|
| Compensation of City Council members is a fascinating topic.
Most cities in California are “General Law” cities with governing structures set by state law that specifies five council members, a rotating mayor, and a city manager that actually runs the city.
The maximum compensation for general law city council members is based on the city's population. The amount is set by state law and approved by the city council through an ordinance.
Salary amounts
- Cities up to 35,000: Up to $950 per month
- Cities over 35,000 to 50,000: Up to $1,275 per month
- Cities over 50,000 to 75,000: Up to $1,600 per month
- Cities over 75,000 to 150,000: Up to $1,900 per month
- Cities over 150,000 to 250,000: Up to $2,550 per month
- Cities over 250,000: Up to $3,200 per month
If Richmond were a general law city, maximum councilmember compensation would be $22,800 annually.
Although the amounts listed are maximums, most cities actually pay far less. The following increases are allowed once a city council adopts a salary, which cannot exceed the maximum:
- State law allows for annual increases of up to 5%
- Increases can be made by ordinance or amendment to an ordinance
- Increases can be considered during the biennial budget cycle
Many medium and larger size cities, such as Richmond, have either started or have, sometime in the past, become Charter Cities, which frees them from some of the restrictions imposed by state law on General Law Cities. Richmond is a charter city.
Except for a few really large cities, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, even Fresno, that pay city council members well over $100,000 annually, Charter City councilmember pay has historically been modest.
The reason for this was that, traditionally, being a city council member of other than a large city has been perceived not as a job, certainly not a full-time job, but as public service – essentially a volunteer position not dissimilar to serving without pay, on the board of a nonprofit charitable corporation. Except for large cities, the mayor does not typically run a California city; that is done by a city manager who gets paid well for it, typically in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Richmond is no exception. In 2023, the Richmond city manager had an annual salary plus benefits of $461,660 (Transparent California).
Typical of many cities back in the day, Richmond’s City Council was made up of people (mostly men) eight of whom had full-time outside jobs. The City Council pay was minimal and not expected to be much. People didn’t run for office with the expectation of making a lot of money – except for a few who may have turned to graft (still going on in Oakland). In 1980, for example, Richmond’s City Council had nine members, all of whom were employed full-time, except Mayor Tom Cocoran, who was retired from Chevron. At the end of the day, a city is, among other things, a business, and having experienced city council members with business experience was, arguably, a good thing.
Figure 1 - From top left: Councilman Robert Campbell (Owner, M.A. Hays Insurance Co.), Councilman George Livingston (public relations, PG&E), Councilman Donald Wagerman (Realtor), Councilman Fritz Allen (Instructor, Contra Costa College), Councilman Donald Greco (insurance agent), Clyde Narvaez, superintendent, city building inspection services, Malcolm Hunter, city attorney, Kenneth Smith, city manager; bottom left: Councilman Lonnie Washington, Jr., (auditor, Southern Pacific Company), Mayor Thomas Corcoran (retired accountant), Standard Oil Co.), Councilman Nathaniel Bates, (senior probation officer, Alameda County), Councilman Al Silva, (Richmond District manager, pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.) Source: The Richmonder Magazine, January-February, 1980, pages 14-15
Over the years, expectations of compensation by City Council members has changed, as have their non-city employment status. They now argue that being a councilmember is a job, for which they should be adequately compensated. Most current Richmond City Council members do not have regular full-time jobs. Two are retired. Three are consultants. One is executive director of a nonprofit, and one is self-employed. Most are not forthcoming about what they do for outside income or employment or how much they make. About the only sources for that information are Forms 700 and Linked In.
- Mayor Eduardo Martinez – WCCUSD retired teacher (Also serves on West County Agency, West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority and West Contra Costa Transportation Committee). Reports no outside income
- Soheila Bana – Retired CalTrans electrical engineer and Realtor – Reports owning real estate worth between $200,00 and $2,000,000; no outside income reported.
- Claudia Jimenez – Consultant for Safe Return Project paid between $10,000 and $100,000 and a consultant for UC Berkeley earning over $100,000 – Reports owning an investment trust worth between $10,000 and $100,000 and real estate worth between $100,000 and $1,000,000, a rental unit that brings in between$1,000 and $10,000.
- Cesar Zepeda – No employer and no income shown on Form 700. Linked in shows he is “Health and Benefits Consultant at Aon.”
- Doria Robinson - Executive Director of Urban Tilth, earning over $100,000, and A Rachel’s Network Fellow, earning $10,000 to $100,000. The Urban Tilth Form 990 for 2023 shows Doria as Executive Director with compensation of $149,089.00 She owns real estate valued at between $100,000 and $1,000,000.
- Sue Wilson – Linked In shows she works at Sue Wilson Consulting. No Form 700 yet available
- Jamelia Brown – Linked in shows she works at and owns Focus Reentry Solutions.
The actual compensation of City Council members is higher than just their salary and includes various perks, travel, and health benefits. For 2023, Transparent California reports the following (not including travel expenses):
- Eduardo Martinez: $51,441.00
- Soheila Bana: $29,412.00
- Claudia Jimenez: $73,860.00
- Cesar Zepeda: $26, 873,00
- Doria Robinson: $45,066.00
- Gayle McLaughlin: $21, 270.00
- Melvin Willis: $56,258.00
Although they all receive the same base compensation, the significant differences are typically accounted for by how much city-compensated health insurance they use. Those who are retired, particularly from public agencies, have generous health benefits, so they may not use city-provided benefits.
Although not working full-time jobs, there is no evidence that current City Council members are destitute without their City Council compensation. Most appear to be doing pretty well economically, especially Claudia and Doria. The argument that potential candidates of minimal means are dissuaded from running is hard to prove and begs the question, “should substantial compensation be a motivation to serve?” Most people are dissuaded from running by the toxic nature of local politics.
The other argument given by councilmembers to support generous compensation increases is how hard they work and what a good job they do. I’m not sure many people would agree with this. Most, if not all, City Councilmembers as well as the mayor are almost impossible to contact and rarely respond. None, that I am aware of, actually report in any detail what they are doing to earn their City Council pay. Compared to previous City Council members, few serve on regional boards and commissions. Those who list a phone number typically list only an office number answered by someone else.
City Council members have their own staff support, and the mayor’s budget includes enough for three full-time support staff.
In addition to a raise, Councilmembers have reduced whatever workload they had by doubling the annual vacation time and reducing the number of City Council meetings by one-third.
So, is serving on the City Council a public service, or is it just another job? RICHMOND CITY EMPLOYEES AWARD THEMSELVES AN 80% PAY HIKE
By: Don Gosney
At the Richmond City Council meeting on Tuesday January 21st, a small group of Richmond City employees decided that the efforts they’ve put in warranted a whopping pay increase of 80%. So they took action to enhance their remuneration and unanimously voted themselves this pay hike.
This small employee group are the seven elected City Councilmembers (including the Mayor).
Most government employee groups gather information from other employee groups of similar size to see how their compensation package fits in. This City Council gathered this information and shared it in the agenda packet.
The Council trotted out this data to help justify their newfound wages.
When using such tables, it’s a common practice to exclude the high and the low figures as outliers. In this case, the wages paid to Berkeley Councilmembers must also be excluded since they are full time employees—as opposed to all of the other cities (including Richmond) which are considered part time employees.
DAY 1: GET SWORN IN
DAY 7: GIVE YOURSELF AN 80% WAGE INCREASE
Of the eight remaining cities, the average salary is $1,427.50 per month—as compared to the $1,402 paid to Richmond Councilmembers. This average is $25.50 higher than what Richmond Councilmembers were paid prior to their vote.
One of those cities included in the comparables list—Santa Rosa—has a population (178,127) 53% higher than Richmond (116,448)—yet Santa Rosa pays their Councilmembers a paltry $800 per month.
This 80% wage hike amounts to an increase of $1,122 per month.
When Council agendas are assembled, there is a list of innocuous items (such as approving minutes and approving committee appointments) placed on the Consent Calendar. These items are considered so simple and innocent that they don’t warrant discussion.
If someone wants to pull an item off of the Consent Calendar so it can be discussed, the puller must contact the sponsor of the agenda item prior to 2 PM on the day of the Council meeting to ‘ask questions’. If the puller has no questions and just wants to express concerns (or support), the City has the authority to reject the request to pull the item and silence public comment.
The agenda item that included this resolution was on the Consent Calendar for the January 7th Council meeting for a first reading before returning on the Consent Calendar on the 21st for a second reading and vote. Both times this pay increase was hidden on the Consent Calendar. When an effort was made to pull the item at the first meeting, stiff resistance was given to prevent it from being pulled.
When it was pulled, the seven member Council unanimously explained how hard working they all were and how they deserved more money for their efforts.
Speakers pointed out that usually when a wage increase is being negotiated, the party seeking the raise has to defend their work to show why they deserve more. The Council explained that because they work so hard, they deserved more money.
One speaker told of when Mayor Martinez appeared before the West County Forum a few months earlier, a questioner pointed out that with almost every elected official it seems to be nearly impossible for their constituents to reach out to speak with those elected to represent them. Emails, texts, phone calls, letters—they all seem to be ignored. Mayor Martinez was asked if he had any suggestions on how constituents might be better able to communicate with those elected to represent them. He responded saying that if we paid him more he might answer his emails. While this response may have been made in jest, the silence in the room suggested that those in attendance thought there was some truth behind the response.
With the Council speaking so vociferously about why they deserve to be the highest paid part time Councilmembers in the state, it seemed to be a forgone conclusion how they would vote when the resolution returned for a second reading. The vote was unanimous.
One meeting attendee pointed out that it wasn’t the Council that sought the raise—it was City staff. This begs the question why City staff would seek to implement such a hefty pay increase. Several of the unions that represent City workers and staff spent more than a half million dollars on Richmond elections this past November. Concerns were raised that any efforts by Staff to support this resolution might include an unstated quid pro quo for when they sought their own pay raises.
Concerns were also raised about efforts—once again sponsored by City Staff—to add an additional month of paid summer vacation and to decrease the number of monthly meetings by a third. So, the Council voted in an 80% pay increase and want to cut the number of meetings they conduct by 40%?
Who needs a union to represent you when you have the authority to set your own pay, work schedule and the amount of work you do?
As one commenter told the Council, “this doesn’t pass the smell test. Does anyone have a can of air freshener?”
Richmond elected officials defend 80% salary increase as equity issue
Council votes to give itself a significant raise
By Sierra Lopez | slopez@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
UPDATED: January 16, 2025 at 6:31 AM PST
RICHMOND — After nearly two decades of stagnant pay, Richmond councilmembers are poised to receive an 80% salary increase that elected officials say would more fairly compensate people for serving and could encourage more diverse representation.
Councilmembers voted in favor of raising their monthly compensation from $1,402 to $2,524 and the mayor’s monthly compensation from $3,875 to $6,975 during a Jan. 7 meeting. After accounting for a $300 auto allowance for councilmembers and a $350 allowance for the mayor, their monthly pay would actually total out to $2,824 per councilmember and $7,325 for the mayor.
The pay increase, if approved on second reading, would be the first for the council since 2007, costing the city an additional $117,984 annually and equating to a 5% raise annually over the last 18 years. Councilmembers can also opt into the city’s insurance coverage.
The raise would solidify Richmond as the top paying city for elected officials in Contra Costa County, according to a compensation survey presented by city staff.
Antioch councilmembers are the next highest paid with $1,600 a month followed by Concord with $1,352 a month. In San Ramon, councilmembers get $1,149 a month and the mayor receives $1,685. Walnut Creek offers a monthly pay of $1,150 for councilmembers and $1,250 for the mayor.
More broadly speaking, Richmond would be the second highest paying city of similar size in the East Bay, following Berkeley which pays councilmembers $5,633 and the mayor $8,941 per month for filling the roles full time. Richmond City Council positions are considered part-time roles.
Councilmembers justified the salary increases as an equity move. People from diverse backgrounds — working moms, low-income earners and part-time workers — may consider seeking the roles if it meant they could cut back on work in other places to make time for the job.
They also asserted that council positions are extremely time consuming, demanding far more work than is publicly visible. In addition to attending council meetings twice a month, which often run late and require preparation, and drafting policies, councilmembers noted they also sit on multiple regional and local bodies, attend community events and are often expected to be reachable outside of standard business hours.
“If you want to have people to represent you that look like the majority of people here, and have equity, we need to be able to have at least some better income,” said Vice Mayor Jimenez, who asserted the elected roles should be paid and treated like full-time positions. “If we want people who are connected to the community, who understand the needs that the community needs and deserve, then let’s make sure these people are paid well so they can be here and do their job and be successful.”
Still, the proposed raises were met with some community pushback.
Don Gosney, a Richmond resident, retired union leader and community blogger behind the publication Radio Free Richmond, lambasted the council for being both the employee group seeking the pay increase and the decision makers granting it.
Gosney also questioned whether the council deserved the pay increases, asserting that they are often challenging to reach by email or phone.
“How can you claim to speak for the people when you rarely speak to the people,” Gosney said during public comment.
The city charter permits the Richmond City Council to give the mayor a pay increase and prohibits the mayor from voting in that decision. Per Ordinance 388, however, the council is allowed to vote on compensation for itself.
At least one councilmember, Cesar Zepeda, expressed discomfort with the optics of the vote but he backed the measure after raising similar points about equity and council workloads.
Both Zepeda and Councilmember Soheila Bana said neither of them needed the pay, with Bana noting she and her husband are both retired with pensions.
Had she joined the council decades ago when she was a working mother, her needs may have been different, Bana said during the meeting.
Bana did not respond to requests for comment regarding whether she’d forego receiving council pay.
Rather than pass on the money, Zepeda, in an interview after the meeting, said he has and plans to continue reinvesting the pay back into the community through various volunteer projects like painting over graffiti, buying equipment needed for clearing weeds in his district, purchasing food and other essentials for community meetings, donating to local groups and individuals and supporting small businesses.
Similarly, incoming councilmembers Jamelia Brown and Sue Wilson said they would have voted in favor of the proposal as an equity issue. Brown said she was unaware councilmembers were paid at all when running for the position but also expects her council salary to be invested back into the community.
Like other councilmembers, both Brown and Wilson also argued the increased monthly pay is far below what a Richmond resident would need to support a family.
Median income per Richmond household is about $90,000, according to the U.S. Census, while the county median income is $155,700, according to updated state income limits.
“Anyone who takes on one of these positions will really struggle if they need to have a full-time job on top of that,” Wilson said. “In order to not move significantly backwards, it’s necessary for them to be paid a reasonable amount for the time spent doing city council stuff.”
Originally Published: January 16, 2025 at 6:15 AM PST
|
