Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fox Canyon GMA directs staff to return with proposal on limited director compensation
Summary
The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency asked staff and counsel to prepare a memo and presentation on whether to authorize modest compensation for board directors under Water Code rules; the board did not set rates or adopt a policy and only requested more information.
The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency on June 13 directed staff and agency counsel to prepare a memorandum and presentation on whether the agency may adopt a limited compensation program for directors and, if so, how it should be structured.
Board members said the request is intended as a preliminary step to see whether modest per‑meeting pay or a capped monthly allowance would be legally permissible and administratively workable. Staff and counsel were asked to return with specific legal citations, draft ordinance language or policy options, and possible caps tied to the Water Code.
Why it matters: board members said the workload and time commitment for the agency’s regulatory, quasi‑judicial and administrative business has grown and that compensation could help offset costs for members who must travel or miss work. Staff noted the agency has collected fees from groundwater users and that local practice among comparable regional bodies varies.
Board context and next steps: the board did not set rates, adopt a compensation ordinance or take a final vote. Instead the motion asked staff and counsel to return with a formal memo and presentation that would identify statutory authority, draft language options, and potential fiscal or stakeholder impacts. The staff memo should identify whether the agency is covered by relevant provisions of state water law cited during the discussion.
Public comment: an alternate city council member who identified himself as an alternate for a city (spoke during public comment) supported exploring compensation, saying compensation can broaden who is able to serve. No formal objections were recorded during the board vote to send the issue to staff for study.
What the board did not do: the board expressly did not adopt any compensation level, nor did it direct staff to implement a program. The item was a direction to return with options and legal analysis at a future meeting.
Clarifying details: staff said the agency’s special act does not explicitly authorize or prohibit director compensation and cited state Water Code provisions the board asked counsel to evaluate further.
