Supervisors approve new pay formula tying future raises to judges’ salaries; board votes 3–1–1 to adopt changes

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 3–1–1 Wednesday to adopt a new compensation structure for elected county officials and some elected department heads, setting a supervisor’s base pay at 70% of the California superior court judge salary and adjusting attorney ranges to improve parity.

Human Resources Director Christy Schmidt told the board the action is the final phase in a multi‑year review of management classifications and pay that began with an extensive market study and classification rewrite across appointed management. Schmidt said the county used a coastal‑county labor market (Marin, Monterey, Orange, San Luis Obispo, San Diego, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and Ventura) to set the market median for comparable positions. After discussing compaction, market parity for top attorneys and internal alignment, staff recommended new ranges with the top of each elected department head range set near the market median; staff proposed setting supervisors’ pay at 70% of a superior court judge salary and indexing that amount annually.

Schmidt said implementing the recommendation immediately would be administratively straightforward and within funds previously set aside to address countywide management pay issues. The fiscal staff estimated the pro‑rata cost to implement the elected‑official increases in the current fiscal year at roughly $101,000 and an annualized cost of about $629,000; a modest additional cost was estimated for attorney range adjustments.

The board debated both the substance — whether supervisors should be compensated at the proposed level — and the process. Several speakers at public comment urged either that supervisors’ pay remain low to emphasize public service, or that higher pay is needed to attract qualified candidates and to reflect the full‑time nature of the job. Labor representatives asked the board to prioritize low‑paid frontline county employees when correcting market inequities. Supervisors themselves described the job as a full‑time responsibility requiring frequent after‑hours work, committee service and emergency response duties.

In the final roll call, Supervisor Lee abstained; Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Lavinino voted yes; Supervisor Nelson voted no; and Chair Laura Capps voted yes. County Counsel and staff explained the technical approach — tying future supervisor increases to a judicial salary index — is intended to reduce perceptions that supervisors vote to set their own pay going forward.

Ending: The ordinance change was adopted by the 3–1–1 vote; supervisors’ new salary ranges will be implemented May 12, 2025, with annual adjustments thereafter tied to the state judge salary index, bringing the position closer to regional comparators and indexing future increases to an external benchmark.