the PEC should: 1) use the median single household income examples presented in the April 17, 2018 report as a baseline for salary consideration (adjust as necessary) and provide a recommendation as to a salary amount; 2) recommend an effective date of implementation; and, 3) make a recommendation on an inflation rate. Staff presented to the PEC on May 2, 2018 and provided additional information for Goleta and other cities related to the responsibilities of City Council and their time commitments. The PEC met on May 2, 2018 and recommended the City Council proceed with a ballot measure to increase the City Council’s salary (6- Aye, 1- Absent). DISCUSSION: The City Council and the PEC were presented with information comparing city salaries, populations, and examples of other ballot measures. In efforts to provide the PEC (a citizen commission) with information on the duties of a Councilmembers and time commitments, staff was able to compile additional data. Absent a job description, staff provided an example list of the many duties and responsibilities of the City Council. In polling Goleta Councilmembers and City Clerks from other cities about Councilmember time commitments, it was noted that trying to determine their time invested in their work is difficult. The obvious commitments such as the time spent reviewing material in preparation and attending Council, Committee and Board meetings, may not be as challenging to account for, but accounting for the time responding to concerned citizens, meeting with other agency public officials and City staff, attending workshops and Page 2 of 8 2Packet Page 58 Meeting Date: May 15, 2018 representing the City in community and business events was more difficult to quantify, primarily because it can fluctuate significantly from one week to the next. The common perception of time spent by the City Council working on official City business is that it is a part-time assignment. However, many elected officials have devoted their time beyond that, and at times, may devote a full-time effort. Beyond the required City Council meetings, our Mayor and Councilmembers in their policy making role, play a pivotal role in representing the community by attending different committee and board meetings, meetings with constituents and other elected officials and agency heads, ribbon cuttings, and other publicly celebrated events in the community. A great deal of time is also spent in preparing for meetings by reviewing packet material, taking notes, writing speeches, responding to correspondence, and inquiring and responding to citizen concerns. Councilmembers also participate in the review of legislative material and general information affecting or with the potential to affect the City of Goleta. Staff surveyed similar cities comparing the amount of time Councilmembers spend conducting city business. Most cities reported that Councilmembers spend an average of 20-30 hours per week. The participation in assignments and committees varied by City and the availability of the elected officials. Most often, the wide range in hours is dependent on the volume of business activities, the city’s fiscal health and its ability to fund projects and operations, and number of committee assignments and appointments to boards on which Councilmembers serve. Limited information was made available by the 10 most recent incorporated cities as shown in Table 1. In Goleta with its many active projects, policies, committee and board assignments, the City Council’s average weekly time spent is approximately 28-40 hours. Table 1. 10 Most Recent Incorporated Cities – All Remain General Law Cities City Incorporation M/Year Population GF Budget (millions) US Census Median Income* Monthly Salary Council Monthly Salary Mayor Avg. Hours Per Week Committee Assignments/Mtg. per Month Jurupa Valley 7/11 103,541 $31.9 $30,294 $600 $600 20 NA/ 2x month Eastvale 10/10 61,151 $15.7 $56,750 $585 $585 NA/2x month Menifee 10/08 88,531 $31.8 $42,845 $650 $650 20 4-6/ 2x month Wildomar 7/08 32,176 $10.6 $41,191 $400 $400 2/ 1x month Rancho Cordova 7/03 72,326 $50.8 $40,469 $500 $600 NA/ 2x month Goleta 2/02 30,850 $25.7 $56,179 $585 $585 28-40 4-12/ 2x month Afternoon and evening session Aliso Viejo 7/01 51,524 $17.6 $74,158 $520 $520 NA/ 2x month Elk Grove 7/00 169,743 $67.8 $50,513 $800 $800 15-20 8-11/ 2x month Rancho Santa Margarita 1/00 47,853 $19.2 $60,568 $463 $463 /2x month Laguna Woods 3/99 16,272 $5.4 $30,996 $300 $300 /1x month Page 3 of 8 3Packet Page 59 Meeting Date: May 15, 2018 Staff was able to attain similar information from cities that responded to the initial survey, and with the population similar to Goleta (25,000-35,000) as shown in Table 2, below, which also includes data from Santa Barbara for comparison purposes even though it has a much larger population. Table 2. Cities with Population of 25k-35k and Santa Barbara City Full or Contract Population* GF Budget in Millions US Census Median Income Monthly Salary Council Monthly Salary Mayor Weekly Hours (Avg.) Avg. Committee Assignments/ Meetings Per Month Atascadero 30,000 $8.3 $44,181 $600 $750 20-30 4/Twice Monthly Belmont 26,000 $11.1 $57,396 $390 $390 20-30 2/Twice Monthly Goleta 30,850 $24 $56,179 $585 $585 28-40+ 4-12/Twice Monthly, afternoon and evening session Lemoore 25,000 $11.3 $39,345 $300 $400 Part-time 4/Twice Monthly Los Gatos 31,000 $39.7 $73,125 $570 $570 30-40 Mayor; 20 Council 3-4/Twice Monthly Monterey 28,000 $30.6 $48,135 $430 $676 20 6/Twice Monthly Paso Robles 32,000 $40.6 $40,708 $600 $800 Mayor 20; Council 25-30 Mayor 10-12; Council 4-5/Twice Monthly San Dimas 33,119 $23.1 $41,067 $620 $820 NA Not Reported/Twice Monthly Santa Paula 30,335 $3.2 $24,991 $300 $300 NA Not Reported/Twice Monthly Santa Barbara 91,930 $126 $65,821 $400 $400 20-40 3-10/Weekly afternoon meetings Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates As a basis for recommending a salary, the City Council requested the Public Engagement Commission consider the examples provided in the presentation on April 17, 2018 consistent with City of Santa Barbara’s 2004 ballot initiative, which consisted of using the annual area median income for a one-person household within Santa Barbara County as determined and set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development or a comparable index provided by the State of California. The salary is based on 80% and 100% of the annual area median income for Councilmembers and the mayor, respectively. Part of the argument for the ballot measure was that Councilmembers’ salaries would increase or decrease annually to stay aligned with the median one- personal household income. The Commission was advised that in using this model, the baseline for Goleta represents: Page 4 of 8 4Packet Page 60 Meeting Date: May 15, 2018 Table 3. MEDIAN INCOME-Department of Housing and Urban Development 2017- SB County -$53,950 – Single Household Income Median Household Monthly Annual Mayor at 100% $4,496 $53,950 Councilmember at 80% $3,597 $43,160 For consideration of another example, staff provided: Table 4. MEDIAN INCOME – US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months – 2016 $56,179 – Non Family Households Median Household Monthly Annual Mayor at 100% $4,682 $56,179 Councilmember at 80% $3,745 $44,943 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Recommendation from the Public Engagement Commission On May 2, 2018 the agenda item was discussed among six PEC Commissioners. The Commission voted 6-Aye, 1-Absent, (with Mr. James Kyriaco recusing himself prior to the presentation) recommending the City Council move forward with a ballot measure to increase City Council and Mayoral salary. According to the Commission, the basis for the recommendation and the amount of salary is reflective of the workload responsibilities and cost of living in Goleta. The Commission was clear in that they desire Councilmembers focus on the needs of Goleta, without a concern of income. The Commission is hopeful that with a salary increase, resident participation may increase. The Commission recommended: • Councilmembers receive 75% of the single household median income of the 93117 zip code, and that annual adjustments to salary be made to stay aligned with the median income. • Mayor receive 90% of the single household median income of the 93117 zip code and the annual adjustments to salary be made to stay aligned with the median income. • The salary be implemented following the November 2018 election. It was suggested that City Council take affirmative action immediately, so that residents learn about the possibility of an income, which will motivate more to run in this upcoming election. The intent of the Commission in recommending a salary based on a single median household income by zip code was to narrow down the income baseline used for City of Goleta so as to make it affordable to live in Goleta. The Commission discussed that the cost of living of other cities should not be considered. Following the meeting, staff investigated the recommended zip code and found that 93117 does not capture parts of eastern Goleta and captures some areas outside of the City, as seen in Attachment 1. No reports were found that provide the single household median income by zip code. Page 5 of 8 5Packet Page 61 Meeting Date: May 15, 2018 Available statistical databases, e.g. Data Statistic Atlas, Income by Zip Code, and Data USA, commonly use statistics from the US Census Bureau to process information for Goleta statistics, (Attachment 2). It is undetermined when 2017 data will be published, and when it will be available for implementation, (assuming the ballot measure was successful with implementation following the November 2018 election). If this is the case, the data for the most recent year could be used to determine a salary adjustment. Information from previous years up to 2009 is available on the website. Table 6 below reflects the increase/decrease from 2009 to 2016 the most current published date. Table 6. Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2016 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Year Median Income Non Family Household Increase Previous year 2016 $56,179 10.66% 2015 $50,769 7.50% 2014 $47,227 0.75% 2013 $46,875 1.52% 2012 $46,172 -2.00% 2011 $47,114 -2.11% 2010 $48,131 -1.23% 2009 $48,731 As recommended by the PEC salary amounts would be adjusted annually based on changes in the local median income. For the purpose of establishing an inflation rate, the City Council may also want to consider the Consumer Price Index (CPI) All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, which is a regularly published index by the United States Department of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics (e.g. Attachment 3) and is used as the official index for annual adjustments to the City’s Library Special Tax (Measure L) and a reference tool for increasing City User Fees on an annual basis. The PEC’s recommendation is ambiguous as to how salary is impacted when the index results in a decrease in median income or a negative CPI, however if following the same model as Santa Barbara, a decrease would be applied, as a means of keeping salary aligned with the median income. Table 7. Annual CPI for All Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area (2012-2017) Year CPI 2017 2.8% 2016 1.9% 2015 0.9% 2014 1.3% 2013 1.1% 2012 2.0% Page 6 of 8 6Packet Page 62 Meeting Date: May 15, 2018 Staff Recommendation In consideration of the PEC’s recommendation and the available information regarding the City of Goleta single household median income, staff recommends that the City Council: Direct staff to prepare for the next City Council meeting, all documents necessary including ballot language to prepare a Ballot Measure for the November 2018 election to increase City Council salary - • Councilmembers receive 75% of the single household median income of the City of Goleta as published by the US Census Bureau (equal to $42,134) and that annual adjustments be made using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim. • Mayor receive 90% of the single household median income of the City of Goleta as published by the US Census Bureau (equal to $50,561) and that annual adjustments be made using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim. • The salary be implemented following the November 2018 election. Alternately, the City Council may decide to determine an annual cap or percentage of CPI cap for the adjustment. For example, the City of Livermore in 2014 limited future increases to lesser of CPI or 5%. The City of Mountain View’s ballot allowed for salaries to be adjusted annually based on the lesser of CPI, or urban wage earners of the average cost- of-living adjustment granted to the miscellaneous employee, not to exceed 5%. Instead of using CPI, future salary increases can be implemented based on annual adjustments to salary be made to stay aligned with the median income using the US Census Bureau report, or a similar report published by the State of California, similar to Santa Barbara’s measure. If directed by the City Council, staff will return on June 5, 2018, with a draft Ordinance with the proposed ballot language for the November 2018 General Municipal Election. FISCAL IMPACTS The filing fees for a ballot measure in the upcoming November 2018 election will be approximately $10,200. The General Fund impact of the cost of increasing Councilmember and Mayor salary at Goleta’s single household income respectively at 75% and 90% for FY 2018-19 is approximately $109,550, or $163,430 when including benefits this is assuming the salary increase is effective January 2019. On an annualized basis the total salary cost is approximately $219,100 or $326,860 when including benefits. For FY 2019-18, anticipating a 2% cost of living increase, the annual fiscal impact is $223,480 or $334,850 when including benefits. Page 7 of 8 7Packet Page 63 Page 8 of 8 Meeting Date: May 15, 2018 ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may direct staff to look at other databases and/or index sources that will provide information regarding a single household income based on zip code as recommended by the PEC. The City Council may also direct staff to provide additional information in preparation of a ballot measure. Alternatively, the City Council may decide to not take further action. Following this meeting, there is one remaining regular Council Meeting (June 19, 2018) for Council’s consideration and authorization of moving forward with a Council-initiated Ordinance for a Ballot Measure. Filing deadline for ballot measures with the County Board of Supervisors is July 3, 2018 for the November 2018 election. Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By: ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ Carmen Nichols Michael Jenkins Michelle Greene Deputy City Manager City Attorney City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1.Map of 93117 area code 2.US Census Bureau, INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2016 INFLATION- ADJUSTED DOLLARS) 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 3.Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles-Long Beach- Anaheim, CA 8Packet Page 64 Attachment 1 Map of 93117 area code 9Packet Page 65 93117 93111City of Goleta CITY OF G OLE TA PacificOcean Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri(Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 11Packet Page 66 Attachment 2 US Census Bureau, INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2016 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 13Packet Page 67 S1901 INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2016 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Data and Documentation section. Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section. Tell us what you think. Provide feedback to help make American Community Survey data more useful for you. Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and estimates of housing units for states and counties. Subject Goleta city, California Households Families Married-couple families Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Total 11,006 +/-343 7,097 +/-283 5,142 Less than $10,000 4.1%+/-1.4 0.7%+/-0.5 0.5% $10,000 to $14,999 3.6%+/-1.5 2.2%+/-1.4 0.4% $15,000 to $24,999 5.2%+/-1.4 3.3%+/-1.5 1.8% $25,000 to $34,999 7.2%+/-1.4 6.3%+/-1.3 3.0% $35,000 to $49,999 7.5%+/-1.7 8.4%+/-2.2 6.7% $50,000 to $74,999 18.2%+/-2.4 19.3%+/-3.4 18.5% $75,000 to $99,999 14.8%+/-2.7 13.1%+/-3.3 12.7% $100,000 to $149,999 21.6%+/-2.5 25.2%+/-3.8 29.2% $150,000 to $199,999 9.8%+/-1.6 11.5%+/-2.2 13.9% $200,000 or more 8.0%+/-1.4 10.0%+/-2.1 13.2% Median income (dollars)81,398 +/-4,285 94,069 +/-10,376 104,065 Mean income (dollars)97,823 +/-4,025 110,084 +/-5,583 N PERCENT ALLOCATED Household income in the past 12 months 33.0%(X)(X)(X)(X) Family income in the past 12 months (X)(X)34.5%(X)(X) Nonfamily income in the past 12 months (X)(X)(X)(X)(X) 1 of 2 04/13/201815Packet Page 68 Subject Goleta city, California Married-couple families Nonfamily households Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Total +/-281 3,909 +/-335 Less than $10,000 +/-0.5 11.0%+/-3.9 $10,000 to $14,999 +/-0.6 7.0%+/-3.3 $15,000 to $24,999 +/-0.9 8.3%+/-2.6 $25,000 to $34,999 +/-1.2 10.0%+/-3.4 $35,000 to $49,999 +/-2.2 8.5%+/-2.9 $50,000 to $74,999 +/-3.9 17.5%+/-3.8 $75,000 to $99,999 +/-3.3 16.7%+/-3.8 $100,000 to $149,999 +/-4.5 12.1%+/-3.3 $150,000 to $199,999 +/-3.0 5.5%+/-1.8 $200,000 or more +/-2.7 3.3%+/-1.5 Median income (dollars)+/-6,185 56,179 +/-6,394 Mean income (dollars)N 67,322 +/-4,797 PERCENT ALLOCATED Household income in the past 12 months (X)(X)(X) Family income in the past 12 months (X)(X)(X) Nonfamily income in the past 12 months (X)28.6%(X) Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables. When information is missing or inconsistent, the Census Bureau logically assigns an acceptable value using the response to a related question or questions. If a logical assignment is not possible, data are filled using a statistical process called allocation, which uses a similar individual or household to provide a donor value. The "Allocated" section is the number of respondents who received an allocated value for a particular subject. While the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities. Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Explanation of Symbols: 1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate. 2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution. 4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. 5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate. 6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate. 7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available. 2 of 2 04/13/201816Packet Page 69 Attachment 3 Consumer Price Index Sheet 17Packet Page 70 A to Z Index | FAQs | About BLS | Contact Us Subscribe to E-mail Updates Follow Us | What's New | Release Calendar | Blog Search BLS.gov Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject SHARE ON: Change Output Options:From:2008 To:2018 include graphs include annual averages Data extracted on: April 4, 2018 (6:58:39 PM) CPI-All Urban Consumers (Current Series) Series Id: CUURS49ASA0 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series Title: All items in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Item: All items Base Period: 1982-84=100 Download: Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2008 220.918 221.431 223.606 224.625 226.651 229.033 229.886 228.484 227.449 226.159 222.229 219.620 225.008 224.377 225.638 2009 220.719 221.439 221.376 221.693 222.522 223.906 224.010 224.507 225.226 225.264 224.317 223.643 223.219 221.943 224.495 2010 224.610 224.620 225.483 225.916 226.438 225.877 225.991 226.373 226.048 226.794 225.941 226.639 225.894 225.491 226.298 2011 228.652 229.729 232.241 233.319 233.367 232.328 231.303 231.833 233.022 233.049 232.731 231.567 231.928 231.606 232.251 2012 233.441 234.537 236.941 236.866 237.032 236.025 235.776 237.222 238.104 240.111 237.675 236.042 236.648 235.807 237.488 2013 238.015 239.753 239.995 239.043 239.346 239.223 238.920 239.219 239.611 239.940 238.677 238.742 239.207 239.229 239.185 2014 239.857 241.059 242.491 242.437 243.362 243.528 243.727 243.556 243.623 243.341 241.753 240.475 242.434 242.122 242.746 2015 239.724 241.297 243.738 243.569 246.093 245.459 247.066 246.328 245.431 245.812 245.711 245.357 244.632 243.313 245.951 2016 247.155 247.113 247.873 248.368 249.554 249.789 249.784 249.700 250.145 251.098 250.185 250.189 249.246 248.309 250.184 2017 252.373 253.815 254.525 254.971 255.674 255.275 256.023 256.739 257.890 258.883 259.135 259.220 256.210 254.439 257.982 2018 261.235 263.012 12-Month Percent Change Series Id: CUURS49ASA0 Not Seasonally Adjusted Series Title: All items in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Item: All items Base Period: 1982-84=100 Download: Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2008 3.9 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.7 5.4 5.7 5.1 4.5 3.4 1.0 0.1 3.5 3.8 3.3 2009 -0.1 0.0 -1.0 -1.3 -1.8 -2.2 -2.6 -1.7 -1.0 -0.4 0.9 1.8 -0.8 -1.1 -0.5 2010 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.9 1.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.2 1.6 0.8 2011 1.8 2.3 3.0 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.4 2.4 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.7 2.7 2.6 2012 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.2 3.0 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.8 2.3 2013 2.0 2.2 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.6 -0.1 0.4 1.1 1.1 1.5 0.7 2014 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.3 0.7 1.3 1.2 1.5 2015 -0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.8 1.4 1.1 0.7 1.0 1.6 2.0 0.9 0.5 1.3 2016 3.1 2.4 1.7 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.2 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.7 2017 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.6 2.8 2.5 3.1 2018 3.5 3.6 RECOMMEND THIS PAGE USING: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Home Subjects Data Tools Publications Economic Releases Students Beta Page 1 of 1Bureau of Labor Statistics Data 4/4/2018https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet 19Packet Page 71 Agenda Item A.2 DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM Meeting Date: May 2, 2018 TO:Public Engagement Commission FROM: Carmen Nichols, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT:City Council Compensation RECOMMENDATION: Receive a report on City Council compensation and provide input and a recommendation to the City Council BACKGROUND: At the April 17, 2018, City Council meeting staff presented a report on City Council compensation with the underlying question, if a higher salary will increase residents’ interest in running for a local office. The matter of exploring whether City Councilmembers should be paid greater compensation, and if so, how much, is one of the duties and responsibilities of the Public Engagement Commission assigned by the City Council in the Resolution 17-18, and also as one of the items listed in the Conditional Settlement Agreement and Release between Lindsay Rojas and Hector Mendez. The report presented information of how compensation is governed by California Government Code for the City of Goleta, a general law City, and provided comparable data of other general law and charter city salaries, as well as examples of ballot measures used as a way to limit and/or increase city council salaries. The City Council provided input and requested the Public Engagement Commission provide feedback on the matter and: 1) review the median household income presented in this report as example baselines for salary consideration and provide input and a recommendation as to a salary amount; 2) recommend an effective date of implementation; and, 3) discuss and make a recommendation on an inflation rate. DISCUSSION: As a general law city, the City of Goleta’s City Council salary and increase to salary is regulated by the California Government Code § 36516 (Goleta Municipal Code Section 2.01.080) and initially set by city population. In cities up to 35,000 in population, the government code allows a salary of “up to and including three hundred ($300) per month”, except where a different rate of compensation is established by the majority voters in an election. 1Packet Page 72 Meeting Date: May 2, 2018 Page 2 of 7 The government code limits salary increases and requires increases to be enacted in the same manner. A salary increase shall not exceed 5 percent for each calendar year from the date of the last salary adjustment in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. Automatic future salary increases are prohibited. A single councilmember’s pay may not be adjusted during the term of office; however, the salary of all members may be adjusted when one or more members of the City Council become eligible for a salary increase, at the beginning of a new term of office. In Goleta, the mayor and all councilmembers currently receive the same salary, however, pursuant to California Government Code § 36516.1, an elected mayor may be provided with additional compensation to what is received as a council member. The additional salary must be provided by ordinance adopted by the City Council or by a majority of voters in an election. The last salary increase received by Goleta City Council was approved in September 2016, (Ordinance No. 16-05 Establishing Compensation for City Councilmembers). This approved a monthly salary increase effective January 1, 2017 from $532 per month to $585 per month per Councilmember, or a 10 percent increase which represented a 5 percent increase in 2015 and a 5 percent increase in 2016 following the November 2016 election. Table 1. City Council Salary History Ordinance Date Effective Date Monthly Salary Annual Salary 2/1/2002 2/1/2002 $300 $3,600 6/7/2004 1/1/2005 $330 $3,960 9/18/2006 1/1/2007 $363 $4,356 9/16/2008 1/1/2009 $400 $4,800 9/21/2010 1/1/2011 $440 $5,280 10/16/2012 1/1/2013 $484 $5,808 9/2/2014 1/1/2015 $532 $6,384 9/20/16 1/1/2017 $585 $7,020 Projection (2018), if by Ordinance 1/1/2019 $644 $7,728 In addition to salary, City of Goleta Councilmembers are eligible to receive their actual monthly premium amount, not to exceed $1,265 per month, for the payment of health, dental, and vision insurance premiums through the City’s benefit program. This amount is excluded when determining City Council salary under the Government Code, provided the same benefits are available and paid by the City for its employees (California Government Code § 36516 (d)). Salary Increase by Election For a general law city, California Government Code allows for a councilmember’s or mayor’s salary to be set by a majority of voters in an election, if compensation is at a 2Packet Page 73 Meeting Date: May 2, 2018 Page 3 of 7 different level than state guidelines. Pursuant to California Government Code § 36516 (b), the questions of whether councilmembers shall receive a salary for services and the amount of that salary may be submitted in a ballot measure and must be approved by the majority of the electorate. Once established, future increases and decreases must be approved by the majority of the electorate in an election. Council Compensation-City Survey Through a listserv request of other League of California Cities member cities, staff requested information about City Council compensation, how it is established, and other factors to consider. Staff also researched additional cities in the tri-county area. The full responses are listed in Attachment 1. Salary information was collected for 71 cities of various populations. Of those, 48 are General Law cities, and 23 Charter cities. (Attachment 2-General Law Cities, Attachment 3- Charter Cities, Attachment 4-Tri County Cities.) General Law Cities All 48 general law cities responded that salaries are set by City Council ordinance, in accordance with California Government Code. In some of those cities the mayor received compensation in addition to that of councilmembers. Table 2 identifies the cities in the study with city councilmember and mayor salary above $1,000 per month. Table 2. General Law Cities with Monthly Salaries > $1,000 per month City Population Salary Councilmember Salary Mayor Camarillo 67,363 $1,425 $1,425 Davis 68,111 $1,050 $1,170 La Mesa 60,000 $1,000 $2,000 Oxnard 207,906 $1,701 $1,701 Simi Valley 126,327 $1,202 $1,202 Thousand Oaks 129,339 $1,750 $1,750 Whether or not salary increases were applied at all, or applied regularly varied from city to city. In some cases, increases appear to be given regularly as per the government code of five percent per year. In other cases, such as Santa Paula and Moorpark, the salary has remained the same for many years. When comparing salaries of general law cities to population, the study suggested that population is not a factor in determining salary. For example, the City of Oxnard with a population of 207,906 pays its elected officials $1,701 per month and the City of Thousand Oaks with a population of 129,339 pays about $49 more per month. Charter Cities The analysis showed that many charter cities also establish councilmember salaries through ordinance or resolution. Whether a city may have originated a base salary through a ballot measure was difficult to identify without clear language in the ordinance. A more recent ballot measure was identified for the City of Santa Barbara. The City Council received support from community members regarding Councilmember compensation and public comments generally favored a salary increase for the amount 3Packet Page 74 Meeting Date: May 2, 2018 Page 4 of 7 of hours worked by the City Council, and the ability to attract candidates. In 2004, with an implementation in 2005, the City of Santa Barbara voters approved Measure A2004, which set Santa Barbara’s councilmember and mayor salary at 80% and 100% of the annual area median income, respectively. According the Article V, Section 502 of the Santa Barbara City Charter, median income refers to the annual area median income for a one-person household within Santa Barbara County as determined and set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, or if not available, by a comparable index published by the State of California. Salaries are adjusted annually by this factor. The City of San Luis Obispo’s Council Compensation Committee advisory board reviews and provides recommendations of salaries, benefits and CalPERS matters. Table 3 identifies the charter cities in the study with city councilmember and mayor salary above $1,000 per month. The study shows that larger population charter cities tend to provide higher salaries to their elected officials. Table 3. Charter Cities with Monthly Salaries > $1,000 per month City Population Salary Councilmember Salary Mayor Berkeley 112,000 $2,919 $4,625 Fresno 520,000 $5,417 $10,833 Loma Linda 23,000 $1,066 $1,066 Napa 80,416 $1,302 $1,302 San Luis Obispo 48,000 $1,200 $1501 Santa Barbara 91,390 $3,448 $4,310 Santa Maria 106,280 $1,313 $1,563 Stockton 315,592 $1,377 $6,032 Vernon 209 $2,233 $2,233 Public Engagement Review At the meeting of April 17, 2018, the City Council directed the Public Engagement Commission hear the item and provide input and recommendations as to whether salary encourages residents to run for elected office as mayor or councilmember. In doing so, the City Council spoke generally about time commitments in performing their job duties in serving the public. A sentiment shared by the City Council is that a reasonable salary could encourage those that are not otherwise able to give up their current salary, or who could not afford a reduction in work to focus on the time commitments necessary to serve. A higher council salary could expand the pool of candidates beyond those who may have a pension (retirees) or other financial resources that the general public does not. These sentiments are similar to those shared by the Santa Barbara community in the 2004 election. Furthermore, the Commission may want to consider how salary may affect candidate participation in district elections. As a basis for recommending a salary, the City Council requested the Public Engagement Commission consider the examples provided in the presentation on April 17, consistent with City of Santa Barbara’s 2004 ballot initiative, which consisted of using the annual area median income for a one-person household within Santa Barbara County as determined and set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development or a comparable index provided by the State of California. The salary is based on 80% and 4Packet Page 75 Meeting Date: May 2, 2018 Page 5 of 7 100% of the annual area median income for councilmembers and the mayor, respectively. Using this model, the baseline for Goleta represents: Median Income-Department of Housing and Urban Development 2017- SB County $53,950 – Single Household Income Median Household Monthly Annual Mayor at 100%$4,496 $53,950 Councilmember at 80% $3,597 $43,160 Median Income – US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months – 2016 $56,179 – Non Family Households Median Household Monthly Annual Mayor at 100%$4,682 $56,179 Councilmember at 80% $3,745 $44,943 To assist the PEC in its deliberation, staff requested additional information from cities, with regard to time commitments in performing the job of a city councilmember. In doing so, staff tried to gain the information from the most recently incorporated cities. Of the 10 cities, the following are responses received at the time of completion of this report: Table 4. 10 Most Recent Incorporated Cities – *All Remain General Law Cities City Population GF Budget (millions) US Census Median Income* Monthly Salary Councilme mber Monthly Salary Mayor Avg. Hours Worked Per Week Avg. Committee Assignments/Mtg. per Month Jurupa Valley 7/11 103,541 $31.9 $30,294 $600 $600 Eastvale 10/10 61,151 $15.7 $56,750 $585 $585 Menifee 10/08 88,531 $31.8 $42,845 $650 $650 20 4-6/ NA Wildomar 7/08 32,176 $10.6 $41,191 $400 $400 2/ 1x month Rancho Cordova 7/03 72,326 $50.8 $40,469 $500 $600 Goleta 2/02 30,850 $25.7 $56,179 $585 $585 28-40 4-12/ 2x month Afternoon and evening session Aliso Viejo 7/01 51,524 $17.6 $74,158 $520 $520 Elk Grove 7/00 169,743 $67.8 $50,513 $800 $800 15-20 8-11/ 2x month Rancho Santa Margarita 1/00 47,853 $19.2 $60,568 $463 $463 Laguna Woods 3/99 16,272 $5.4 $30,996 $300 $300 5Packet Page 76 Meeting Date: May 2, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Staff was able to attain similar information from cities that responded to the initial survey, and with the population similar to Goleta (25,000-35,000) as shown in the table below, which also includes data from Santa Barbara for comparison purposes event though it has a much larger population. Table 5. Cities with Population of 25k-35k and Santa Barbara City Full or Contract Population GF Budget in Millions US Census Median Income Monthly Salary Council Monthly Salary Mayor Weekly Hours (Avg.) Avg. Committee Assignments/Meetings Per Month Atascadero Full Service 30,000 $8.3 $44,181 $600 $750.00 20-30 4/ Twice Monthly Belmont 26,000 $11.1 $57,396 $390 $390 20-30 2/Twice Monthly Goleta 30,850 $24 $56,179 $585 $585 28-40+4-12/Twice Monthly, afternoon and evening session Lemoore 25,000 $11.3 $39,345 $300 $400 Part-time 4/Twice Monthly Los Gatos 31,000 $39.7 $73,125 $570 $570 30-40 Mayor; 20 Council 3-4/Twice Monthly Monterey 28,000 $30.6 $48,135 $430 $676 20 6/Twice Monthly Paso Robles 32,000 $40.6 $40,708 $600 $800 Mayor 20; Council 25-30 Mayor 10-12; Council 4-5 San Dimas 33,119 $23.1 $41,067 $ 620 $820 NA Twice Monthly Santa Paula 30,335 $3.2 $24,991 $300 $300 NA NA Santa Barbara 91,930 $126 $65,821 $400 $400 20-40 3-10 The City Council also requested the Public Engagement Commission provide input on an inflation rate, also known as a cost of living increase. The Commission can consider the median income table used to set the salary, a Consumer Price Index table, a fixed amount, or a percentage of such amounts, or present a different recommendation. For clarity purposes on the ballot, and transparency in implementation, it is suggested that an increase be tied to a clearly defined quantitative formula or factor. The input and recommendations provided by the Commission will be presented to the City Council at the May 15, 2018 meeting. Whether to place a measure on the ballot to increase the Mayor and/or City Councilmembers’ salaries is a policy decision for the City Council, and the ultimate decision on whether to approve such a ballot measure rests with the voters of Goleta. A proposed ballot measure must be provided to the County of Santa Barbara Election Office no later than Thursday, July 5, 2018. With this timeline in mind, City staff is required to bring further analysis to the City Council no later than May 15, 2018 and if time permits, present a draft ballot measure to the City Council at the same time. Final ballot measure 6Packet Page 77 Meeting Date: May 2, 2018 Page 7 of 7 language, ordinance, and resolutions would need to be presented to the City Council on June 5, 2018, or June 19, 2018. FISCAL IMPACTS There is no fiscal impact in providing this information to Public Engagement Commission. ALTERNATIVES: None. Approved By: ___________________ Carmen Nichols Deputy City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Survey of Other Cities, List Serve Requested by the City of Goleta, 2018 – revised since April 17, 2018 2. Survey of Other Cities, General Law Cities 3. Survey of Other Cities, Charter Cities 4.Survey of Tri-County Cities 5. Power Point Presentation of April 17, 2018 7Packet Page 78 ATTACHMENT 1: Survey of Other Cities, List Serve Requested by the City of Goleta, 2018 – revised since April 17, 2018 8Packet Page 79 COUNCIL COMPENSATION‐ALL CITIESATTACHMENT 1City PopulationCharter or General LawSize of Council Including MayorMayor Appointed by the Council or Elected Monthly Salary Council Annual Salary Council Term of Council member Monthly Salary Mayor Annual Salary Mayor Term of MayorState if Lump Sum, Stipend, or HourlyBuilt in salary adjustment (increaseDistrict Elections or At LargeFull Time or Part Time: Part time for CouncilCountyAgoura Hills23,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years N/A Appointed Annually StipendNo At Large N/ALos AngelesAliso Viejo51,424 General Law 5Appointed $ 520.00 $ 6,240.00 4 years $ 520.00 $ 6,240.00 1 year MonthlyNo At LargeOrangeAntioch114,452 General Law 5Elected $ 949.20 $ 11,390.40 4 years $ 949.20 $ 11,390.40 4 years StipendNo At Large Part-timeContra CostaApple Valley75,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 811.00 $ 9,732.00 4 years $ 811.00 $ 9,732.00 4 years StipendNo At Large N/ASan BernadinoArroyo Grande 18,097 Charter5405.00$ 4,860.00$ 4 years405.00$ 4,860.00$ 2 years Monthly SalaryAt LargeSan Luis OAtascadero30,000 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years750.00$ 9,000.00$ 2 years SalryAt LargeSan Luis OAuburn14,100 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year $150 twice monthly No At Large Part-timePlacerBarstow23,639 General Law 5Elected $ 504.32 $ 6,051.84 No term limits $ 504.32 $ 6,051.84 No term limits Bi WeeklyNo DistrictPart timeSan BernadinoBelmont26,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 390.00 $ 4,680.00 4 years $ 390.00 $ 4,680.00 1 year StipendNo At-LargeN/A (not full time)San MateoBerkeley112,000 Charter 9Elected $ 2,919.88 $ 35,038.56 4 years $ 4,625.97 $ 55,511.64 4 yearsMonthly/number of meetings in a month NoDistricts; Mayor is at largePart-timeAlamedaBuellton5,095 General Law5Elected440.00$ 5,280.00$ 4 years440.00$ 5,280.00$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeSanta BarbaraCalabasas24.075 General Law 5Appointed $ 840.00 $ 10,080.00 4 years $ 840.00 $ 10,080.00 4 yearsNo At Large Part TimeLos AngelesCamarillo67,363 General Law5Appointed1,425.00$ 17,100.00$ 4 years1,425.00$ 17,100.00$ MonthlyVenturaCapitolla10,180 General Law 5Appointed by Council annually $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 4 years $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 sameNo At Large Part timeSanta CruzCarpinteria13,684 General Law5Appointed310.00$ 3,720.00$ 4 years310.00$ 3,720.00$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeSanta BarbaraChico91,567 Charter 7Appointed $ 663.00 $ 7,956.00 4 years $ 777.00 $ 9,324.00 2 years Lump sumNo At Large Part-timeButteChino Hills80,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 661.50 $ 7,938.00 4 years staggered, no term limits $ 661.50 $ 7,938.00 1 year Lump sumNoBoth – Just went to Districts; 3 districts up in November; 2 at-large until 2020Part Time hours – Full Time benefitsSan BernadinoCupertino60,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 730.24 $ 8,762.88 Two, Four-year terms $ 730.24 $ 8,762.88 1 year Monthly StipendNo, by ordinancePart timeSanta ClaraDanville42,865 General Law 5Appointed $ 675.00 $ 8,100.00 4 years n/a 1 yearNo At Large n/aContra CostaDavis68,111 General Law $ 1,050.00 $ 12,600.00 $ 1,170.00 $ 14,040.00 YoloEastvale61,151 General Law 5Appointed $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 4 years $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 1 year MonthlyDistrictRiversideElk Grove169,743 General Law 5Elected $ 800.00 $ 9,600.00 4 years $ 800.00 $ 9,600.00 2 years MonthlyDistrict /At LargeSacramentoFillmore15,610 General Law300.00$ 3,600.00$ 300.00$ 3,600.00$ VenturaFresno520,000 Charter 8Elected $ 5,416.67 $ 65,000.00 4 years $ 10,833.33 $ 130,000.00 4 years Lump sumNo DistrictsFull timeFresnoGalt25,000 General Law 5Appointed by Council $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year 26 pay periods No At-Large same as council membersSacramento9Packet Page 80 COUNCIL COMPENSATION‐ALL CITIESATTACHMENT 1City PopulationCharter or General LawSize of Council Including MayorMayor Appointed by the Council or Elected Monthly Salary Council Annual Salary Council Term of Council member Monthly Salary Mayor Annual Salary Mayor Term of MayorState if Lump Sum, Stipend, or HourlyBuilt in salary adjustment (increaseDistrict Elections or At LargeFull Time or Part Time: Part time for CouncilCountyGoleta30,850 General Law 5Elected $ 585.00 $ 7,020.00 4 years $ 585.00 $ 7,020.00 2 years MonthlyDistrictsSanta BarbaraGreenfield17,500 General Law 5Elected $ 361.00 $ 4,332.00 4 years $ 481.00 $ 5,772.00 4 years BiweeklyNo At Large Part timeMontereyGrover Beach 13,641 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years750.00$ 9,000.00$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeSan Luis OGuadalupe7,321 General Law6Elected150.00$ 1,800.00$ 150.00$ 1,800.00$ MonthlyAt LargeSanta BarbaraHoltville6300 General Law 5Appointed $ 350.00 $ 4,200.00 4 years $ 350.00 $ 4,200.00 1 year monthly tipend no at-largen/a – not definedImperialJurupa Valley 103541 General Law 5Appointed $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 4 years $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 1 year MonthlyDistrictRiversideKingsburg12,000 Charter 5Appointed $ 250.00 $ 3,000.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 2 years Lump sumNo Moving to districtPart timeFresnoLa Mesa 60,000 General Law 5 Elected $ 1,000.00 $ 12,000.00 4 years with a limit of 3 consecutive terms $ 2,000.00 $ 24,000.00 4 years with a limit of 3 con termsNot Sure (either lump sum or stipend)No At Large Part time San DiegoLaguna Woods 16,272 General Law 5 Elected $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year MonthlyNo At LargeOrangeLake Forest82,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 704.00 $ 8,448.00 4 years $ 704.00 $ 8,448.00 1 year StipendNo DistrictPart-timeOrangeLakeport4772 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year Lump sumNo At Large Part-timeLakeLemoore25,000 Charter 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 2 StipendNoCurrently at large – will move to district in November 2018Part-time KingsLoma Linda23000 Charter 5Appointed $ 1,066.73 $ 12,800.76 4 years $ 1,066.73 $ 12,800.76 4 years Lump sumNo At Large Full TimeSan BernadinoLompoc43,712 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years800.00$ 9,600.00$ Santa BarbaraLos Gatos31,000 General Law 5Elected by Council every November $ 570.00 $ 6,840.00 4 years $ 570.00 $ 6,840.00 4 years (not directly elected)Lump sumNO At Large Volunteer Santa ClaraMalibu13,000.00 General Law 5Appointed $ 565.68 $ 6,788.16 four years; two term limit $ 565.68 $ 6,788.16 Same StipendNo At Large Part time Los AngelesManteca77,000 General Law 5Elected $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 4 years $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 4 years Monthly Salary No At-LargeSan JoaquinMenifee88,531 General Law 5Elected $ 650.00 $ 7,800.00 4 years $ 650.00 $ 7,800.00 2 years MonthlyNo District/ At LargeRiversideMilpitas77,000 General Law 5Elected $ 904.37 $ 10,852.44 4 years $ 1,130.74 $ 13,568.88 2 years Lump sumNo At Large Part timeSanta ClaraMonrovia38,000 General Law 5Directly Elected $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 4 years $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 2 years Monthly (Stipend) No At-Large Part-timeLos AngelesMonterey28,000 Charter 5Elected $ 430.00 $ 5,160.00 4 years $ 676.00 $ 8,112.00 2 years StipendNo At Large Part timeMontereyMoorpark36,481 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years600.00$ 7,200.00$ 2 yearsAt LargeVenturaMorro Bay11,000 General Law5Elected500.00$ 6,000.00$ 4 years700.00$ 8,400.00$ 2 yearsSan Luis ONapa80,416 Charter5Elected1,302.00$ 15,624.00$ 4 years2,604.00$ 31,248.00$ 4 yearsAt LargeNapaOjai7,585 General Law5Elected475.00$ 5,700.00$ 4 years475.00$ 5,700.00$ 2 years MonthlyNoVenturaOxnard207,906 General Law5Elected1,701.01$ 20,412.08$ 4 years1,701.01$ 20,412.08$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeVentura10Packet Page 81 COUNCIL COMPENSATION‐ALL CITIESATTACHMENT 1City PopulationCharter or General LawSize of Council Including MayorMayor Appointed by the Council or Elected Monthly Salary Council Annual Salary Council Term of Council member Monthly Salary Mayor Annual Salary Mayor Term of MayorState if Lump Sum, Stipend, or HourlyBuilt in salary adjustment (increaseDistrict Elections or At LargeFull Time or Part Time: Part time for CouncilCountyPacific Grove 15,045 Charter 7Elected $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 4-8 years $ 700.00 $ 8,400.00 2-8 years Lump sumNo At Large Part timeMontereyPaso Robles32,000 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 5 years800.00$ 9,600.00$ 5 years MonthlyAt LargeSan Luis OPatterson21,776 General Law 5Elected $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 2 yearsStipend, taxable, paid through payrollnoCouncilmembers District Elections, Mayor at LargePart-time Stanislaus Pismo Beach8,000 General Law 5Elected514.80$ 6,177.60$ 4 years814.80$ 9,777.60$ 2 years MonthlyNo At Large Part-timeSan Luis OPort Hueneme 22,277 Charter5Elected751.38$ 9,016.56$ 4 years751.38$ 9,016.56$ 1 year MonthlyAt LargeVenturaRancho Cordova 72,326 General Law5Elected500.00$ 6,000.00$ 4 years600.00$ 7,200.00$ 1 year MonthlyNo At LargeSacramentoRancho Santa Margarita47,853 General Law5Appointed463.50$ 5,562.00$ 463.50$ 5,562.00$ 1 year MontlhyNo At LargeOrangeRedding90,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 4 years $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 1 year StipendNo At Large Part timeShastaRedlands70,398 General Law 5Appointed $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 4 years $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 2 years Lump sumNoStarting At-Large this November Part-timeSan BernadinoSan Dimas33,119 General Law 5Elected $ 620.00 $ 7,440.00 4 years $ 820.00 $ 9,840.00 2 years Lump sumNo At Large Part-timeLos AngelesSan Luis Obispo 48,000 Charter5Elected1,200.33$ 14,404.00$ 4 years1,501.50$ 18,018.00$ 2 years MonthlySan Luis OSan Mateo104,000 Charter 5Appointed $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 4-yr terms, up to three terms $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 Mayor serves 1 yr. term; position rotates StipendNo At Large Part timeSan MateoSanta Barbara 91,930 Charter3,448.66$ 41,383.92$ 4,310.84$ 51,730.08$ Santa BarbaraSanta Maria106,280Charter5Elected $ 1,313.00 $ 15,756.00 4 years $ 1,563.00 $ 18,756.00 4 years StipendNo DistrictPart time Santa BarbaraSanta Paula30,335 General Law300.00$ 3,600.00$ 300.00$ 3,600.00$ VenturaSausalito7,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year Lump sumNo At Large Part timeMarinSimi Valley126,327 General Law1,202.76$ 14,433.12$ 1,202.76$ 14,433.12$ VenturaSolvang5,802 CharterElected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 700.00$ 8,400.00$ Santa BarbaraStockton315,592 Charter 7Elected $ 1,377.42 $ 16,529.04 4 years $ 6,032.00 $ 72,384.00 4 years Bi WeeklyNoAt-Large for MayorFull time MayorSan JoaquinThousand Oaks 129,339 General Law 5 Appointed $ 1,750.00 $ 21,000.00 4 years 1 year Lump sum Yes At Large Part time VenturaTorrance 147,000 Charter 7 Elected $ 100.00 $ 1,200.00 4 years $ 100.00 $ 1,200.00 4 years Biweekly No At Large Part timeLos AngelesTruckee 16,000 Charter 5 Appointed $ 645.00 $ 7,740.00 4 years $ 645.00 $ 7,740.00 1 year Stipend Biweekly No At Large Part timeNevadaTulare 62,779 Charter 5 Appointed$5 per regular meeting $ 135.00 4 years, no limit N/A $ 135.00 Typically, two years. See No. 6 No By District Part-timeTulareVentura 109,592 Charter7Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4years700.00$ 8,400.00$ 2 years MonthlyNo At LargeVenturaVernon209 Charter 5Appointed $ 2,233.00 $ 26,796.00 Five year terms, Term Limit: two $ 2,233.00 $ 26,796.00 Appointed annually SalaryNo At Large Full timeLos AngelesWatsonville53,796 Charter 7Appointed $ 525.00 $ 6,300.00 4 years (2 terms) $ 625.00 $ 7,500.00 4 years NoneNo DistrictPart timeSanta Cruz11Packet Page 82 COUNCIL COMPENSATION‐ALL CITIESATTACHMENT 1City PopulationCharter or General LawSize of Council Including MayorMayor Appointed by the Council or Elected Monthly Salary Council Annual Salary Council Term of Council member Monthly Salary Mayor Annual Salary Mayor Term of MayorState if Lump Sum, Stipend, or HourlyBuilt in salary adjustment (increaseDistrict Elections or At LargeFull Time or Part Time: Part time for CouncilCountyWestlake Village 8370 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year StipendNo At-Large Part-time Los AngelesWildomar32176 General Law 5Appointed $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 4 years $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 1 year MonthlyNo DistrictRiversideYountville2933 General Law 5Elected $ 648.00 $ 7,776.00 4 $ 638.00 $ 7,656.00 4 years StipendAt-Large Part TimeNapa12Packet Page 83 ATTACHMENT 2: Survey of Other Cities, General Law Cities 13Packet Page 84 COUNCIL COMPENSATION‐GENERAL LAW CITIESATTACHMENT 2City PopulationCharter or General LawSize of Council Including MayorMayor Appointed by the Council or Elected Monthly Salary Council Annual Salary Council Term of Council member Monthly Salary Mayor Annual Salary Mayor Term of MayorState if Lump Sum, Stipend, or HourlyBuilt in salary adjustment (increaseDistrict Elections or At LargeFull Time or Part Time: Part time for CouncilCountyAgoura Hills23,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years N/A Appointed Annually StipendNo At Large N/ALos AngelesAliso Viejo51,424 General Law 5Appointed $ 520.00 $ 6,240.00 4 years $ 520.00 $ 6,240.00 1 year MonthlyNo At LargeOrangeAntioch114,452 General Law 5Elected $ 949.20 $ 11,390.40 4 years $ 949.20 $ 11,390.40 4 years StipendNo At Large Part-timeContra CostaApple Valley75,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 811.00 $ 9,732.00 4 years $ 811.00 $ 9,732.00 4 years StipendNo At Large N/ASan BernadinoAtascadero30,000 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years750.00$ 9,000.00$ 2 years SalryAt LargeSan Luis OAuburn14,100 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year $150 twice monthly No At Large Part-timePlacerBarstow23,639 General Law 5Elected $ 504.32 $ 6,051.84 No term limits $ 504.32 $ 6,051.84 No term limits Bi WeeklyNo DistrictPart timeSan BernadinoBelmont26,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 390.00 $ 4,680.00 4 years $ 390.00 $ 4,680.00 1 year StipendNo At-LargeN/A (not full time)San MateoBuellton5,095 General Law5Elected440.00$ 5,280.00$ 4 years440.00$ 5,280.00$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeSanta BarbaraCalabasas24.075 General Law 5Appointed $ 840.00 $ 10,080.00 4 years $ 840.00 $ 10,080.00 4 yearsNo At Large Part TimeLos AngelesCamarillo67,363 General Law5Appointed1,425.00$ 17,100.00$ 4 years1,425.00$ 17,100.00$ MonthlyVenturaCapitolla10,180 General Law 5Appointed by Council annually $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 4 years $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 same No At Large Part timeSanta CruzCarpinteria 13,684 General Law5 Appointed310.00$ 3,720.00$ 4 years310.00$ 3,720.00$ 2 years Monthly At LargeSanta BarbaraChino Hills 80,000 General Law 5 Appointed $ 661.50 $ 7,938.00 4 years staggered, no term limits $ 661.50 $ 7,938.00 1 year Lump sum NoBoth – Just went to Districts; 3 districts up in November; 2 at-large until 2020Part Time hours – Full Time benefitsSan BernadinoCupertino 60,000 General Law 5 Appointed $ 730.24 $ 8,762.88 Two, Four-year terms $ 730.24 $ 8,762.88 1 year Monthly StipendNo, by ordinance Part timeSanta ClaraDanville 42,865 General Law 5 Appointed $ 675.00 $ 8,100.00 4 years n/a 1 year No At Large n/aContra CostaDavis 68,111 General Law $ 1,050.00 $ 12,600.00 $ 1,170.00 $ 14,040.00 YoloEastvale 61,151 General Law 5 Appointed $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 4 years $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 1 year MonthlyDistrictRiversideElk Grove169,743 General Law 5Elected $ 800.00 $ 9,600.00 4 years $ 800.00 $ 9,600.00 2 years MonthlyDistrict /At LargeSacramentoFillmore15,610 General Law300.00$ 3,600.00$ 300.00$ 3,600.00$ VenturaGalt25,000 General Law 5Appointed by Council $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year 26 pay periods No At-Large same as council membersSacramentoGoleta30,850 General Law 5Elected $ 585.00 $ 7,020.00 4 years $ 585.00 $ 7,020.00 2 years MonthlyDistrictsSanta BarbaraGreenfield17,500 General Law 5Elected $ 361.00 $ 4,332.00 4 years $ 481.00 $ 5,772.00 4 years BiweeklyNo At Large Part timeMontereyGrover Beach 13,641 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years750.00$ 9,000.00$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeSan Luis OGuadalupe7,321 General Law6Elected150.00$ 1,800.00$ 150.00$ 1,800.00$ MonthlyAt LargeSanta BarbaraHoltville6300 General Law 5Appointed $ 350.00 $ 4,200.00 4 years $ 350.00 $ 4,200.00 1 year monthly tipend no at-largen/a – not definedImperial14Packet Page 85 COUNCIL COMPENSATION‐GENERAL LAW CITIESATTACHMENT 2City PopulationCharter or General LawSize of Council Including MayorMayor Appointed by the Council or Elected Monthly Salary Council Annual Salary Council Term of Council member Monthly Salary Mayor Annual Salary Mayor Term of MayorState if Lump Sum, Stipend, or HourlyBuilt in salary adjustment (increaseDistrict Elections or At LargeFull Time or Part Time: Part time for CouncilCountyJurupa Valley 103541 General Law 5Appointed $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 4 years $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 1 year MonthlyDistrictRiversideLa Mesa60,000 General Law 5Elected $ 1,000.00 $ 12,000.00 4 years with a limit of 3 consecutive terms $ 2,000.00 $ 24,000.00 4 years with a limit of 3 con termsNot Sure (either lump sum or stipend)No At Large Part time San DiegoLaguna Woods 16,272 General Law 5Elected $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year MonthlyNo At LargeOrangeLake Forest82,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 704.00 $ 8,448.00 4 years $ 704.00 $ 8,448.00 1 year StipendNo DistrictPart-timeOrangeLakeport4772 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year Lump sumNo At Large Part-timeLakeLompoc43,712 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years800.00$ 9,600.00$ Santa BarbaraLos Gatos31,000 General Law 5Elected by Council every November $ 570.00 $ 6,840.00 4 years $ 570.00 $ 6,840.00 4 years (not directly elected)Lump sumNO At Large Volunteer Santa ClaraMalibu13,000.00 General Law 5Appointed $ 565.68 $ 6,788.16 four years; two term limit $ 565.68 $ 6,788.16 Same StipendNo At Large Part time Los AngelesManteca77,000 General Law 5Elected $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 4 years $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 4 years Monthly Salary No At-LargeSan JoaquinMenifee88,531 General Law 5Elected $ 650.00 $ 7,800.00 4 years $ 650.00 $ 7,800.00 2 years MonthlyNo District/ At LargeRiversideMilpitas77,000 General Law 5Elected $ 904.37 $ 10,852.44 4 years $ 1,130.74 $ 13,568.88 2 years Lump sumNo At Large Part timeSanta ClaraMonrovia38,000 General Law 5Directly Elected $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 4 years $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 2 years Monthly (Stipend) No At-Large Part-timeLos AngelesMoorpark36,481 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years600.00$ 7,200.00$ 2 yearsAt LargeVenturaMorro Bay11,000 General Law5Elected500.00$ 6,000.00$ 4 years700.00$ 8,400.00$ 2 yearsSan Luis OOjai7,585 General Law5Elected475.00$ 5,700.00$ 4 years475.00$ 5,700.00$ 2 years MonthlyNoVenturaOxnard207,906 General Law5Elected1,701.01$ 20,412.08$ 4 years1,701.01$ 20,412.08$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeVenturaPaso Robles32,000 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 5 years800.00$ 9,600.00$ 5 years MonthlyAt LargeSan Luis OPatterson21,776 General Law 5Elected $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 2 yearsStipend, taxable, paid through payrollno Councilmembers District Elections, Mayor at LargePart-time Stanislaus Pismo Beach8,000 General Law 5Elected514.80$ 6,177.60$ 4 years814.80$ 9,777.60$ 2 years MonthlyNo At Large Part-timeSan Luis ORancho Cordova 72,326 General Law5Elected500.00$ 6,000.00$ 4 years600.00$ 7,200.00$ 1 year MonthlyNo At LargeSacramentoRancho Santa Margarita47,853 General Law5Appointed463.50$ 5,562.00$ 463.50$ 5,562.00$ 1 year MontlhyNo At LargeOrangeRedding90,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 4 years $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 1 year StipendNo At Large Part timeShastaRedlands70,398 General Law 5Appointed $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 4 years $ 500.00 $ 6,000.00 2 years Lump sumNoStarting At-Large this November Part-timeSan BernadinoSan Dimas33,119 General Law 5Elected $ 620.00 $ 7,440.00 4 years $ 820.00 $ 9,840.00 2 years Lump sumNo At Large Part-timeLos AngelesSanta Paula30,335 General Law300.00$ 3,600.00$ 300.00$ 3,600.00$ VenturaSausalito7,000 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year Lump sumNo At Large Part timeMarin15Packet Page 86 COUNCIL COMPENSATION‐GENERAL LAW CITIESATTACHMENT 2City PopulationCharter or General LawSize of Council Including MayorMayor Appointed by the Council or Elected Monthly Salary Council Annual Salary Council Term of Council member Monthly Salary Mayor Annual Salary Mayor Term of MayorState if Lump Sum, Stipend, or HourlyBuilt in salary adjustment (increaseDistrict Elections or At LargeFull Time or Part Time: Part time for CouncilCountySimi Valley126,327 General Law1,202.76$ 14,433.12$ 1,202.76$ 14,433.12$ VenturaThousand Oaks 129,339 General Law 5Appointed $ 1,750.00 $ 21,000.00 4 years1 year Lump sumYes At Large Part time VenturaWestlake Village 8370 General Law 5Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 1 year StipendNo At-Large Part-time Los AngelesWildomar32176 General Law 5Appointed $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 4 years $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 1 year MonthlyNo DistrictRiversideYountville2933 General Law 5Elected $ 648.00 $ 7,776.00 4 $ 638.00 $ 7,656.00 4 years StipendAt-Large Part TimeNapa16Packet Page 87 ATTACHMENT 3: Survey of Other Cities, Charter Cities 17Packet Page 88 COUNCIL COMPENSATION‐CHARTER CITIESATTACHMENT 3City PopulationCharter or General LawSize of Council Including MayorMayor Appointed by the Council or Elected Monthly Salary Council Annual Salary Council Term of Council member Monthly Salary Mayor Annual Salary Mayor Term of MayorState if Lump Sum, Stipend, or HourlyBuilt in salary adjustment (increaseDistrict Elections or At LargeFull Time or Part Time: Part time for CouncilCountyArroyo Grande 18,097 Charter5405.00$ 4,860.00$ 4 years405.00$ 4,860.00$ 2 years Monthly Salary At LargeSan Luis OBerkeley 112,000 Charter 9 Elected $ 2,919.88 $ 35,038.56 4 years $ 4,625.97 $ 55,511.64 4 yearsMonthly/number of meetings in a month NoDistricts; Mayor is at large Part-timeAlamedaChico 91,567 Charter 7 Appointed $ 663.00 $ 7,956.00 4 years $ 777.00 $ 9,324.00 2 years Lump sum No At Large Part-timeButteFresno520,000 Charter 8Elected $ 5,416.67 $ 65,000.00 4 years $ 10,833.33 $ 130,000.00 4 years Lump sumNo DistrictsFull timeFresnoKingsburg12,000 Charter 5Appointed $ 250.00 $ 3,000.00 4 years $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 2 years Lump sumNo Moving to districtPart timeFresnoLemoore 25,000 Charter 5 Appointed $ 300.00 $ 3,600.00 4 years $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 2 Stipend NoCurrently at large – will move to district in November 2018Part-time KingsLoma Linda 23000 Charter 5 Appointed $ 1,066.73 $ 12,800.76 4 years $ 1,066.73 $ 12,800.76 4 years Lump sum No At Large Full TimeSan BernadinoMonterey28,000 Charter 5Elected $ 430.00 $ 5,160.00 4 years $ 676.00 $ 8,112.00 2 years StipendNo At Large Part timeMontereyNapa80,416 Charter5Elected1,302.00$ 15,624.00$ 4 years2,604.00$ 31,248.00$ 4 yearsAt LargeNapaPacific Grove 15,045 Charter 7Elected $ 400.00 $ 4,800.00 4-8 years $ 700.00 $ 8,400.00 2-8 years Lump sumNo At Large Part timeMontereyPort Hueneme 22,277 Charter5Elected751.38$ 9,016.56$ 4 years751.38$ 9,016.56$ 1 year MonthlyAt LargeVenturaSan Luis Obispo 48,000 Charter5Elected1,200.33$ 14,404.00$ 4 years1,501.50$ 18,018.00$ 2 years MonthlySan Luis OSan Mateo104,000 Charter 5Appointed $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 4-yr terms, up to three terms $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 Mayor serves 1 yr. term; position rotates StipendNo At Large Part timeSan MateoSanta Barbara 91,930 Charter3,448.66$ 41,383.92$ 4,310.84$ 51,730.08$ Santa BarbaraSanta Maria106,280 Charter 5Elected $ 1,313.00 $ 15,756.00 4 years $ 1,563.00 $ 18,756.00 4 years StipendNo DistrictPart time Santa BarbaraSolvang5,802 CharterElected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 700.00$ 8,400.00$ Santa BarbaraStockton315,592 Charter 7Elected $ 1,377.42 $ 16,529.04 4 years $ 6,032.00 $ 72,384.00 4 years Bi WeeklyNoAt-Large for MayorFull time MayorSan JoaquinTorrance 147,000 Charter 7 Elected $ 100.00 $ 1,200.00 4 years $ 100.00 $ 1,200.00 4 years Biweekly No At Large Part timeLos AngelesTruckee 16,000 Charter 5 Appointed $ 645.00 $ 7,740.00 4 years $ 645.00 $ 7,740.00 1 year Stipend Biweekly No At Large Part timeNevadaTulare 62,779 Charter 5 Appointed$5 per regular meeting $ 135.00 4 years, no limit N/A $ 135.00 Typically, two years. See No. 6 No By District Part-timeTulareVentura109,592 Charter7Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4years700.00$ 8,400.00$ 2 years MonthlyNo At LargeVenturaVernon209 Charter 5Appointed $ 2,233.00 $ 26,796.00 Five year terms, Term Limit: two $ 2,233.00 $ 26,796.00 Appointed annually SalaryNo At Large Full timeLos AngelesWatsonville53,796 Charter 7Appointed $ 525.00 $ 6,300.00 4 years (2 terms) $ 625.00 $ 7,500.00 4 years NoneNo DistrictPart timeSanta Cruz18Packet Page 89 ATTACHMENT 4: Survey of Tri-County Cities 19Packet Page 90 COUNCIL COMPENSATION‐TRI COUNTY CITIESATTACHMENT 4City PopulationCharter or General LawSize of Council Including MayorMayor Appointed by the Council or Elected Monthly Salary Council Annual Salary Council Term of Council member Monthly Salary Mayor Annual Salary Mayor Term of MayorState if Lump Sum, Stipend, or HourlyBuilt in salary adjustment (increaseDistrict Elections or At LargeFull Time or Part Time: Part time for CouncilCountyArroyo Grande 18,097 Charter5405.00$ 4,860.00$ 4 years405.00$ 4,860.00$ 2 years Monthly Salary At LargeSan Luis OAtascadero30,000 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years750.00$ 9,000.00$ 2 years SalryAt LargeSan Luis OBuellton5,095 General Law5Elected440.00$ 5,280.00$ 4 years440.00$ 5,280.00$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeSanta BarbaraCamarillo67,363 General Law5Appointed1,425.00$ 17,100.00$ 4 years1,425.00$ 17,100.00$ MonthlyVenturaCarpinteria13,684 General Law5Appointed310.00$ 3,720.00$ 4 years310.00$ 3,720.00$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeSanta BarbaraFillmore15,610 General Law300.00$ 3,600.00$ 300.00$ 3,600.00$ VenturaGoleta30,850 General Law 5Elected $ 585.00 $ 7,020.00 4 years $ 585.00 $ 7,020.00 2 years MonthlyDistrictsSanta BarbaraGrover Beach 13,641 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years750.00$ 9,000.00$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeSan Luis OGuadalupe7,321 General Law6Elected150.00$ 1,800.00$ 150.00$ 1,800.00$ MonthlyAt LargeSanta BarbaraLompoc43,712 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years800.00$ 9,600.00$ Santa BarbaraMoorpark36,481 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4 years600.00$ 7,200.00$ 2 yearsAt LargeVenturaMorro Bay11,000 General Law5Elected500.00$ 6,000.00$ 4 years700.00$ 8,400.00$ 2 yearsSan Luis OOjai7,585 General Law5Elected475.00$ 5,700.00$ 4 years475.00$ 5,700.00$ 2 years MonthlyNoVenturaOxnard207,906 General Law5Elected1,701.01$ 20,412.08$ 4 years1,701.01$ 20,412.08$ 2 years MonthlyAt LargeVenturaPaso Robles32,000 General Law5Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 5 years800.00$ 9,600.00$ 5 years MonthlyAt LargeSan Luis OPismo Beach8,000 General Law 5Elected514.80$ 6,177.60$ 4 years814.80$ 9,777.60$ 2 years MonthlyNo At Large Part-timeSan Luis OPort Hueneme 22,277 Charter5Elected751.38$ 9,016.56$ 4 years751.38$ 9,016.56$ 1 year MonthlyAt LargeVenturaSan Luis Obispo 48,000 Charter5Elected1,200.33$ 14,404.00$ 4 years1,501.50$ 18,018.00$ 2 years MonthlySan Luis OSanta Barbara 91,930 Charter3,448.66$ 41,383.92$ 4,310.84$ 51,730.08$ Santa BarbaraSanta Maria106,280Charter5Elected $ 1,313.00 $ 15,756.00 4 years $ 1,563.00 $ 18,756.00 4 years StipendNo DistrictPart time Santa BarbaraSanta Paula30,335 General Law300.00$ 3,600.00$ 300.00$ 3,600.00$ VenturaSimi Valley126,327 General Law1,202.76$ 14,433.12$ 1,202.76$ 14,433.12$ VenturaSolvang5,802 CharterElected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 700.00$ 8,400.00$ Santa BarbaraThousand Oaks 129,339 General Law 5Appointed $ 1,750.00 $ 21,000.00 4 years1 year Lump sumYes At Large Part time VenturaVentura109,592 Charter7Elected600.00$ 7,200.00$ 4years700.00$ 8,400.00$ 2 years MonthlyNo At LargeVentura20Packet Page 91 ATTACHMENT 5: Power Point Presentation of April 17, 2018 21Packet Page 92 City Council CompensationCITY COUNCIL MEETINGAPRIL 17, 201722Packet Page 93 RecommendationReceive a report on City Council Compensation under Government Code §36516, as it applies to the City of Goleta, a General Law city.CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION223Packet Page 94 General Law City1.California Government Code § 36516 (Goleta Municipal Code Section 2.01.080) regulatesCity Council salary.2.Ceiling initially set by population “In cities up to and including 35,000 in population, up toand including three hundred dollars ($300) per month.”3.Salary increases limited to 5% for each calendar year, from the date of the last adjustment,must be by an ordinance or by amendment to an ordinance.a.Automatic future increases cannot be made in the ordinance.4.Any salary change adopted by ordinance, does not take effect until the start of a new term ofany one councilmembers, including re‐elected.5.An electedMayor may receive additional compensation to councilmember pay, provided by aCouncil adopted ordinance, or by a majority of voters.CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION324Packet Page 95 Goleta City Council Compensation*The Mayor is appointed by the Council, and receives the same salary as Councilmembers. Mayor will be an elected position effective the 2018 General Election. CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION4Goleta City Council Salary HistoryOrdinance DateEffective Date Monthly Salary Annual Salary2/1/20022/1/2002 $300 $3,6006/7/20041/1/2005$330$3,9609/18/20061/1/2007$363$4,3569/16/20081/1/2009$400$4,8009/21/20101/1/2011$440$5,28010/16/20121/1/2013$484$5,8089/2/20141/1/2015$532$6,3849/20/161/1/2017$585$7,020Projection (2018), if byOrdinance1/1/2019$644$7,72825Packet Page 96 5All General Law Cities, up to 35,000 in population26Packet Page 97 General Law City‐Salary Increase by Election1.Salaries may be different from state guidelines and set only by a majority of voters in an election (California Government Code § 36516 (b)). 2.Once established through a ballot measure, future increases and decreases must be approved by the majority of the voters in an election. 3.Index increases can be incorporated in the ballot. 4.A survey was conducted to receive information about other California cities – General Law and Charter. a.71 overall cities –48 General Law; 23 Charter CitiesCITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION627Packet Page 98 General Law City‐Survey1.The sample of respondents of the 48 general law cities –reported that councilmember salaries are set by City Council ordinance, in accordance with California Government Code. 2.In 12¹ cities, the Mayor’s salary was more than that of Councilmembers. a.Mayor must be elected. b.Must be set by adopted ordinance or by majority of voters in an election. 3.Study shows that the placement of salaries and increases is consistent with the initial application of California Government Code and the ceiling set by population. 4.Study does not indicate that the population is a factor in determining higher salaries.5.Whether or not salary increases were implemented by City Ordinance or by Ballot Measure varied, and in some cases where ballot measures were implemented, it was still within the government code’s guidelines of 5% per year –e.g. Paso Robles¹ Updated from 10 to include Atascadero and Grover Beach, each pays Councilmembers $600, Mayor $750CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION728Packet Page 99 General Law‐City Council Compensation CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION8General Law Cities with Monthly Salaries > $1,000 per monthCityPopulation Salary Councilmember Salary MayorCamarillo67,363 $1,425 $1,425Davis68,111$1,050$1,170La Mesa60,000$1,000$2,000Oxnard207,906$1,701$1,701Simi Valley126,327$1,202$1,202Thousand Oaks129,339$1,750$1,75029Packet Page 100 Charter City1.Has supreme authority over “municipal affairs.” Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5(b).2.A Charter City may establish its own City Council compensation schedule. 3.Increases in pay are established by ordinance, or amendment by an ordinance. It can be clearly defined in the Ordinance, or the ordinance may refer to another council adopted document such as a resolution or salary schedule. 4.Charter cities have used ballot measure as an option to present the question to the voters.5.The study shows that larger population charter cities tend to provide higher salaries to their elected officials; and in some cases, like Fresno, Los Angeles, San Jose, City Councilmembers work full time, and have a full time staff. CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION930Packet Page 101 Charter‐City Council Compensation CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION10Table 2. Charter Cities with Monthly Salaries > $1,000 per monthCityPopulation Salary Councilmember Salary MayorBerkeley112,000$2,919$4,625Fresno520,000$5,417$10,833Loma Linda23,000$1,066$1,066Napa80,416$1,302$1,302San Luis Obispo48,000$1,200$1501Santa Barbara91,390$3,448$4,310Santa Maria106,280$1,313$1,563Stockton315,592$1,377$6,032Vernon209$2,233$2,23331Packet Page 102 City of Santa Barbara –Charter City1.Prior salary to passage of ballot measure: $1,400 Mayor; $800 Councilmember.2.These salary amounts were established in 1986 when the most recent amendment to city charter was approved by the voters. 3.Passed at 53.66% Yes 46.34% NoCITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION11Shall the annual salary of members of the City Council be set at eighty percent (80%) of the annual Area Median Income (based on a one-person household) for Santa Barbara County (currently $36,240) and the annual salary of the Mayor be set at one hundred percent (100%) of the annual Area Median Income (based on a one-person household) for Santa Barbara County (currently $45,300) – Nov. 200432Packet Page 103 Median Income Model1.Median Income‐Department of Housing and Urban Development 2017‐SB County$53,950 –Single Household Income2.Median Income –US Census Bureau Income in the Last Twelve Months – 2016$56,179 –Non Family HouseholdsCITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION12Median Household Monthly AnnualMayor at 100% $4,496 $53,950Councilmember at 80% $3,597$43,16033Packet Page 104 Additional Ballot Measure Findings1.City of Pismo Beach –has not received an increase in over 12 years, proposing an increase of 60% on November 2018 ballot (in accordance with Cal. Govt. Code). (General Law)2.City of Fillmore, 2014 – rescinded a 1996 ordinance approved by the voters setting pay at $75, and set as authorized by Cal Govt. Code, $300 per month. (General Law)3.Livermore, 2014 – limited future increases to lesser of CPI or 5%. (General Law)4.City of Menifee (2014) –increase of Mayor’s salary by $100 more of councilmember pay. (General Law)5.City of Mountain View – Salary increase from $600/$750 set in accordance with Cal. Govt. Code, to $1,000/+25% for Mayor, adjusted annually based on the lesser of SF CPI, or urban wage earners of the average cost‐of‐living adjustment granted to the miscellaneous employee, not to exceed 5%. (Charter City)6.Murrieta‐Limits Council compensation to 15% of the City’s annual median family/household income (exclusive of any amounts payable as reimbursement) and prohibits members from receiving any other benefits including memberships, medical and life insurance and pensions. (General Law).CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION1334Packet Page 105 Relationship Between Salary and Interest in Elected Office1.League of CA Cities, ICMA and other local government resources did not reveal a study addressing this specific issue. 2.Some comments indicate that salary may have an impact on residents running for elected office (e.g. Paso Robles, October 17, 2017 Staff Report, City Manager; City of Pismo Beach, www.newtimeslo.com, March 8, 2018).3.District Elections 2022.4.Unopposed elections to current date = 2012 two vacant positions, 2 nominations, 1 write in; 2014 three vacant positions ran unopposed. CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION1435Packet Page 106 Next Steps1.City Council may receive the report; or receive the report and provide further direction.2.Should Council direct staff to proceed with further analysis for a ballot measure:•Council should provide input and/or direction on a model.•Refer item for input from the Public Engagement Commission.•Fiscal Impact Analysis based on model.3.Timeline:•May 15 –Return to City Council with additional information including input from PEC, fiscalimpact, draft ballot measure language, and required Ordinance for County filing.•June 5 –If not approved on May 15, present final draft documents for City Counciladoption.•June 19 –Back up and final date for City Council action under a regular meeting.•July 5 – Filing County deadline for ballot measures (Approx. $10,200 General Fundexpense).CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION1536Packet Page 107 Agenda Item C.4 DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM Meeting Date: September 6, 2016 TO:Mayor and Councilmembers FROM:Michelle Greene, City Manager SUBJECT:Compensation for Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION: Introduce and conduct the first reading (by title only and waive further reading) of Ordinance No. 16-__ entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California Establishing Compensation of City Councilmembers.” BACKGROUND: On the effective date of the City’s incorporation, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 02-07, which set the salary for members of the City Council at $300 per month. This is the statutory (Government Code § 36516) level permitted for cities under 35,000 in population. State law allows the City to increase this salary by a maximum of five percent per year but any such increase does not take effect until a new council is seated after the next election. Based on prior Council actions, the current salary is set at $532 per month. DISCUSSION: In accordance with California Government Code Sections 36516 et seq., the proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) provides Council the opportunity to adjust Council salaries from $532 per month up to a maximum of $585 per month, based upon a 5 percent per year increase for the last two years. Any such change would take effect in January 2017, after the November 2016 election. If the Council chooses not to adjust salaries prior to the November 2016 election, the next opportunity to adjust salaries would be following the November 2018 election. The City Council will again have the opportunity to address Council compensation prior to the November 2018 election. If the voters create the office of elected mayor at the November 2016 election, the City Council will be able to consider establishing additional compensation for the mayor, without the limits that apply to councilmembers. 1Packet Page 108 Meeting Date: September 6, 2016 Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACTS: Adoption of the proposed ordinance would increase the cost of Council compensation by about $1,600 for the portion of the current fiscal year after the ordinance becomes effective and by $3,200 for the 2017-18 fiscal year (GL Account 5-1100-001). The proposed salary increase can be accommodated in the amended FY 2016-2017 budget, so no additional appropriation would be needed if Council chooses to implement the adjustment. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Modify the draft Ordinance to implement an increase of less than the proposed additional 10 percent ($53/month) and introduce the Ordinance as modified; 2. Take no action. The Council is under no obligation to initiate this increase at this time and could choose to take no action on the matter. Foregoing the opportunity to increase compensation prior to the 2016 election would mean that no compensation increase could be implemented before the 2018 election. Submitted By:Approved By: ___________________________________ Tim W. Giles Michelle Greene City Attorney City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 16-__ entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California Establishing Compensation of City Councilmembers 2Packet Page 109 ATTACHMENT 1: Ordinance No. 16-__ entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California Establishing Compensation of City Councilmembers 3Packet Page 110 @BCL@C405F029 ORDINANCE NO. 16-__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, California Government Code section 36515 limits the compensation and increases to compensation payable to City Council Members based on population of the City; and WHEREAS, the current compensation of members of the City Council took effect f ollowing the 2014 City Council election; and WHEREAS, the current compensation of members of the City Council is $532 per month and was set by municipal ordinance in accordance with Government Code section 36515 as codified at Goleta Municipal Code section 2.01.080; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 36515 and 36516.5, the compensation of members of the City Council may be increased by ten percent (10%) reflecting a maximum of five percent (5%) per year since compensation was last adjusted as statutorily permitted. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Compensation for Councilmembers. The total compensation for members of the City Council shall be $585 per month commencing January, 2017. SECTION 2 Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or portion of this ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 4Packet Page 111 @BCL@C405F029 SECTION 3: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2017. SECTION 4: Certification and Publication. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of the adoption and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk in accordance with Government Code 36933. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ________ 2016. __________________________ JIM FARR, MAYOR ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ __________________________ DEBORAH S. LOPEZ TIM W. GILES CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 5Packet Page 112 @BCL@C405F029 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss. CITY OF GOLETA ) I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 16-__ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of ______, 2016 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: (SEAL) _________________________ DEBORAH S. LOPEZ CITY CLERK 6Packet Page 113 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 E-Mail: manager@CityofBerkeley.info To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Christine Daniel, City Manager Submitted by: William Rogers, Subject: Survey of Salaries for Mayor a INTRODUCTION This report responds to a November 19, 2013, Council referral Manager to conduct a study regarding other jurisdictions (including Charter and time council members in those jurisdictions dedicate their elected positions; and how CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS Staff surveyed 60 jurisdictions and received 43 responses. (Attachment 1) provides general information on salaries paid to Mayors and Council members of Charter Cities, Bay Area cities and cities around the state. In also reviewed prior Council salary surveys in Berkeley and collected some additional data including population size, whether the city had district or general elections for Council, and whether voters in those jurisdictions directly elected In addition to monthly salaries, many cities with other benefits, including health insurance, or reimbursements for expenses. Other than for the largest cities, not specify whether the work of elected officials is considered part General Law Cities In Charter Cities, voters set salary terms for elected officials. Within General Law Cities, Government Code 36516 governs example, in General Law cities adopt an ordinance establishing the salary of the council at $600 per month. Salaries can be increased by up to five percen ordinance can be enacted to authorize automatic salary increases in the future. Government Code 36516 also allows voters in a general law city to establish a different rate of compensation, which may only electorate. 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981 manager@CityofBerkeley.info Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager INFORMATION CALENDAR March 11, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Christine Daniel, City Manager , Deputy City Manager Survey of Salaries for Mayor and Members of the Council This report responds to a November 19, 2013, Council referral directing the City a study regarding the following: salaries of local elected officials in ions (including Charter and other Bay Area Cities); the average amount of time council members in those jurisdictions dedicate, or are obligated to dedicate how council members in other cities are paid. AND ITS EFFECTS Staff surveyed 60 jurisdictions and received 43 responses. The attached ) provides general information on salaries paid to Mayors and Council members of Charter Cities, Bay Area cities and cities around the state. In also reviewed prior Council salary surveys in Berkeley and collected some additional data including population size, whether the city had district or general elections for Council, and whether voters in those jurisdictions directly elected a mayor. In addition to monthly salaries, many cities, including Berkeley, provide elected officials with other benefits, including health insurance, retirement, car allowances and budgets or reimbursements for expenses. Other than for the largest cities, most jurisdictions do not specify whether the work of elected officials is considered part-time or full In Charter Cities, voters set salary terms for elected officials. Within General Law Government Code 36516 governs the salary amounts for Mayor and Council example, in General Law cities with a population of 75,000 to 150,000, the council may adopt an ordinance establishing the salary of the council at $600 per month. Salaries can be increased by up to five percent each calendar year since the last adjustment. No ordinance can be enacted to authorize automatic salary increases in the future. Government Code 36516 also allows voters in a general law city to establish a different rate of compensation, which may only be increased or decreased by a vote of the Fax: (510) 981-7099 http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager INFORMATION CALENDAR the City salaries of local elected officials in the average amount of or are obligated to dedicate, to council members in other cities are paid. attached chart ) provides general information on salaries paid to Mayors and Council members of Charter Cities, Bay Area cities and cities around the state. In addition, staff also reviewed prior Council salary surveys in Berkeley and collected some additional data including population size, whether the city had district or general elections for a mayor. provide elected officials car allowances and budgets most jurisdictions do time or full-time. In Charter Cities, voters set salary terms for elected officials. Within General Law the salary amounts for Mayor and Council. For with a population of 75,000 to 150,000, the council may adopt an ordinance establishing the salary of the council at $600 per month. Salaries t each calendar year since the last adjustment. No ordinance can be enacted to authorize automatic salary increases in the future. Government Code 36516 also allows voters in a general law city to establish a different be increased or decreased by a vote of the Packet Page 114 Survey of Salaries for Mayor and Members of the Council INFORMATION CALENDAR March 11, 2014 Page 2 BACKGROUND Base salaries for the Mayor and members of the Berkeley City Council are established by Article V, Section 19 of the Berkeley Charter. They were last adjusted in 1998. The charter provides for annual adjustments by the increase in the cost of living for the San Francisco Bay Area. The salaries are currently set at $2,662 per month for members of the council and $4,217 per month for the office of the Mayor. The last time the City conducted a survey of Mayor and Council salaries was in 2004. The current Mayor has opted to not receive a salary, but to appropriate his remuneration for authorized office expenditures as allowed by the Charter. Two council members also opted not to receive their cost of living increase for last year. The Berkeley City Charter does not specify whether the Council or the Mayor are obligated to work full-time or part-time. Increasing the salary of the mayor or members of the City Council beyond the annual adjustment would require an amendment to the charter and approval by a majority of the electorate. Any such amendment could state a specific salary or could give the Council the authority to set salaries by ordinance adopted by the Council. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report. POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION Future action is subject to the discretion of the Council. FISCAL IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION The cost of placing a measure on the ballot varies depending on the total number of measures and whether it is placed on the June or November ballot. The following graphic shows the costs associated with past elections. Election Nov. 2006 Nov. 2008 June 2010 Nov. 2010 Nov. 2012** Total Cost* $272,581 $224,576 $191,732 $164,816 $367,884 No. of Measures 6 7 1 3 10 No. of Candidates 23 25 0 31 26 * Excludes Ranked-Choice Voting specific costs (RCV costs are candidate specific only) **The high number of measures on the 2012 election required an additional ballot card. CONTACT PERSON Matthai Chakko, Assistant to the City Manager, 981-7008 Attachments: 1: Council Salary Survey Chart 2: City of Berkeley Charter, Article V, Section 19, Salaries Packet Page 115 City Population Charter Or General Law Size Of Council (Including Mayor) Alameda 73,812 charter 5 Antioch 103,833 general law 5 Bakersfield 333,719 charter 8 Belmont 26,491 general law 5 Berkeley 112,583 charter 9 Burbank 103,340 charter 5 Campbell 40,272 general law 5 Concord 122,110 general law 5 Cupertino 58,032 general law 5 Daly City 106,000 general law 5 Davis 65,622 general law 5 Dublin 49,890 general law 5 El Cerrito 24,048 general law 5 Fairfield 106,502 general law 5 Fremont 214,089 general law 5 Foster City 33,749 general law 5 Gilroy 49,391 charter 7 Hayward 144,186 charter 7 Livermore 80,698 general law 5 Modesto 201,188 charter 7 Napa 78,430 charter 5 Oakland 390,719 charter 9 Palm Desert 48,455 charter 5 Palo Alto 61,200 charter 9 Pasadena 137,122 charter 8 Pomona 148,058 charter 7 Council Salary Survey Chart Council (Including Monthly Salary: Council Monthly Salary: Mayor Lump Sum Stipend Or Hourly District Elections Or At Large Direct Election Of Mayor Full$100 $300 lump sum at large yes not specified$941 $941 hourly at large yes $100 $2,000 lump sum district yes not specified$390 $390 lump sum at large no not specified$2,622 $4,217 hourly district yes not specified$1,075 $1,075 lump sum at large no not specified$619 $619 lump sum at large no not $1,300 $1,300 lump sum at large no not specified$730 $730 lump sum at large no not specified$1,532 $1,532 salary at large no not specified$669 $669 lump sum at large no $904 $1,004 lump sum at large yes not specified$440 $440 lump sum at large no not specified$500 $500 lump sum at large yes not specified$1,407 $2,211 lump sum at large yes not specified$496 $496 lump sum at large no not specified$746 $1,120 lump sum at large yes not specified$2,081 $3,330 hourly at large yes not specified$980 $1,400 lump sum at large yes not specified$2,000 $3,600 (no response) district yes not specified$1,240 $2,480 salary at large yes not specified$6,637 $15,283 salary district yes not specified$1,913 $1,913 lump sum at large no not specified$600 $750 hourly at large no not specified$1,409 $2,113 lump sum district yes not specified$800 $1,600 lump sum district yes not specified Attachment 1 Full-Time Or Part-Time not specified part-time not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified part-time not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified not specified Packet Page 116 Survey of Salaries for Mayor and Members of the Council INFORMATION CALENDAR March 11, 2014 Page 4 City Population Charter OR General Law Size of Council (including Mayor) Monthly salary: Council Monthly salary: Mayor Lump Sum Stipend or Hourly District Elections OR at Large Direct Election Of Mayor Full-Time Or Part-Time Riverside 303,864 charter 8 $3,284 $6,569 lump sum district yes not specified Roseville 123,514 charter 5 $600 $650 lump sum at large yes* not specified Sacramento 466,488 charter 9 $5,068 $9,629 hourly district yes full-time mayor; part-time council Salinas 150,441 charter 7 $600 $800 lump sum district yes not specified San Diego 2,259,481 charter 10 $3,365 $4,519 lump sum district yes full-time San Francisco 805,235 charter 12 $9,004 $23,174 flat rate district yes full-time San Jose 952,562 charter 11 $6,750 $9,500 salary district yes full-time San Leandro 84,950 charter 7 $1,260 $2,520 lump sum at large yes not specified San Mateo 97,207 charter 5 $600 $600 hourly at large no not specified San Rafael 58,047 charter 5 $468 $702 lump sum at large yes not specified Santa Clara 118,830 charter 7 $812 $1,353 lump sum at large yes not specified Santa Cruz 59,948 charter 7 $1,551 $3,103 lump sum at large no not specified Santa Monica 89,736 charter 7 $1,121 $1,345 hourly at large no not specified Santa Rosa 167,815 charter 7 $800 $1,200 lump sum at large no not specified Sunnyvale 140,081 charter 7 $2,147 $2,863 hourly at large no not specified Vallejo 115,940 charter 7 $1,225 $1,225 lump sum at large yes not specified Whittier 86,093 charter 5 0** 0** n/a at large no not specified Packet Page 117 City of Berkeley Charter, Article V, Section 19, Salaries The Councilmembers shall receive remuneration for the performance of their the rate of up to $1,800 per month, and the Mayor effective the Council term beginning in December 1998. Such amount upward by the increase in the cost of living for the San Francisco Bay official United States economic reports. E her sole discretion, reduce the remuneration paid himself or difference between the reduced amount actually paid to the amount of remuneration authorized by this Article budget of the Mayor or Councilmember taking the such differential may be expended for any purpose sums so budgeted. If the Mayor or any member regular meetings of the Council during any order to attend to official business of the illness from attending no more than be paid for each regular meeting monthly remuneration divided by Article V, Section 19, Salaries The Councilmembers shall receive remuneration for the performance of their the rate of up to $1,800 per month, and the Mayor shall receive up to $2,850 per month, effective the Council term beginning in December 1998. Such amount shall be adjusted upward by the increase in the cost of living for the San Francisco Bay Area as verified by official United States economic reports. Either the Mayor or any Councilmember may, at his or her sole discretion, reduce the remuneration paid himself or herself. In any such case, the difference between the reduced amount actually paid to such Mayor or Councilmember and n authorized by this Article shall be appropriated as part of the budget of the Mayor or Councilmember taking the voluntary reduction in remuneration and such differential may be expended for any purpose otherwise authorized for the expenditure of budgeted. If the Mayor or any member of the Council is absent from one or more regular meetings of the Council during any calendar month, unless excused by the Council in order to attend to official business of the City, or unless excused by the Council as illness from attending no more than two regular meetings in any calendar year, he or she shall attended during such months in an amount equal to the the number of regular meetings held during such month. Attachment 2 The Councilmembers shall receive remuneration for the performance of their official duties at $2,850 per month, shall be adjusted Area as verified by Councilmember may, at his or herself. In any such case, the such Mayor or Councilmember and shall be appropriated as part of the voluntary reduction in remuneration and otherwise authorized for the expenditure of of the Council is absent from one or more calendar month, unless excused by the Council in City, or unless excused by the Council as a result of two regular meetings in any calendar year, he or she shall attended during such months in an amount equal to the s held during such month. Packet Page 118 ATTACHMENT A Packet Page 119 ATTACHMENT A Packet Page 120 ATTACHMENT A Packet Page 121 ATTACHMENT A Packet Page 122 ATTACHMENT A Packet Page 123 ATTACHMENT A Packet Page 124 City of Stockton Legislation Text File #:15-1655,Version:1 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SALARY SETTING COMMISSION TO ADOPT ORDINANCES AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.08 OF THE STOCKTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO SET THE SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING JULY 1, 2015, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE IV, SECTION 410 OF THE CITY CHARTER RECOMENDATION In accordance with City Charter Article IV, section 410, the City Council shall approve the recommendations of the City Council Salary Setting Commission and adopt two ordinances (1) setting the salary and benefits for the Mayor of the City of Stockton for the period beginning July 1, 2015; and (2) setting the benefits for members of the City Council for the period beginning July 1, 2015. Summary Between the months of January and April of each odd-numbered year, the Salary Setting Commission meets in open session to consider the appropriate salary and benefits for the Mayor and Council. This task is governed by the City Charter section 410. Section 410 requires the Commission to adopt a biennial recommendation for the salary and benefits after having held at least one Public Hearing, and to submit the recommendation to the City Council for final action. Finally, section 410 states that the City Council shall approve this recommendation and adopt, by ordinance, the recommended salary, or some lesser amount, and benefits for the Mayor and Councilmembers. On January 29, 2015, the Salary Setting Commission convened for its first meeting of 2015. Following that meeting, the Commission met on February 10, 2015, and then held two subsequent Public Hearings on February 18th and March 5th. The Commission made their final recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council with respect to the salary and benefits to be provided to the Mayor and Councilmembers at the Public Hearing held March 5, 2015. This item first came before the City Council on April 7, 2015. At that time, rather than adopt the recommendation, the Council voted to send this item back to the Salary Setting Commission for further review of any possible errors or inconsistencies. The Council was aware the Salary Setting Commission was not obligated to meet again. Following the Council’s direction legal counsel for the Salary Setting Commission provided the Commission with direction on how to call a meeting. The Commissioners were given over a week to consider whether to call a meeting. None of the Commissioners requested to call a meeting to further review their recommendation (see Attachment D - Counsel’s Confirmation of Non-Meeting). Therefore, the Salary Setting Commission’s recommendation is hereby attached unchanged from its original recommendation submitted to the Council originally on April 7, 2015. City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2017Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Attachment A Packet Page 125 File #:15-1655,Version:1 DISCUSSION Background City Charter Article IV, section 410 authorizes the City Council Salary Setting Commission to recommend to the City Council the amount of monthly salary and benefits which it deems appropriate for the members of the City Council and the Mayor, commencing July 1st of that odd-numbered year in which it meets. The section provides that each Councilmember’s salary and benefits shall be the same; however the amount recommended for the Mayor can exceed that of the councilmembers. Further, each biennial recommendation, together with the reasons therefore shall be in writing (Attachment A); and the Council shall, by ordinance, adopt the salaries and benefits as recommended by the Commission, or in some lesser amount, but in no event may it increase the amount. The Charter also requires the Salary Setting Commission to take into account the time devoted to the office of Councilmembers, the full-time nature of the Mayor’s position, and the level of salaries and benefits being paid for other public or private positions with similar part-time or full-time duties, responsibilities, and obligations. Previously section 410 of the Charter provided that the Mayor’s salary could not be less than the amount paid to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for San Joaquin County. However, at the Salary Setting Commission’s last regularly scheduled bi-annual meeting the Commission made an advisory recommendation to the City Council on April 16, 2013, that the Council seek an amendment to the City Charter deleting the language that tied the Mayor’s salary to the Chairman of the Board. That advisory recommendation was submitted to the City’s Charter Review Committee, and Council subsequently put that Charter amendment before a vote of the people in November 2014 as “Measure C.” Measure C included additional amendments recommended by the Charter Review Committee to section 410 to read that “[s]alaries of the Councilmembers and Mayor may be reduced at any time by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Council.” These amendments to Measure C passed the required vote of the people in the November 2014 election and became effective January 2015. Present Situation On January 29, 2015, the Salary Setting Commission convened for its first meeting of 2015. Following that meeting, the Commission met on February 10, 2015, and then held two subsequent Public Hearings on February 18th and March 5th. During those meetings the Commission requested multiple items of information from Human Resources Staff and reviewed that information during and in subsequent meetings - including salary and survey data, CPI historical data, performance and duty descriptions relevant to the Mayor and Council, and performance duty descriptions from other agencies included in their survey. Commissioners individually prepared and provided their own information, the Commission heard comments from members of the community who came and spoke during the meetings, and the Mayor provided survey and compensation data relevant to the Mayor’s salary at the February 10th and 18th meetings. On March 5, 2015, the Commission felt it had adequately evaluated multiple variations of compensation and benefits data and had enough information to make a recommendation to the City Council with respect to the Mayor’s salary. The Commission took into account, the full-time nature of the Mayor’s position, and the level of salaries and benefits being paid for other public or private City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2017Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Attachment A Packet Page 126 File #:15-1655,Version:1 positions with similar full-time duties, responsibilities, and obligations. The Commissioners finalized and voted on its recommendations at this Public Hearing. Specifically, the Commission voted 3-2 in favor of setting the Mayor’s monthly salary to be $6,032 (annual $72,384). Next, it voted unanimously to add life insurance to the Mayor’s compensation under Municipal Code section 2.08.020. It also voted unanimously to strike the language from Municipal Code section 2.08.020 that allows the Mayor to take a cash equivalent of the cost of such benefits should the Mayor elect to “opt out” of the City’s medical benefits. In addition, on March 5, 2015, the Commission felt it had adequately evaluated multiple variations of compensation and benefits data and had enough information to make a recommendation to the City Council with respect to the Councilmembers’ salary. The Commission took into account: the time devoted to the office of Councilmembers; the level of salaries and benefits being paid for other public or private positions with similar part-time or full-time responsibilities and obligations; and comparable wages paid to City employees. The Commissioners finalized and voted on their recommendations at this Public Hearing. Specifically, the Commission voted unanimously to keep the Councilmembers annual compensation as unchanged from its current amount of $23,927.40 annually. In addition, the Commission voted unanimously to amend section 2.08.050 to provide health, dental, life and vision care insurance to Councilmembers under the same terms and conditions as the Mayor receives them. The Commission did note that section 2.08.050 previously prohibited Councilmembers from receiving medical benefits, but that City Charter section 410 expressly authorizes it to consider and provide for benefits if it felt appropriate. Thus, it proposed amending this municipal code section to provide for appropriate benefits to Councilmembers starting July 1, 2015. It should be noted that City Charter Article XXVI, section 2602, prohibits providing any retirement and death benefit plans to elected officials. While no retirement benefits were considered, the recommendation to provide “life insurance” to the Mayor and Councilmembers was reviewed in more detail as a possible “death benefit” and thereby prohibited under section 2602. The City Attorney’s Office has advised that a Life Insurance Policy, as was recommended by the Commission to be the same as what the City currently maintains for all full-time city employees, is not the same as a death benefit plan as contemplated under Charter section 2602. The distinguishing difference is that retirement and death benefit plans referenced are those plans offered by, for example, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), as a combined defined benefit “plan.” These plans provide for a retirement benefit, and in the event of death before retirement eligibility, there is a death benefit provided. This type of defined benefit plan is provided for all eligible full-time employees through CalPERS, in addition to a Life Insurance Policy for all full-time employees. The Commission, in their deliberations and discussions, specifically asked about the $50,000 Life Insurance Policy maintained on all full time employees, and recommended this same benefit be provided to the Mayor and Council. The City Attorney’s Office opined that this insurance policy is not the same as the CalPERS death benefit plan afforded to other eligible full-time employees, and thereby distinguishable and not prohibited by Charter section 2602. Now therefore, in accordance with Charter section 410 the Council shall, by ordinance, adopt the salaries and benefits recommended by the Commission, or in some lesser amount, as presented herein but in no event may it increase the amount. FINANCIAL SUMMARY After adoption of the ordinance changes to the relevant Municipal Code sections of 2.08, the Mayor’s City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2017Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Attachment A Packet Page 127 File #:15-1655,Version:1 annual compensation will decrease from $8,733 monthly ($104,790 annually), to $6,032 monthly ($72,384 annually) with a corresponding reduction of $4,615 in payroll based benefit costs for a total of $37,021 in cost reduction. The Mayor and Council will receive life insurance at an annual cost of $99 each or $693. The Councilmembers will receive medical benefits consistent with the terms provided to the Mayor, at a cost of $12,456 each or $74,737. All changes will be effective July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017. In total, these recommended changes will result in a net budget increase to the City’s General Fund of $38,409. The additional cost associated with adopted changes to salary and benefits will be incorporated into the Proposed FY 2015-16 Annual Budget. Attachment A - Salary Setting Commission Recommendation Memo Attachment B - Redline Stockton Municipal Code Changes, Salary and Benefits Changes for the Mayor Attachment C - Redline Stockton Municipal Code Changes, Benefit Changes for the Council Attachment D - Counsel’s Confirmation of Non-Meeting City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2017Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Attachment A Packet Page 128 Packet Page 129 Packet Page 130 Packet Page 131 AGENDA:June 13,2006 4.5 CATEGORY: Consent DEPT.: City Clerk/City Attorney CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW TITLE: General Municipal Election-November 7, 2006 RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt resolutions pertaining to the 2006 General Municipal Election as follows: a. A RESOLUTION AND ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006, AND RELATED ACTIONS, for the purpose of electing three (3) members of the City Council and submitting a proposed Charter Amendment Measure to the voters relating to Council compensation, to be read in title only, further reading waived. b. A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AUTHORIZE THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONTRACT FOR ELECTION SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PERTAINING TO SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006, to be read in title only, further reading waived. c. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A 200-WORD MAXIMUM FOR A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATE AND CHARGING EACH CANDIDATE FOR A FIXED SHARE OF COSTS OF THE PRINTING AND HANDLING FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006, to be read in title only, further reading waived. 2. Direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the Charter Amendment Measure. 3. Direct the City Attorney and the City Clerk to take all necessary actions to do the following: a. Call a General Municipal Election; Packet Page 132 AGENDA: June 13,2006 PAGE: 2 b. Request the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara to consolidate a General Municipal Election with the State-wide election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006; c. Submit a proposed Charter Amendment Measure; and d. Take related actions. FISCAL IMPACT The cost to conduct the election of Councilmembers and the Charter amendment ballot measure relating to a Council compensation increase, according to the County Registrar of Voters, is in the range of approximately $151,380 to $158,721. An additional amount is also required to be budgeted to cover a portion of the cost of the candidate statement fee for each candidate who accepts the Voluntary Expenditure Limit (VEL) pursuant to Campaign Finance and Voluntary Expenditure Limit Program Ordinance No. 4-06. While it is difficult to predict how many candidates will run for election, we are budgeting $15,000 to cover the projected cost of approximately $1,500 of the $2,000 for each candidate statement, assuming 10 candidates participated in the election and all candidates elected the VEL and accepted the subsidy. Therefore, a total of $170,000 is included in the 2006-07 budget to cover all related costs for the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The attached resolutions relate to the forthcoming consolidated election and are in confor- mance with our City Charter which incorporates the provisions set forth in the California Elections Code. The first resolution (Attachment 1) calls a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing three members of the City Council and submitting a proposed Charter Amendment Measure to the voters relating to an increase in Council compensation; requests the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters to consolidate the General Municipal Election with the State- wide election on November 7, 2006; and implements all of the recommended actions to be taken by Council on this agenda item. The second resolution (Attachment 2) requests the County Registrar of Voters to perform election services in accordance with Section 10002 of the California Elections Code. The third resolution (Attachment 3) pertains to the candidates' statements and is to be provided to each person taking out nomination papers. Pursuant to the Voting Rights Act, all candidates' statements must be printed in Chinese, Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, as well as English. The Council may allow inclusion of other materials (candidates' advertising) to be inserted with the sample ballot. Limiting the candidate statements to 200 words, in Packet Page 133 AGENDA: PAGE: June 13, 2006 3 accordance with Ordinance No. 4-06, and continuing to follow Council's past practice of not allowing other materials for the sample ballot decreases the cost of postage, printing and handling for both the candidates and the City. This resolution also provides, as specified by Ordinance No. 4-06, that candidates who file a statement of acceptance of the VEL ($17,911) and pay the first $500 for the cost of publishing the candidate statement in the voter's pamphlet at the time nomination papers are filed, will be eligible to have the City pay for the balance of the cost of the candidate statement subject to certain limitations. The cost of translating and printing the candidates' statements to be published in the voter's pamphlet, as estimated by the Registrar of Voters, is approximately 2,000 per 200-word statement. Proposed Charter Amendment On February 28, 2006, the City Council voted to submit a proposed Charter Amendment Measure for the November 7, 2006 State-wide election to amend the City Charter to increase Council compensation to a new baseline amount of $1,500 per month, with automatic future adjustments to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index. The amendment would establish an effective date of January 1, 2009 for the increased compensation for all Councilmembers if the voters approve the Charter amendment. Copies of the staff report and minutes for that meeting regarding this item are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. The first resolution mentioned previously provides the implementing actions necessary to proceed with placing this Charter Amendment Measure on the November 7, 2006 ballot. Ordinance No. 4-06 Relating to Campaign Finance and the VEL Program On April 25, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4-06 amending Chapter 2, Article XII, Relating to Campaign Finance and the VEL Program (Exhibit 3). This campaign ordinance will be implemented for the November 7, 2006 election and provides that: All candidates, officeholders and committees participating in local elections for City Council who file campaign disclosure reports under the Political Reform Act shall also file such reports with the City Clerk. Noncandidate groups, individuals and committees that participate in the City Council elections and are required to file campaign disclosure reports pursuant to State law shall also file such forms with the City Clerk. Campaign contribution disclosure threshold is set at $100. A cut-off date of seven (7) days (October 31) prior to the election is established for candi- dates to accept contributions, or 5:00 p.m. the Tuesday before the election. Candidate or Packet Page 134 AGENDA: June 13,2006 PAGE: 4 Councilmember-elect can accept contributions beginning the Wednesday (November 8) after the election. The filing of a Third Preelection Statement is required five (5) days (November 2) prior to the election, or 5:00 p.m. the Thursday before the election. Campaign disclosure reports submitted by each candidate or committee be posted on the City's web site within five (5) business days from the date of receipt of the reports. A voluntary expenditure limit for each candidate for each election to City elective office was established in 2000 in the amount of $15,000 in Year 2000 dollars and provides an automatic adjustment of the expenditure ceiling at the rate of 3 percent per year to keep pace with the changes in the cost of living. Therefore, the VEL for the November 7, 2006 election is increased to $17,911. Each candidate is required to file, at the time of filing his/her nomination papers, a statement of acceptance or rejection of the voluntary expenditure ceiling. The cost of the candidate statement, whether paid for by the candidate or the City, and contributions returned by the candidate within 30 days of receipt do not count toward the VEL. Candidates who file a statement of acceptance of the VEL and pay the first $500 for the cost of publishing the candidate statement in the voter's pamphlet will be eligible to have the City pay for the balance of the cost of the candidate statement subject to certain limitations. A penalty for violation of the VEL is established which requires the posting of a Notice of Violation on the City's web site and at the official posting board at City Hall and the publishing of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation. A repayment to the City of the cost of the candidate's statement is required if a candidate exceeds the VEL. Repayment is due within 30 days of exceeding the limit. Partial Repayment-Candidate repays the City 25 percent of the amount the City paid toward the candidate statement if he/ she exceeds the VEL by no more than 500. Full Repayment-Candidate repays the City the entire amount of the City contribu- tion if he/ she exceeds the VEL by more than $500. A method of collection is established directing the City Auditor to deduct any delinquent amounts on a month-to-month basis until paid in full from any Packet Page 135 AGENDA: June 13, 2006 PAGE: 5 Councilmember-elect's City paycheck, and directing the City Clerk to not accept nomination papers for future election until any delinquency from a prior election is paid in full, including interest. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not impose fee for translating and printing candidates' statements. 2. Allow up to 400-word candidate's statement. 3. Allow inclusion of campaign advertising with sample ballots. PUBLIC NOTICING-Agenda posting. Prepared by: Angelita M. Salvador City Clerk MDM/ AMS/5/CAM 402-06-13-06M-E^ Attachments: 1. Resolution Calling a General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006 2. Resolution Relating to Services to be Performed by the County Registrar of Voters 3. Resolution Adopting a 200-Word Maximum for a Statement of Qualifications of Candidate Exhibit I-Staff Report of February 28, 2006 Meeting Exhibit 2-Minutes of February 28, 2006 Meeting Exhibit 3-0rdinance No. 4-06 Packet Page 136 Attachment 1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW RESOLUTION NO. SERIES 2006 A RESOLUTION AND ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006, AND RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mountain View hereby calls a General Municipal Election to be held on November 7, 2006, for the purpose of the election of three members of the City Council for the full term of four (4) years; and to submit to the voters a proposed Charter amendment relating to Council compensation; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the General Municipal Election be consolidated with the State-wide General Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if it were only one election; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Mountain View, as follows: Section 1. Call of Election. A General Municipal Election is hereby called and ordered to be held in the City on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, at which election there shall be an election of Councilmembers and shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the City the proposed measure set forth below. Section 2. Officers To Be Elected. The officers to be elected at said General Municipal Election shall be three (3) Councilmembers, each for a term of four (4) years. Section 3. Proposed Measure. The Council of the City of Mountain View hereby submits to the registered qualified electors of the City for their adoption or rejection in the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Mountain View on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, the following proposal to amend the Mountain View City Charter: 1-Packet Page 137 PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE Should the City of Mountain View amend Section 503 of the City Charter YES to set the base salary of City Council at $1,500 per month, with an automatic annual adjustment, to become effective on January I, 2009? NO Section 4. Submission-Text. The Council does hereby submit the text of the Charter amendment measure as follows: Section 503. Compensation. Each member of the city council shall receive as salary, each month, that sum which has been established by the electorate as of November 7, 2006, effective January I, 2009, as the baseline salary amount of one thousand five hundred dollars 1,500) per month with automatic annual adjustments based on the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners or comparable index not to exceed five percent (5%) per year. The mayor shall receive as salary, each month, that amount as calculated for a councilmember above, plus an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of said sum. Any amounts paid to a councilmember for retirement, health and welfare, and federal Social Security benefits shall not be included for purposes of determining salary pursuant to this section provided the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city council shall have no power to increase its salary by ordinance, resolution or motion. If a member of the city council, or mayor, does not attend all regular meetings of the city council called on order of the city council and held during the month, that person's salary for such month shall be reduced by the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each regular meeting not attended unless that person is absent with the consent of the mayor or for official city business." Section 5. Polls Open. The polls for said election shall be open at 7:00 a.m. of the day of said election and shall remain open continuously from said time until 8:00 p.m. of the same day, when said polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California. Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk of the City of Mountain View is hereby ordered and directed to cause the notice of said election to be published in accordance with the provisions of the California State Elections Code. The notice of the General Municipal Election provided for herein shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Mountain View. Section 7. Consolidation with State-wide Election. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the California State Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the 2-Packet Page 138 County of Santa Clara is hereby requested to order the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, and to consolidate the election with any other elections, which may be called for the same date. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara is further requested to order the County Registrar of Voters to: 1) prepare the City's election materials and take all other necessary actions for the holding of the consolidated election; (2) set forth on all sample ballots to be mailed to the qualified electors of the City of Mountain View for said election the exact form of the Charter amendment measure as set forth hereinabove, the text of the ballot measure as set forth hereinabove, the City Attorney's impartial analysis, arguments for and against the measure, and rebuttal arguments (if any); and (3) provide an absent voter's ballot to voters for said election for use of the qualified electors of the City of Mountain View who are entitled thereto, in the manner provided by law. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara is hereby further authorized and requested to canvass or cause to be canvassed, as provided by law, returns of said General Municipal Election and to certify such canvass of the votes cast for the City Council and for and against said measure to the City Council of the City of Mountain View. The City of Mountain View recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for such costs. Section 8. Timing. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara. Said resolution shall be filed no later than July 5, 2006. Section 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. AMS/5/RESO 402-06-13-06R-E^ 3-Packet Page 139 Attachment 2 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW RESOLUTION NO. SERIES 2006 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO AUTHORIZE THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONTRACT FOR ELECTION SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PERTAINING TO SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY THE COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006 WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City of Mountain View has recommended that the City contract with the County to have the Registrar of Voters perform certain services in connection with the General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council that the City contract with the County to have the Registrar of Voters perform certain services for said General Municipal Election as authorized by Elections Code Section 10002; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mountain View as follows: THAT the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the performance of certain services for the City by the County Registrar of Voters pertaining to the conduct of said General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, and for the reimbursement of the County in full for the services performed; and THAT the services to be performed for the City by said County Registrar of Voters are as follows: 1. Consolidating precincts and arranging for polling places and election officers. 2. Ordering official and sample ballots. 3. Addressing and mailing sample ballots. 4. Handling applications for and mailing absent voter ballots. 5. Bagging and labeling of precinct supplies. 1-Packet Page 140 6. Supervising computerized return of ballots cast. 7. Providing general assistance for the conduct of said election. 8. Canvassing the election returns and certifying the results to the City Clerk. AMS/4/RESO 402-06-13-06R-E-2^ 2-Packet Page 141 Attachment 3 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW RESOLUTION NO. SERIES 2006 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A 200-WORD MAXIMUM FOR A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATE AND CHARGING EACH CANDIDATE FOR A FIXED SHARE OF COSTS OF THE PRINTING AND HANDLING FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2006 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mountain View that: 1. The Statement of Qualifications for each candidate in the General Municipal Election to be held Tuesday, November 7, 2006, shall not exceed 200 words pursuant to Campaign Ordinance No. 4-06 adopted by the City Council on April 25, 2006. 2. As provided by Ordinance No. 4-06, candidates who file a statement of acceptance of the Voluntary Expenditure Limit (VEL) and pay the first $500 toward the cost of translation into Chinese, Spanish, Tagalog and Vietnamese and the cost of printing and handling of said candidate statement at the time nomination papers are filed will be eligible to have the City pay for the balance of the cost of the candidate statement subject to certain limitations, which is estimated at approximately $2,000. 3. No other candidate election materials will be permitted in the sample ballot for said General Municipal Election to be held Tuesday, November 7, 2006. AMS/5/RESO 402-06-13-06R-E-l ^ Packet Page 142 Exhibit 1 AGENDA:February 28, 2006 7.4 CATEGORY: New Business DEPT.: Council Procedures Committee CI I) 01 :\10UN lAIN VIHV TITLE: Council Compensation-Possible Charter Amendment RECOMMENDATION Review the report and recommendations of the Council Procedures Committee relative to Council compensation and take action to set a special election for a Charter amendment or provide further direction to the Committee. FISCAL IMPACT The cost to conduct the special election on June 6, 2006 for the Charter amendment, as estimated by the Registrar of Voters (ROV), is $140,847. In addition, an additional $5,000 is needed to cover the cost of noticing the election and other election-related expenses that are unforeseen at this time. These funds are not budgeted in the 2005-06 budget, so it is necessary to appropriate a total of $145,847 and transfer funds from General Fund Contingency Operating Funds to the City Clerk Election budget. The current annual Council salary budget totals $43,500. If the Charter amendment passes, the new annual Council salary budget will be $130,500. The additional annual fiscal impact would be $87,000, plus annual cost-of-living adjustments. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS As a California Charter city, the City Charter may establish how members of the City Council are compensated. Rather than set a specific salary, Charter Section 503, "Compensation," establishes Government Code Section 36516(a) as the standard for setting Council compensa- tion based on the incremental size of a city's resident population. The Council compensation for the City of Mountain View, with a population of less than 75,000, is set at $500 per month. The Charter provides for a twenty-five percent (25%) additional salary for the Mayor. Council compensation has not increased since 1984. As a Charter city, the City of Mountain View may amend the Council compensation by voter approval of an amendment to Charter Section 503. On December 5, 2005 and on February 14, 2006, the Council Procedures Committee discussed increasing Council compensation and voted to forward a recommendation to the Council to place a Charter amendment on the June 6, 2006 Primary Election ballot relating to that issue. Packet Page 143 AGENDA: PAGE: February 28, 2006 2 Copies of the two staff reports to the Council Procedures Committee are attached as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. The staff reports set forth the Council compensation of neighboring cities; addressed the history of the current Council compensation; analyzed the legal requirements for amending the Charter section on compensation; and identified the cost and procedures for a Charter amendment election in June or November. Also attached is a detailed Special Election Calendar, showing the deadlines when impartial analysis, written arguments for and against the measure/rebuttal arguments and other documents are due to the City Clerk and to the ROV. Discussion 1. Increase Councilmember Compensation to $1,500 Per Month with Automatic Future Adjustments (Up or Down) Tied to the CPI The Government Code Section setting the compensation at $500 per month for cities with populations of less than 75,000 has not been increased since 1984. The cost of living has substantially reduced the value of that amount. The Council Procedures Committee determined that a reasonable new baseline amount, reflecting an estimated cumulative cost of living increase over the last twenty-two (22) years, would be approximately 1,500 per month. An automatic annual adjustment of up to five percent (5%) indexed to the Bay Area Consumer Price Index is recommended. In accordance with Government Code Section 36516(d), any amounts paid by a city for retirement, health and welfare, and Federal Social Security benefits shall not be included for purposes of determining salary provided the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees. 2. Clarify Deduction for Missed Meetings Charter Section 503 currently provides that Councilmembers' salaries shall be reduced by $25 for "each meeting or study session not attended...." Staff has identified that this concept is in need of clarification and the Procedures Committee proposes a clarification that the deduction should only apply to "regular" meetings not attended unless excused by the Mayor or for official City business. 3. Establish January 2007 as the Effective Date In determining the effective date of a new compensation amount, the Council Procedures Committee considered whether the effect should be staggered to follow the reelection of a current Councilmember or the election of a new Councilmember, or in the alternative, whether the new salary would apply to all Councilmembers on a fixed date. If a fixed date were selected, the question was whether it should be in January 2009, when all current terms would have expired, or in January 2007, following the election on the Charter amendment. The Council Procedures Committee recommends a fixed Packet Page 144 AGENDA: PAGE: February 28, 2006 3 effective date of January 2007 for all Councilmembers to receive a salary increase if approved by the voters. 4. Place the Proposed Charter Amendment on the Tune Primary Election The Council Procedures Committee considered whether the measure should be placed on the June 6, 2006 Primary Election ballot or on the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election ballot. If the City does not add the measure to the June ballot, the City will have no expenses for the June Primary Election. If the City adds the proposed Charter amendment to the June ballot, the ROV will charge approximately $140,369. The current cost to the City for the November General Municipal Election is estimated at 118,858 to $126)99 without adding the Charter amendment ballot measure, and approximately $151)80 to $158,721 with the ballot measure. The additional cost related to adding the ballot measure is estimated at $32,522. The Council Procedures Committee recommends placement of the measure on the June Primary Election ballot so that the voters can focus their attention on compensation separately from the candidate selection. 5. Proposed Revised Charter Section Section 503. Compensation. Each member of the city council shall receive as salary, each month, that sum which has been established by the electorate as of June 6, 2006, effective January I, 2007, as the baseline salary amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) per month with automatic annual adjustments based on the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners or comparable index not to exceed five percent (5%) per year. The mayor shall receive as salary, each month, that amount as calculated for a councilmember above, plus an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of said sum. Any amounts paid to a councilmember for retirement, health and welfare, and federal Social Security benefits shall not be included for purposes of determining salary pursuant to this section provided the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city council shall have no power to increase its salary by ordinance, resolution or motion. If a member of the city councit or mayor, does not attend all regular meetings of the city council called on order of the city council and held during the month, that person's salary for such month shall be reduced by the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each regular meeting not attended unless that person is absent with the consent of the mayor or for official city business. (As amended, April 9, 1968; June 3, 1980; November 6, 1984.)" Packet Page 145 AGENDA: PAGE: February 28, 2006 4 A copy of the existing Section 503 of the Charter is attached as Attachment 5. SUMMARY The Council Procedures Committee discussed several aspects of the proposed Charter amendment, including whether the compensation should be increased above the Government Code Section limitation; what new baseline amount should be established; when the increased compensation should be implemented; and whether the proposed amendment should be placed on the June or November ballot. The Council Procedures Committee has recommended the following changes: Increase Council compensation from $500 per month to a new baseline amount of 1,500 per month. Provide that the compensation will be adjusted automatically consistent with the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index, not to exceed five percent (5%), up or down, annually. Retain the twenty-five percent (25%) additional amount for the Mayor. Clarify the provision deducting $25 for missed meetings to "regular" City Council meetings without an excused absence by the Mayor or for official City business. Establish an effective date of January I, 2007 for increased compensation for all Councilmembers if the voters approve the Charter amendment. Place the measure on the June 6, 2006 Primary Election ballot. AL TERNA TIVES 1. Keep the City Council compensation at its current level pursuant to City Charter Section 503. 2. Approve the increase in Council compensation and submit the Charter amendment measure during the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election to reduce election costs to the City. 3. Consider an alternative amount and/ or an alternative effective date of January 2009 for Council compensation. Packet Page 146 AGENDA: February 28, 2006 PAGE: 5 DRAFT MOTIONS FOR TUNE 6, 2006 BALLOT 1. Approve the recommendations of the Council Procedures Committee as follows: a. Submit a proposed Charter amendment measure for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election to amend the City Charter to provide for Council compensation from a new baseline amount of $1,500 per month, with automatic future adjustments to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index. b. Establish an effective date of January I, 2007 for increased compensation for all Councilmembers if the voters approve the Charter amendment. 2. Approve the following actions necessary to submit a proposed Charter amendment measure for the June 6, 2006 Primary Election: a. Waive reading and adopt A RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON JUNE 6, 2006 TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE TO THE VOTERS. b. Direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the Charter amendment. c. Appropriate funds and transfer $145,857 from the General Fund Contingency Reserve to the City Clerk Election budget to cover the costs of the Special Municipal Election on June 6, 2006. (Five votes required) d. Direct the City Clerk and City Attorney to take all actions necessary to implement this action. PUBLIC NOTICING-Agenda posting. p?!W {/- R. Michael Kas k, Jr., Chair Council Procedures Committee RMK/CSE/ AMS/8/CAM/ 402-02-28-06M-E-l ^ Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Staff Report Dated December 1,2005 3. Staff Report Dated February 9, 2006 4. Special Election Calendar 5. Copy of Existing Charter Section 503 Packet Page 147 Attachment 1 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW RESOLUTION NO. SERIES 2006 A RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON JUNE 6, 2006 TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE TO THE VOTERS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mountain View desires to submit to the voters a proposed Charter amendment relating to Council compensation; and WHEREAS, it is desirable that a Special Municipal Election be consolidated with the State-wide Primary Election to be held on the same date and that within the City the precincts, polling places and election officers of the two elections be the same, and that the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara canvass the returns of the Special Municipal Election and that the election be held in all respects as if it were only one election; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Mountain View, as follows: Section 1. Call of Election. A Special Municipal Election is hereby called and ordered to be held in the City on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at which election there shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the City the proposed measure set forth below. Section 2. Proposed Measure. The Council of the City of Mountain View hereby submits to the registered qualified electors of the City for their adoption or rejection in the Special Municipal Election to be held in the City of Mountain View on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, the following proposal to amend the Mountain View City Charter: PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE YES Should the City of Mountain View amend Section 503 of the City Charter to set the base salary of City Cmmcil at $1,500 per month? NO Section 3. Submission-Text. The Council does hereby submit the text of the Charter amendment measure as follows: Section 503. Compensation. Each member of the city council shall receive as salary, each month, that sum which has been established by the electorate as of June 6, 2006, effective January 1, 2007, 1-Packet Page 148 as the baseline salary amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) per month with automatic annual adjustments based on the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners or comparable index not to exceed five percent (5%) per year. The mayor shall receive as salary, each month, that amount as calculated for a councilmember above, plus an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of said sum. Any amounts paid to a councilmember for retirement, health and welfare, and federal Social Security benefits shall not be included for purposes of determining salary pursuant to this section provided the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city council shall have no power to increase its salary by ordinance, resolution or motion. If a member of the city council, or mayor, does not attend all regular meetings of the city council called on order of the city council and held during the month, that person's salary for such month shall be reduced by the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each regular meeting not attended unless that person is absent with the consent of the mayor or for official city business." Section 4. Polls Open. The polls for said election shall be open at 7:00 a.m. of the day of said election and shall remain open continuously from said time until 8:00 p.m. of the same day, when said polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California. Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk of the City of Mountain View is hereby ordered and directed to cause the notice of special election to be published in accordance with the provisions of the California State Elections Code. The notice of the Special Municipal Election provided for herein shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Mountain View. Section 6. Consolidation with State-wide Election. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the California State Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara is hereby requested to order the Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, and to consolidate the election with any other elections, which may be called for the same date. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara is further requested to order the County Registrar of Voters to: (1) prepare the City's election materials and take all other necessary actions to place the measure on the ballot; (2) set forth on all sample ballots to be mailed to the qualified electors of the City of Mountain View for said election the exact form of the measure as set forth hereinabove, the text of the ballot measure as set forth hereinabove, the City Attorney's impartial analysis, arguments for and against the measure, and rebuttal arguments (if any); and (3) provide an absent voter's ballot to voters for said election for use of the qualified electors of the City of Mountain View who are entitled thereto, in the manner provided by law. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara is hereby further authorized and requested to canvass or cause to be canvassed, as provided by law, 2-Packet Page 149 returns of said Special Municipal Election and to certify such canvass of the votes cast for and against said measure to the City Council of the City of Mountain View. The City of Mountain View recognizes that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for such costs. Section 7. Timing. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara. Said resolution shall be filed no later than March 10, 2006. Section 8. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. AMS/8/RESO 402-02-28-06R-E-1 ^ 3-Packet Page 150 Attachment 2 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1,2005 TO: Council Procedures Committee FROM: Linda Forsberg, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 3.2-CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION At its October 25, 2005 meeting, the City Council referred to the Council Procedures Committee (Committee) a request to review the issue of City Council compensation. The issue has been placed on the Committee's agenda to provide Committee members with an opportunity to have initial/preliminary discussions regarding the scope of the review as well as determine the steps the Committee plans to take to pursue the topic further. Attached for the Committee's review are the following documents relating to City Council compensation: The section (Section 503) of the Mountain View City Charter that pertains to City Council compensation (Attachment 3.2-1). State of California Government Code section governing Mayor and Councilmember salaries (Attachment 3.2- 2). Comparative Mayor and Councilmember salary information for selected Santa Clara County cities (Attachment 3.2-3). City of Mountain View Mayor and Councilmember salary history information Attachment 3.2-4). Section 503 of the City Charter for the City of Mountain View establishes compensation for Councilmembers as the amount set forth in State law at Government Code Section 36516(a), with an additional 25 percent amount provided for the Mayor. That section provides that Councilmember compensation may be established by ordinance. The compensation amounts are tied to the population of cities ranging from 300/month for cities up to 35,000 in population to $1,OOO/month for cities with populations greater than 250,000. Packet Page 151 Council Procedures Committee December I, 2005 Page 2 Section 36516 also provides that the question of the amount of compensation for Councilmembers may be submitted to the electors. As the City of Mountain View is a charter city and the matter of Council compensation is a municipal matter, the City is not bound by the State law provisions for general-law cities except by the Charter. Other provisions of the State law regarding Councilmember compensation include: Limiting the amount of the increase to 5 percent per calendar year. No automatic future increases in salary. Any change in compensation does not apply to a Councilmember during his or her term of office. These State law provisions are noted for your information. Pursuant to State law, current Councilmembers may not adopt a salary increase which affects their salary. If the Council wishes to change compensation levels for Councilmembers, the process would require a charter amendment. Depending on the action selected, the charter section could be amended to establish a new formula for determining compensation, could be deleted in its entirety or the section could be amended to provide that the amount is set by ordinance, which mayor may not be submitted to the voters. Prepared by:Approved by: Nadine P. Levin Assistant City Manager LF /9 /MGR/ 601-11-16-05M ^ Attachments: 3.1-1 Section 503 of the Mountain View City Charter 3.2-2 State of California Government Code Section 3.2-3 Comparative Salary Information for Selected Santa Clara County Cities 3.2-4 City of Mountain View Mayor and Councilmember Salary History cc: eM, ACM, CA, CC F ASD Packet Page 152 Attachment 3 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MEMORANDUM DA TE: February 9, 2006 TO: Council Procedures Committee FROM: Robert F. Locke, City Auditor Angelita M. Salvador, City Clerk C. Shelley Emerson, Senior Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: COUNCILMEMBER COMPENSATION At the Council Procedures Committee (CPC) meeting of December 5, 2005, staff was requested to provide historical information regarding Councilmember compensation and the legal authority for increasing Councilmember compensation. Information on the costs and schedule of an election is also included. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND City Charter Section 503, "Compensation," addresses and authorizes the amount of compensation to be provided to Councilmembers. Section 503 has been amended three times since the Charter was adopted in 1952. Two amendments adjusted the compensation amount and the other removed gender-specific language. On April 9, 1968, voters approved the first amendment to Section 503, increasing compensation from $10 per month to $250 per month and making an unspecific reference to the State law regarding the amount to be paid to councilmembers based on the population of their city. It is assumed this reference is to California Government Code Section 36516 or a similar code section in effect at that time. A pay differential for the Mayor and the $25 deduction for missed meetings provisions were introduced in this amendment. In the election of June 3, 1980, voters approved amendments to 28 Charter sections, including a second amendment to Section 503 deleting all references to gender. On November 6, 1984, voters approved a third amendment that is the current wording of Charter Section 503. A copy of Section 503 is attached. The specific reference to Government Code Section 36516 and the minor wording changes to the 1968 amendment clarified that Councilmembers are to be paid the amount identified in Government Code Section 36516(a) for cities of Mountain View's size. Although the 1968 amendment specified the amount of compensation as consistent with State law, it did not specify that the compensation would increase with population growth. Packet Page 153 Council Procedures Committee February 9, 2006 Page 2 Government Code Section 36516(a) identifies city councilmember salaries based on population ranges in increments of 25,000 residents. Current Councilmember compensation is based on the salary amount for cities between 50,000 and 75,000 residents. The California Department of Finance-Population Estimates Division DOF) provides each public agency in the State with annual population estimates in years between the decennial Federal Censuses. In 1999, the City was notified by DOF that it had estimated the City's population at slightly over 75,000. Based on notification from an official source, Councilmember salaries were increased to $600 and $750 for the Mayor as prescribed by Government Code Section 36516(a). In 2001, the Federal Census reported that the City's population was under 75,000. The City unsuccessfully challenged this estimate, and Councilmember compensation was rolled back to $500 per month, where it remains today, in compliance with the Charter and State law. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR INCREASING COUNCIL COMPENSATION As noted above, Section 503 of the Mountain View City Charter provides that Councilmembers' salaries shall be that sum which has been established by the State Legislature as the salary limit for general law cities of the same population range, as specified in California Government Code Section 36516(a). The Charter also states that the Mayor shall receive an additional 25 percent of said sum. The Charter further provides that the City Council shall have no power to increase its salary by ordinance, resolution or motion. Government Code Section 36516(a) states that the councilmembers' salaries for a city with a population of 50,000 to 75,000 (such as the City of Mountain View) shall be up to, and including, $500 per month. As a charter city, Mountain View is not bound by the Councilmembers' salary limits set by Government Code Section 36516(a). The State Constitution allows a charter city to govern subjects that are "municipal affairs," and it specifically reserves to charter cities the right to provide for "compensation" of "municipal officers." California Constitution Article XI, Section 5(a) and (b). However, the City is bound by its own Charter proVISIon. Therefore, a Charter amendment would have to be submitted to the electors in order to change the amount of Councilmembers' salaries. If a proposed Charter amendment is considered, there are other Councilmember compensation issues that should also be considered, including: 1. The revised baseline amount of Councilmembers' salaries. 2. Whether the Mayor would continue to receive an additional 25 percent. Packet Page 154 Council Procedures Committee February 9,2006 Page 3 3. Whether or not there would be an automatic annual cost-of-living increase and, if so, should there be a cap? 4. The effective date of the salary increase (i.e., whether a new Councilmember or a Councilmember newly elected to a second term, following the election on the Charter amendment, would receive the increased salary upon being sworn in). Would Councilmembers in a current term continue to receive the former salary, although newly elected members would receive the increased salary, or would the effective date be set at a date after all current Councilmember terms have expired? CHARTER AMEND1\1ENT -BALLOT MEASURE The following information regarding the election schedule and the costs of election associated with a ballot measure is being provided should the Committee determine to proceed with recommending a Charter amendment relating to Councilmember compensa tion. Election Schedule and Cost of Election The Charter amendment could be placed on the ballot during the June 6,2006 Primary Election or during the November 7, 2006 Gubernatorial General Election. In its determination of when to place the measure on the ballot, one important question the Committee may wish to consider is whether or not it would want the City to pay for one election or two elections. The City will already have a separate ballot in November due to the City Council election. If the Committee and the City Council determine to hold a special election consolidated with the State-wide June Primary in addition to the November General Municipal Election, the additional cost of the special election, as estimated by the Registrar of Voters (ROV), would be approximately $140,369. The ROV would charge the City of Mountain View for the fixed and variable costs of conducting the special election. If the ballot measure were placed on the November ballot, there would be a substantial savings because the City would only have to pay for one election. The total savings of one election instead of two would be approximately $107,847. The total costs for the November election, with the Charter amendment and the candidates' statements, would be a total estimate of approximately $151,380 to $158,721, depending on the number of candidates running. Historically, candidates paid for the costs of candidate statements but, under the proposed reforms to the Campaign Finance Ordinance that the Council Procedures Committee recommended to the City Council for approval, the City would assume the Packet Page 155 Council Procedures Committee February 9, 2006 Page 4 majority of these costs. These reforms are proposed to take effect beginning with the election this coming November. Election Time Line for Potential Charter Amendments Below are the critical dates that must be considered in placing a measure on the ballot. It is important to adhere to these deadlines to comply with the law. Deadlines for Placing Charter Amendment on the June 6, 2006 Primary Election February 28, 2006 Last day for Council to adopt resolution calling special election for Charter amendment. March 10, 2006 Last day for the ROV to accept resolutions calling special election for Charter amendment. Deadlines for Placing Charter Amendment on the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election: Between June 13 and July 11, 2006 Suggested dates for Council to adopt resolution calling special election for Charter amendment. August 11, 2006 Last day for the ROV to accept resolutions calling special election for a Charter amendment. Rooert F. Locke City Auditor e. s~~ C. Shelley Emerson Senior Assistant City Attorney RFL- AMS-CSE / 5 / A TY 013-02-07-06M-E^ Attachment Packet Page 156 Attachment 4 SPECIAL ELECTION (CHARTER AMENDMENT) CALENDAR JUNE 6, 2006 PRIMARY ELECTION February 28, 2006 RESOLUTION CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION AND REQUESTING SERVICE OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS Council adopts resolutions calling election, requesting services of the County Registrar of Voters, requesting consolidation of the June 6/ 2006 Special Election and approving ballot wording. (Elections Code 10002, 10242, 10263, 10403) March 1, 2006 PUBLISH NOTICE OF ELECTION The City Clerk to publish once a Notice of Election, Synopsis of Measure and deadline for submittal of written arguments. Elections Code 12109; Government Code 6060, 6061) March 10, 2006 88 days prior to election) CONSOLIDATION ORDER Last day for cities to file resolutions with Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters, requesting consolidation of the June 6/2006 Special Election. (Elections Code 10403) March 10, 2006 WRITTEN ARGUMENTS Last day to file with the City Clerk written arguments for or against measure, not to exceed 300 words. Direct arguments may not be withdrawn or changed after this date. (Elections Code 9219, 9281, 9282, 9286, 9295) IMP ARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE Last day for the City Clerk to receive the City Attorney' s impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect it will have on the existing law and the operation of the measure. This analysis shall be printed in the voter's pamphlet preceding the arguments for and against the measure. Analysis shall not exceed 500 words. (Elections Code 9280) 1-Packet Page 157 March 10 to March 21, 2006 March 15, 2006 March 21, 2006 10 days after final date for filing direct arguments) March 22, 2006 May 22, 2006 June 6, 2006 As soon as possible after June 6, 2006 July 5, 2006 July 4 is a holiday) PUBLIC EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS Official election materials to be made available for public examination at City Clerk's Office for 10 days prior to submitting the materials to the County Registrar of Voters for printing. Any person may obtain a copy of such materials. Elections Code 9295) WRITTEN ARGUMENTS Last day for cities to submit arguments for and against the measure to the Registrar of Voters REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTS Last day to file to the City Clerk rebuttal arguments, not to exceed 250 words. (Elections Code 9220, 9285, 9286) IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS AND REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENTS Last day for cities to submit impartial analysis and rebuttals to arguments in favor and against the ballot measure to the Registrar of Voters VOTER REGISTRATION CLOSES Last day to register to vote for June 6, 2006. (Elections Code 2107) ELECTION DAY Polls open 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Absentee ballots may be turned in, before the polls close, at any polling place in the jurisdiction or at the Registrar of Voters' Office. CANVASS ELECTION RETURNS Registrar of Voters shall commence the official canvass not later than Thursday following the election. The Registrar of Voters shall certify final results to the City Clerk. Statement of results must be submitted to the governing body within 28 days of the election. (Elections Code 10262, 10263) OFFICIAL CANVASS OF VOTES Deadline for the Registrar of Voters to certify election results. 2-Packet Page 158 July 11, 2006 Within five days after canvass AMSj8jCLK 402-02-28-06A-E^ ELECTION CERTIFICATES On or before this date, the City Clerk submits the statement of results to the City Council. (Elections Code 10262, 10263, 10264) RECOUNT REQUESTS Within five days following the completion of the canvass by the City Council, any voter may file with the City Clerk a written request for a recount of the votes cast for or against any measure. The request shall specify on behalf of which position on a measure (affirmative or negative) it is filed. Elections Code 15620) 3-Packet Page 159 Section 503. Compensation. Each member of the city council shall receive as salary, each month, that sum which has been estab- lished by the state legislature as the salary limit for members of the city council of general law cities having that population range within which the City of Mountain View falls, all as is specified in Gov- ernment Code Section 36516(a) as it now exists or may be hereafter amended or recodified to read. The mayor shall receive as salary, each month, that amount as calculated for a council member above, plus an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of said sum. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city council shall have no power to increase its salary by ordi- nance, resolution or motion. If a member of the city council, or mayor, does not attend all meetings of the city councilor study sessions called on order of the city council and held during the month, that person's salary for such month shall be reduced by the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each meet- ing or study session not attended unless that person is absent on official duty with the consent of or on order of the city council. (As amended, April 9, 1968; June 3, 1980; November 6, 1984.) Attachment 5 Packet Page 160 Section 201 CHARTER state, unless a different procedure is establiShe7bthisCharterorbyordinance. Article III. Plan of Government. Section 300. Council-manager form of government. The municipal government provided by t s Char- ter shall be known as the "council-mana er" form of government. Section 400. Enumeration. The elective officers of the cit); shall consist of a city council composed of seve members. Section 401. Elected at lar e. The council shall be elected t the general munic- ipal election on a general ( ket from the city at large. Section 402.When a elective office becom vacant. An elective office ecomes vacant when the incumbent dies, resi s, is removed from office under recall proceed' gs, is adjudged insane, con- victed of a felony, or of an offense involving a violation of the in mbent's official duties, or ceas- es to be a residen of the city, or neglects to qualify within the time rescribed by the provisions of this Charter, or sh 1 have been absent from the state without leave or more than sixty days, or fails to attend the m etings of the council for a like period without bei g excused therefrom by said body. (As amended 0ne 3, 1980.) Article V. The Council Secti 500. Term of office. E cept as otherwise provided in this section, the me bers of the council shall hold office for a term of our (4) years from and after the first meeting in J uary following their election and continuing until eir respective successors qualify. nv10untaJn View 3.99) Attachment 3.2-1 Ties among candidates for any office shall be set tIed by the drawing of lots. No person shall be eligible to serve as a mem er of the city council for more than two succe ive four-year elective terms. Any person appoin d or elected to the city council to fill an unexpir Cl term of not more than two years in length shall, owever, be eligible to serve two successive four-ye elective terms upon the expiration of the unexpir d term for which that person was appointed or lected. (As amended March 4, 1975; June 3, 19 ; November 2, 1993.) Section 501. Eligibility. No person shall be eligible be nominated for or to hold office as a member f the council unless that person is and shall have een a resident and a registered voter of the City Mountain View at the time nomination papers at issued to the candidate and that the person shaV remain a resident and a qualified elector of the/City of Mountain View or of territory annexed t~reto, as defined in the Cali- fornia Elections rOd. ( As amended April 9, 1974; June 3, 19.80; Nov ber 3, 1998.) Section 502. ouncilmember to hold no other office. No member 0 the council shall hold any other city office or ci employment except as is otherwise provided b this Charter. No member of the council shall be igible to be elected or appointed to any city pas' ion, office or employment which was creat- ed or e compensation of which was increased by the c uncil while that person was a member thereof, unt' one year after the expiration of the term for w ch the councilmember was elected or appointed. s amended June 3, 1980.) Section 503. Compensation. Each member of the city council shall receive as salary, each month, that sum which has been estab- lished by the state legislature as the salary limit for members of the city council of general law cities having that population range within which the City of Mountain View falls, all as is specified in Gov- CH-8 Packet Page 161 eroment Code Section 36516(a) as it now exists or may be hereafter amended or recodified to read. The mayor shall receive as salary, each month, that amount as calculated for a councilmember above, plus an additional twenty-five percent (25%) of said sum. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city council shall have no power to increase its salary by ordi- nance, resolution or motion. If a member of the city council, or mayor, does not attend all meetings of the city councilor study sessions called on order of the city council and held during the month, that person's salary for such month shall be reduced by the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each meet- ing or study session not attended unless that person is absent on official duty with the consent of or on order of the city council. (As amended, April 9, 1968; June 3, 1980; November 6, 1984.) Section 504. Vacancies. The council shall, within 30 days from the c mencement of any vacancy on the council rom whatever cause arising, either fill the vac cy by appointment or call a special election t fill the vacancy. If the vacancy is filled by appo' tment, the person so appointed shall hold office ntil the first Tuesday following the next general unicipal elec- tion at which a successor could b elected and until that person's successor qualifie . At that next gener- al municipal election folIo ing any vacancy, a councilmember shall be ected to serve for the remainder of any unexp' ed term. If the vacancy be filled by election, the erson so elected shall hold office for the unexg' ed term of the former incum- bent and until t t person's successor qualifies. When any va ancy occurs, if there are two councilmemb s at that time serving terms to which they were a pointed, then in that event, the vacancy shall be led solely by election. Notwithstanding the pr isions of Charter Section 1302, a special elect' n to fill a council vacancy may be held on an date. (As amended, April 12, 1960; June 3, 80; November 6, 1984.) CHARTER Section 503 Section 505. Election, powers and duties of mayor; designation of vice mayor. a) Mayor. The council shall meet and elec One of its members as its presiding officer, wh shall have the title of mayor. The mayor shall aYe a voice and vote in all its proceedings. Th mayor shall be the official head of the city for a1 ceremo- nial purposes. The mayor shall perform uch other duties consistent with the mayoral offic as may be prescribed by this Charter or as may b imposed by the council. The mayor shall serve in uch capacity at the pleasure of the council. The selection of mayor shall 0 ur annually. If possible, the selection shall be ade at the first meeting in January or, at the COll cil's discretion, at such other meeting to accommo ate the needs of the council. b) Vice mayor. At the ti e set for selection of mayor, the council shall a1~0 designate one of its members as vice mayor "ho shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure pf the council. The vice mayor shall perform the rluties of the mayor during the may:or's absence or isability. (As amended June 3, 1980; November 3 1998.) Section 506. Po ers vested in the council. All powers of t, e city, except as otherwise pro- vided in this Ch er, shall be vested in the council, and said council ay establish the method by which any of such po ' ers may be exercised. Section 507. Meetings of the counciL The cou, il shall, by ordinance, provide for the time and p ce of holding its meetings and the man- ner in w ch its special meetings may be called. Meetings to be public. egis1ative sessions of the council, whether or special, shall be open to the public. Se tion 509. Quorum. A majority of the council shall constitute a quo- m for the transaction of business, but a less num- CH-9 Mountain View 3-99) Packet Page 162 OFFICERS-GENERAL Div.3 filing of statements or reports. 61 Ops.Atty. Gen. 342, 7-26- 78. 36516 of a city council incurs for the handicap rela ed assistance of others needed by the m er to travel in the performance of offie' lities if a demand for reimbursement uch costs is approved by the City cou' nless the charter or an ordinance of t Ity provides otherwise. 65 Ops.Atty.Ge , 8-24-82. 3. Handicapped council members A California city has authority to expend its funds to reimburse as travel expenses those costs which a physicitlly handicapped member 36515. Councilmen; compensation' lling vacancies The compensation of a city ncilman appointed or elected to fill a vacancy is the same as that able to the member whose office was vacated. Added by Stats.1949, c. ,p. 145, S 1.) Hlstqrical Note Derivati . Stats.1883, c. 49, S 855; Stats. 1909, 0, S 1; Stats.1931, c. 132, S 6; Stats. c. 516, S 8; Stats.1941, c. 130, S 1. @ 36516.Council members; ordinance providing salary; salary schedule; compensation for council members,municipal election; in~ crease or decrease a) A city council may enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary, the amount of which shall be deter- mined by the following schedule: 1) In cities up to and including35,000 in population, up to and including three hundred dollars ($300) per month. 2) In cities over 35,000 up to and including 50,000 in population, up to and including four hundred dollars ($400) per month. 3) In cities over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 in population, up to and including five hundred dollars ($500) per month. 4) In cities over 75,000 up to and including 150,000 in population, up to and including six hundred dollars ($600) per month. 5) In cities over 150,000 up to and including 250,000 in population, up to and including eight hundred dollars ($800) per month. 6) In cities over 250,000 population, up to and including one thousand dollars ($1,000) per month. For the purposes of this section the population shall be determined by the last preceding federal census, or a subsequent census, or estimate validated by the Department of Finance. . b) At any municipal election, the question of whether city council mem- bers shall receive compensation for services, and the amount of compensa- tion, may be submitted to the electors. If a majority of the electors voting at the election favor it, all of the council members shall receive the compensa- tion specified in the election call. Compensation of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section or decreased below the amount in the same manner. 627 Attachment 3..2.-2 Packet Page 163 36516 CITY GOVERNMENT Title 4 Cc) Compensation of council members may be increased beyond the amount provided in this section by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjust- ment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted. No salary ordinance shall be enacted or amended which provides for (l,uto- matic future increases in salary. Cd) Any amounts paid by a city for retirement, health and welfare, and federal social security benefits shall not be included for purposes of determin- ing salary under this section provided the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees. Added by Stats.1949, c.79 p. 145, 9 1. Amended by Stats.1963, c. 1998, p. 4077, S 2; Stats.1965, c. 286, p. 1287, S 3; Stats.1966, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 12, p. 276, 9 4, eff. April 11, 1966; Stats.1968, c. 642, 9 1; Stats.1972, c. 591, p. 1053, 9 1; Stats.1974, c. 1378, p. 3000, S 2; Stats.1984, c. 100, 9 2.) Stats.1984, c. 100, 9 4, read: In enacting this act it is the intent of the Legislature in the repeal of Sections 36514 and 36516.2, and in the amendment of Section 36516, of the Government Code relating to the salaries of city council members not to invali- d:,te the payment of compensation to city council members approved by the electorate Historical Note before January 1, 1985, as those sections exist- ed before that date. Any past or future pay- ment of compensation pursuant to those sec- tions is herebY confirmed, validated, and de- clared legally effective." Part of the subject matter of this section was formerly contained in 99 36514, 36516.2. Derivation: See Derivation under 9 36515. Forms See West's California Code Forms, .Government. Library References l\lunicipal Corporations e:=>162(1) et seq. C.J.S. Municipal Corporations 9 523 et seq. WESTLA W Electronic Research See WESTLA W Electronic Research Guide following the Preface. Notes of Decisions Section 36514 (repealed; see, now, this sec- tion) and this section relating to compensation of city councilmen, preclude a city council, which has declared itself to be the governing board of a redevelopment agency, as autho- rized by Health and S.C., 99 33007 and 33200, from increasing the compensation of its mem- bers for their service as members of the gov- erning board of the redevelopment agency. 44 Ops.Atty.Gen. 170, 12-22-64. Adjustment of salary 1 L Adjustment of salary The effective date of an adjustment in the salaries of city council members is delayed pursuant to 9 3651'6.5 until one council, mem- ber commences a new term of office when such adjustment is by an ordinance adopted in accordance with this section and is based on an increase in the city's population. 54 Ops. Atty,Gen. 112, 6-30-71. @ 36516.1. Elective mayor; additional compensation A mayor elected pursuant to Sections 34900 to 34904, inclusive, of the Government Code may be provided with compensation in addition to that 628 Packet Page 164 OFFICERS--GENERAL ~ 36516.6 Div, 3 Repealed which he receives as a councilman. Such additional compensation may be provided by an ordinance adopted by the city councilor by a majority vote of the electors voting on the proposition at a municipal election. Added by Stats.1966, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 45, p. 359, S 1.) Library References Municipal Corporations e=>162(3). C,J,S. Municipal Corporations S 534. 36516.2. Repealed by Stats.1984, c. 100, ~. 3 Historical Note The repealed section, added by Stats.1972, c, Legislative intent relating to repeal of 591, p,1054, s 2, related to increases and de- S 36516.2, see note under S 36516. creaSt;s in compensation for councilmen. See, now, S 36516. 36516.5. Prohibition against change in compensation during term of office; staggered terms A change in compensation does not apply tn a councilman during his term of office; however, the prohibition herein expressed shall not prevent the adjustment of the compensation of all members of a council serving staggered terms whenever one or more members of such council becomes eligible for a salary increase by virtue of his beginning a new term of office. Added by Stats.1966, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 12, p. 276, S 5, eH. April 11, 1966.) Library References Municipal Corporations e=>162(1), C.J,S, Municipal Corporations S 523 et seq. WESTLA W Electronic Research See WESTLA W Electronic Research Guide following the Preface. Notes of Decisions The effective date of an adjustment in the salaries of city council members is delayed pursuant to this section until one council mem- ber commences a new term of office when such adjustment is by an ordinance adopted in accordance with S 36516, and is based on an increase in the city's population. 54 Ops.Atty. Gen. 112, 6-30-71. Effective date of change 1 1. Effective date of change A charter city has the authority to adopt an ordinance to increase compensation for city council members which .would become effec- tive at a time different from that provided by this section, 57 Ops.Atty.Gen. 11, 1-10-74. S 36516.6. Repealed by Stats.1985, c. 98, ~ 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1987 Historical Note The repealed section, providing for the grant bel'S, was added by Stats.1985, c, 98, 9 I, and of a salary increase to certain council memo expired by its own terms. Packet Page 165 Attachment 3.2-3 COMPARATIVE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER SALARY INFORMATION SELECTED SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIES I Mayor 3 Council member City! Population2 Monthly Salary Monthly Salary Comments Sunnyvale 133,000 $2,078.00 $1,559.00 Statutory basis: State Government Code Sections 36515 and 36516. City Charter Section 603 provides that the Mayor's monthly salary shall be 133-1/3 percent of Councilmembers'monthly salary. Section 603 also provides for cost-of-living adjustments effective January 1 each year by the amount permitted by law. Staff is waiting for additional information from the City of Sunnyvale regarding the history of salary increases for Councilmembers and the Mayor. Santa Clara 107)00 $U38.60 $683.16 Salaries set by City Charter Section 702. (Amended 1999) As of July 1,2000, Councilmember salary set at 600/month and Mayor salary set at $l,OOO/month. Commencing July I, 2001 and annually on July 1 thereafter, compensation increases by a percentage equal to the CPI for San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose for the preceding calendar year. However, the compensation increase cannot exceed 5 percent per year. CPI base year is 1999. All cities are charter cities except Cupertino. Source: 2005 Santa Clara County Cities Association Membership Directory. Onlv Santa Clara has a directly elected Mayor. Packet Page 166 Palo Alto 62,000 $600.00 S600.00 Statutory basis: State Government Code Section 36516. Ordinance No. 4692 (2001) set a new monthly salary level at 600 to "catch up" for many years of not adjusting salaries by the permitted 5 percent amount. Ordinance No. 4692 also provided for the Mayor to receive $200/month and the Vice Mayor $50/month for expenses in addition to funds budgeted for travel and expenses in the City Council's budget. Cupertino 50,546 $618.85 $618.85 Statutory basis: State Government Code Section 36516. Ordinance No. 1881 (2001) states "upon beginning a new term of office for a Councilmember, the Council shall receive a salary of 618.85/month or fraction thereof." LF /9 jMGR 601-11-30-05A ^ Packet Page 167 Attachment 3.2-4 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW MA YOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBER SALARY HISTORY Date Salary Information FY 1985-86 to FY 1998-99 Mayor-$625 / month ($7,500 annual) Councilmember-$500/month ($6,000 annual) FY 1999-2000 to FY 2001- 02* Mayor-$750/month ($9,000 annual) Councilmember-$600/month ($7,200 annual) FY 2002-03 to Present** Mayor-$625/month ($7,500 annual) Councilmember-$500/month ($6,000 annual) Based on a State of California Department of Finance population estimate of 75,201 for the City of Mountain View as of January 1, 1999, Mayor and Councilmember salaries were increased to reflect salary levels prescribed in Government Code Section 36516(21) for cities with populations greater than 75,000 up to and including 150,000. Results of the 2000 Census indicated the City's population was 70,708. Because of the discrepancy between the State and Census Bureau population estimates for the City, further analysis on the City's population was conducted. In a letter to the City dated May 1, 2002, the State of California Department of Finance reestimated the City's population at 71,610 and salary amounts for the Mayor and Councilmembers were adjusted downward accordingly. LF/9/MGR 601-11-16-05S^ Packet Page 168 Exhibit 2 Another Councilmember concurred but supported its deferral rather its In response to a Councilmember's question, the Planning Mana explained that this was in the zoning text until 1987 and then it was remove nd put into just the Industrial Zone. She added that with respect to mini-sto e in the CS Zone, the Council still would have the opportunity to have a p IC hearing and review the site to see if it is an appropriate site for that use; ever, an expectation is built in with the change that this use is one that some ay could apply for and thereby competition would increase. Motion-MIS Perry INeely-C ried 6-1; Pear no-Defer for 12 months or wrap it into a General Plan re . on the application to amend the zoning text of the CS (Service Commercial) e to allow personal storage uses as a conditional use. Direct that as addition gatekeeper applications are presented to Council, Council is provided with a . ting of other projects that have been denied or deferred and information of y previous Council action on any of the projects that has occurred in the past. Th ouncilmembers discussed that this project has not been denied but instead is ferred and will come back in 12 months without the applicant having to reapply. 7.4-COUNCIL COMPENSATION-POSSIBLE CHARTER AMENDMENT Councilmember Kasperzak explained that the current salary structure for the Council was developed in 1984 and that the present $500 compensation is perceived as a barrier to many potential candidates. He continued that the Council Procedures Committee met to discuss Council compensation and is recommending that Council set a base salary of $1,500 per month, adjusted annually by the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index, not to exceed a 5 percent increase up or down in any given year, and that they would retain the 25 percent additional stipend for the Mayor as well as clarify the provisions regarding missed meetings. He added that the Committee has recommended an effective date of either January 1,2007 or alternatively January 1,2009, after which all current Councilmembers would have been through an election cycle. Finally, he explained that it was recommended that the measure go into the June 6 ballot principally so the issue of compensation would not become an issue in the City Council election of November; however, it would cost the City $145,000 to run the special election as opposed to around $30,000 to defer it to the November election. The public input period was opened. Roy Mize, Mountain View, remarked that this Council is one of the most qualified and objective in four decades of Council watching and spoke in favor of the Special Meeting - February 28, 2006 Page 15Packet Page 169 recommendation because it is well warranted and deserved but preferred that it be put with the General Election in November to save money. He did not think this increase will make more people run for this job because it is still a very low remunera tion. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, the public input period was closed. One Councilmember felt that an additional $1,000 is not going to get more people to run for City Council but, compared to other cities, they have a lot of meetings and put out a lot of ambitious goals. If they are really serious at opening this up so that everyone can run, they need to look at the time commitment involved. Another Councilmember concurred but noted that the additional compensation might mitigate some of the time spent and that putting this on the November ballot would not politicize it. He added that he would like to hear what the voters think about this subject. A Councilmember explained his reasons for not supporting the recommendation, noting that the increase might be too much and begins to get close enough that the City Council might seem like a good place to park political supporters. Also, increasing the pay could increase the cost of elections and drive out the possibility of lower-income candidates and would not improve the City's governance. He noted that he might be able to support something more moderate that does not apply to Councilmembers voting to put it on the ballot and does not include the cost of a special election. Another Council member noted that he has a very strong preference for the November election, would support either the 2007 or 2009 effective date and noted that the Council is a highly trained professional group and that providing some compensation (between $1,000 and $1,500) for all of the hours they work is reason- able. He explained that he is coming from the perspective that anyone who would run in the future would be compensated enough to do the job if they had to take one day off of their job to do it. It was surmised by one Councilmember that often wealthy people are held up as ideal candidates, which reinforces the idea that poorer citizens cannot run for office and all they are trying to do is to remove barriers for future candidates by adding a little more to the reimbursement to allow the potential for more diversity on the Council. She explained that one of the biggest obstacles to being on the Council is figuring out how to make it when you still have to rely on your own salary and also make time for Council work. Another Councilmember indicated the $500 monthly salary does not acknowledge the type of commitment that the Council has, and it is nice to be acknowledged for Special Meeting - February 28, 2006 Page 16Packet Page 170 the value Councilmembers contribute to the community and suggested that the Council appoint a citizen's committee to take a look at what the Councilmembers do in terms of time and effort. He also noted that he cannot support the June election, but with some more background, he would support it moving forward in November. One Councilmember stated that Mountain View is a different community than it was in 1984, the issues are more complex and more time is spent on regional collaborations with the Valley Transportation Authority, the water commission and other governmental entities, and with the advent of e-mail Councilmembers have much more interaction with the community. Another Councilmember explained that he could support a citizens committee reviewing this, but noted that general law cities specify the amount as $500, which is what this charter city followed, and there are a number of cities throughout the State that are paying this amount. He also strongly urged the Council to consider the time aspect, noting that it is a crucial limiting factor of serving on the Council. Several Councilmembers supported having a citizens committee look at this issue. Motion-MIS Kasperzak/Macias-Carried 5-2; Pear, Perry no-Approve, as modified, the recommendation of the Council Procedures Committee to submit a proposed Charter amendment measure for the November 7, 2006 General Election to amend the City Charter to provide for Council compensation from a new base- line amount of $1,500 per month, with automatic future adjustments to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index; establish an effective date of January I, 2009 for increased compensation for all Councilmembers if the voters approve the Charter amendment; and direct staff to bring back the appropriate resolution and other actions necessary to put this Charter measure on the November ballot. 8. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS Council approved the request of the City Attorney to refer th e of modifica- tions to the City's expense reimbursement policy for mployees and members of the City Council consistent with AB 1234. Mayor Galiotto reported on hi ndance at the 50th anniversary of the founding of Shockley Semicond aboratory. Council approved his request to direct staff to researc is involved in obtaining a State historical designation for the conductor Laboratory site. CLOSED SESSION REPORT-None. Special Meeting - February 28, 2006 Page 17Packet Page 171 ORDINANCE NO. 4-(J(, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTfCLE Xl[, RELA TING TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND THE VOLUNT ARY EXPENDITURE LIMIT PROGRAM THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DO OImAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 2.100 of the Mountain View City Code is hereby amended to read: SEe. 2.100. Purpose. This Article requires greater disclosure in local elections and is aimed at elimi- nating the possibility of corruption or the appearance of corruption; lessen the poten- tially corrupting pressures on candidates, office holders and committees for fund- raising; and to improve the disclosure of contribution sources in reasonable and effective ways and to help restore public trust in governmental electoral institutions." Section 2. Section 2.101 of the Mountain View City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: SEe. 2.101. Campaign disclosure reports. a. All candidates, office holders and committees participating in local elections for the city council that are required to file campaign disclosure reports under the Political Reform Act, Government Code 81000, et seq., shall also file said disclosure reports with the city clerk's office on the same date the filing is required by State law. Hard copies of all campaign disclosure reports shall be available for review in the city clerk's office, Monday through Friday, during regular business hours. The name of candidates and committees with a direct link to the campaign reports submitted by each candidate or committee shall be available on the city's web site within five (5) business days from the date of receipt of the reports by the city clerk. A final disclosure report shall be flled as required by Sec. 2.103(b). b. Noncandidate groups, individuals and committees which participate in the ci ty council elections and are required to file campaign disclosure forms pursuant to State law shall also file all forms required by this Article. Participation in the election shall occur on the date the noncandidate group, individual or committee accepts contri- butions, m.akes expenditures or contracts to make an expenditure in an amount(s) which requires the filing of campaign statements under State la,v." Section 3. Section 2.102 of the Mountain View City Code is hereby amended to read: SEe. 2.102. Campaign disclosure threshold. All candidates, office holders and committees participating in local elections for the city council that are required to file campaign disclosure reports under the Political Reform Act, Government Code 81000, et scq., shall disclose all contributions of one hundred dollars ($100) or more on all campaign disclosure reports filed with the city clerk." J- Exhibit 3 Packet Page 172 Section 4. Section 2.103 of the l\.1ountJin Vie,v City COOl' is hereby Jmended to reJd: SEe. 2.103. Contribution cut-off; final disclosure report. a. No candidJte, including the cJndidate's controlled conlmittee, and no committee primJrily formed to support or oppose a cJndidate or cJndidates for the city council, shall accept any contributions after 5:00 p.m. on the TuesdJY prior to the ejection. The candidate or councilmernber-elect can Jccept contributions beginning the Wednesday after the election, provided the checks are drawn and dated from thJt dJte forwmd. b. Each candidate, including the candidate's controlled committee and a committee formed primarily to support or oppose a cJndidate or cJndidJtes for the city council, shall file a final disclosure report disclosing all contributions of one hundred dollars ($100) or greater with the city clerk on or before 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday before the election. The candidate can choose to file the Mountain Vie,v cJmpJign statement form or the FPPC form for the third preelection statement JS required by this section." Section 5. Section 2.104 of the MountJin View City Code is hereby added to read: SEe. 2.104. Voluntary expenditun~ limit. a. Purpose. In the year 2000, the city council adopted a voluntary expenditure limit (VEL) believing that if candidates knew that other candidates were willing to limit their expenditures, it may attract addi tional qualified candidates and allow all candi- dates and officeholders to spend a lesser proportion of their time on fund-raising and J greater proportion of their time communicating issues of importance to voters and constituents. In that action, adopted by resolution, the council set a voluntary expen- diture limit in the year 2000 of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000). This expenditure limit is indexed to keep pace with changes in the cost of living and running campaigns. b. The voluntary expenditure limit is established in year 2000 at fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) and shall be increased at the rate of three percent (30'{)) per year to keep pace with the changes in the cost of living and conducting a campaign (the adjusted VEL). Each candidate for office, at the time of filing his/her nomination papers with the city clerk, shall be advised by the City Clerk of the applicable VEL for that year and file a statement of acceptance or rejection of the voluntary expenditure limit ceiling. c. No candida te for the city's elective office who accepts the voluntary expendi- ture limit, and no controlled campaign committee of such candidate shall make campaign expenditures in excess of the voluntary expenditure limit established in this section. d. The following sh811 not count toward the VEL: i) Cost of the candidate statement, whether paid by the candidate or the city. ii) Contributions returned by the candidate within thirty (30) days of receipt. e. The city clerk shall mJintain JppropriJte records of expenditures which shall be Clv,lilable for inspection in the city clerk's office during regular business hours." 2-Packet Page 173 ti"un 6" Section 2"105 of the Iv!ounldin Vic\v Cily Cl1dc is hcrc!J\" 'lddccl ll1 rC'lcl" SEe. 2.105. Public subsidy of cost of campaign statements" a. As part of the city elective process, candidates have the opportunity tu publish a 200-word statement in the voter pamphlet published by the county registrar of voters" The cost of publishing that statement for each candidate has risen dramati- G1lly over the last number of years in order to enable the registrar to publish the pamphlet in the languages that are spoken by significant portions of the voters in the county. b. The city has adopted a program whereby a candidate who, at the time of filing nomination papers, elects to be bound by the voluntary expenditure limit, is eligible for the city to pay a portion of their cost of a candidate's statement, should they elect to prepare and submit one. Upon the candidate paying five hundred dollars 500) toward the statement, at the time of filing nomination papers, the city will COVer the cost of the balance of the 200-word statement. c. In each election cycle, the furnishing of this program by the city is contingent upon a budget appropriation made as part of the election year budget process. The city clerk is required to advise candidates whether or not the program is available at the time they pull their nomination papers and whether the program is available in whole or in part. As part of the budget process, the council shall direct the city clerk relative to the level of support that will be offered, up to the maximum of the entire cost of the candidate's 200-word statement, minus five hundred dollars ($500)." Section 7. Section 2.105 of the Mountain View City Code is hereby added to reC1d: SEe. 2.106. Penalties/reimbursement. a. Any violation of the voluntary expenditure limit shall, within seventy-two 72) hours of the city's knowledge of the violation, be: L Forwarded to a newspaper of generC1l circulation for publication; 2. Posted on the city's web site; and 3" Posted at C1 reasonC1bly accessible location at City Hall. b. If the city contributed public funds to offset the costs of a candidC1te's candi- date statement fee or the cC1ndidC1te violates the voluntary expenditure limit which they previously elected, the candidate or councilmember-elect shall repay to the city the entire city contribution as required by this section" L Partial repayment. If a candidate exceeds the voluntary expenditure limit by no more than five hundred dollC1rs ($500), the cC1ndidate shall repay to the city twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount the city paid toward the candidate statement fee. 2. Full repayment. If the candidate exceeds the voluntC1ry expenditure limit by more than five hundred dollars ($500), the candidate shall repay to the city the entire amount of the city contribution. c. In all cases where the candidate has accepted a partial city contribution to the cost of the candidate statement fee, it is up to the C1pplicantto determine cumpliC1nce WIth this section, and if repayment is required by this section, the repayment is due and payable to the city within thirty (30) days of the expenditure that placed the candidate Over the voluntary expenditure limit The obligation to repay is not contingent on the receipt of an invoice frollllhe city. Fur edeh month the G1l1diddle remains dcljl1(llll~nlll1 Packet Page 174 the repayment pZlst the iniliZlI thirty (30) dZlY period, interest ShZll1 ,lCcrut' on ,111\ delinquency at the r,lte of ten percent (1 per annul1l. d. Methods of collection. In addition tl) all other remedies available luthe cit\ ilt law, the city auditor is directed to deduct any delinquent amounls on al1lonth-to- month basis until paid in full from any councillllelllber-elect's city paycheck until the delinquency is paid in full. In the event of an unsLlccessful candidate, the city clerk is directed not to accept nomination papers for a future election until any delinquency from a prior election is paid in full, including interest." Seclion 8. Section 2.107 is hereby added to read as follows: SEe. 2.107. Implementation. The city council by resolution may adopt guidelines or take other actions to implement the provision of this Article, including, but not limited to, varia lions to the length of the candidate statement, the amount and/or terms of the subsidy. The city clerk may promulgate written guidelines, interpretations ,md regulations implementing this Article." Section 9. This ordinance incorporates the provisions of Resolution No. 16465. Therefore, the adoption of this ordinance rescinds said resolution. Section 10. The provisions of this ordin,mce shall be effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption. Section 11. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutionaL such decision shall not affect the validity of the other remaining portions of this ordinance. The Ci ty Council hereby declares tha t it would have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 12. Pursuant to Section 522 of the Mountain View City Charter, it is ordered that copies of the foregoing proposed ordinance be posted at least two (2) days prior to its adoption in three (3) prominent places in the City and that a single publica- liun be made to the official newspaper of the City of a nutice setting forth the title of the urdinance, the date of its introduction, and a list of the places where copies of the proposed ordinance are posted. Packet Page 175 11(' lil\c~ "rdil1<llK(' \\<1,<' rq~\Ij,lI'lv 111Irll(11I(~l'd ,11Ih(' ,\I('('lil1t~ llf I Ill' il\ (lllllKil "I I Ill' ('ill (ll t,l"Ulll,lil1 Vi,,\'.', du!\'Ill'ld (ll1lhe 11th d,11 01 !\f)ril, ::'1 Ii Ih, md ih,'rl"iftcr ')ll()f'lni ,11 I Ill' ,"!'('Ci,ll \kl'llllg (If c;,Hd ('''ullci!, dul, held \111 lht' ::'''lh l1c1\ 01 L ::'lJOh, bv the IClll"willg I'"l! Celli \(lle: A YL'e,Coullcilmemberc; iVlacielC;, rvlealls, Nedv, PeeH, Perr\' ,md lv1a\'or C,llioll() N(WS NOllc i\!lSE\JT C\llll1cilml'mLll'r K,l,c;peI7dk NUT V() liNe N"I1l' ATITST:I)PROVED: 1'>>\;' \ 'JfltM~~J~ NICK CALIOTTO tvl;\ YOR NCEIIT/\ tv!. SALV;\I)OR CITY ('U;I<.J( I d,) hl'rl'by CL'I"liry lhJt the furl:'goint~ ordil1l1nCL' \\',1-> t'<\:-i:-;l'd .llld (ld(J~!kd by tht:, City' CnLlllcil nt" the Cit), \il t\hl1_lnt~lin ViL'\\' ell till' \:ft-'ding hl'ld on tIll' 2,::'th d,lY of /\J.-lI"iL 200(J, lhl.~ [orl'going Vllk, ~lnd '.\',1.... Pllblishl'd in thl' :::;1/11 Jo~l' Fd'(Ortl by rt'fl~n'I\Cl' un lllL' 21st d,lY of 2006 .me! FlllStcd in lhn'l' !-)!'umilll'Jll pL.1ces in ('ity-. 11._ J '..~LA ~-s: CllV Clerk Clly nf 1\.hlunt"il1 \'iv\\ tvI[)f'vl/0/0RD 114-04-1 I -06u ^ Packet Page 176 Council Compensation Committee Agenda Report Meeting Date: October 29, 2019 Item Number: 5 DATE: October 22, 2019 FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: City’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual RECOMMENDATION Receive and file presentation on the City of San Luis Obispo’s Public Engagement and Noticing Manual. DISCUSSION The City of San Luis Obispo adopted its first Public Engagement and Noticing Manual in November 2015 and serves as a guide for all City Departments in how to engage with our community. The manual is based on the International Association of Public Participation’s (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Engagement which illustrates that there cannot be a one size fits all approach to engaging the public. The manual is used by first identifying the communications objective as either informing, consulting or collaborating. Informing is typically one-way communication and outreach to the public to provide project and information to increase awareness and/or understanding of problems, alternatives and solutions. Consulting focuses on getting ideas on a finite number of options or limited time discussion. This would include taking public feedback on a project or other issue proposal. Collaborating involves and interactive process that incorporates recommendations as much as possible. This typically involves partnering with the public to develop alternatives and identify preferred solutions and may be open ended. Packet Page 177 Agenda Item #4 – Public Engagement Manual October 29, 2019 Page 2 Once a communication objective is determined the manual provides a list of both required and recommended outreach tools to be used in the engagement process. Packet Page 178 Agenda Item #4 – Public Engagement Manual October 29, 2019 Page 3 This allows for a consistent approach across all City departments and sets expectations with the community about the level of public engagement on a particular topic or issue. Packet Page 179 10‐29‐2019 Item 2 ‐ Staff Presentation 1 Committee Goals and Objectives Is there satisfaction with the number and diversity: Of potential candidates, Quality of the candidates Likelihood that candidates will run for multiple terms Would a change in compensation help address Item 1 and if so, is it a change: In salary The cost of health insurance Retirement benefits Reimbursement of expenses What motivates candidates to run for Council? Would that motivation change with a change in compensation? 1 2 10‐29‐2019 Item 2 ‐ Staff Presentation 2 Recommendation Discuss and determine goals and objectives of the Committee. Provide direction on information staff should prepare/research for next meeting. 3 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 1 Council Compensation Committee October 29, 2019 Public Engagement and Noticing Manual 1 2 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 2 Recommendation Receive and file presentation on the City of San Luis Obispo Public Engagement and Noticing Manual 3 4 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 3 5 6 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 4 Recommendation Receive and file presentation on the City of San Luis Obispo Public Engagement and Noticing Manual Summary of Approaches to Council Compensation 7 8 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 5 Recommendation Receive and file report regarding other approaches to Council Compensation. ICMA Demographics Summary 9 10 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 6 ICMA Demographics Summary City of Santa Barbara One-person median income within Santa Barbara County as determined by US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Council Member 80% of median Mayor 100% of median Adjusted annually based on changes in median income. 11 12 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 7 City of Goleta Single household median income of the City of Goleta published by the US Census Bureau. Council Member 75% of median Mayor 90% of median Adjusted annually based on Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers for Los Angeles-Long Beach- Anaheim. City of Stockton Reviewed: Salary and survey data from cities in California with similar population size, CPI historical data, job duties and descriptions relevant to Mayor and Council prepared by HR staff, Data and information prepared by individual Commissioners, Comments provided by the public at the meetings, and Survey and compensation data compiled by the Mayor. Council Member - $26,694 Mayor - $72,384 13 14 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 8 Stipend City of Berkeley Set at $1800 for Council Member and $2850 for Mayor in 1998. Adjusted upward by cost of living for San Francisco Bay area as verified by US economic reports. City of Mountain View Set at $1500 per month in 2006 Mayor receives 25% more Automatic adjustments to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index. Compensation Options Stipend Continue SLO past practice Set a new base Annual increases-based on CPI, cost of living or 5% allowed in the Government Code for General Law cities. Salary Percentage of Median Income or US Census data Salary set based on other factors Annual increases based on CPI or cost of living 15 16 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 9 Recommendation Receive and file report regarding other approaches to Council Compensation . Committee Goals and Objectives 17 18 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 10 Recommendation Discuss and determine goals and objectives of the Committee. Is there satisfaction with the number and diversity: Of potential candidates, Quality of the candidates Likelihood that candidates will run for multiple terms Would a change in compensation help address Item 1 and if so, is it a change: In salary The cost of health insurance Retirement benefits Reimbursement of expenses What motivates candidates to run for Council? Would that motivation change with a change in compensation? 19 20 10‐29‐2019 Item 3 Staff Presentation 11 Recommendation Discuss and determine goals and objectives of the Committee. Comparison Agencies City of Davis City of Monterey City of Napa City of Paso Robles City of Santa Barbara City of Santa Cruz City of Santa Maria City of Ventura Council Only City of Chico Employees Only City of Clovis County of SLO City of Petaluma City of Santa Monica 21 22