Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charter committee to revisit Placer supervisor-pay formula; asks staff for alternate methodologies
Summary
The Placer County Charter Review Committee debated whether to keep the current three-county averaging method for supervisor pay or return control to local voters. The panel voted to close the general compensation-item for further charter amendments but asked staff to return with alternative methodologies for consideration.
The Placer County Charter Review Committee spent a substantial portion of its Sept. 29 meeting debating how the county's Board of Supervisors should be paid and whether Placer voters should decide the method.
Under the county's charter, supervisor base salary is set by averaging the annual pay of supervisors in El Dorado, Nevada and Sacramento counties. Several committee members and members of the public raised concerns about that formula after news reporting and a Sacramento grand-jury review found transparency problems in Sacramento's recent pay-setting process.
Committee members were split on next steps. A number of members said they preferred to preserve a mechanism that produces salaries competitive with neighboring counties; others said the current linkage to three counties meant Placer was exposed to policy errors and public-relations problems from elsewhere. Some members suggested switching to broader market comparisons — the same total-compensation approach the county uses for most employees — or to a judged-linked method like Sacramento's (a percentage of judicial compensation).
Actions and staff follow-up: The committee took two recorded actions. First, it voted to move the general question of "returning control" to Placer voters (item 2.b) off the list of items to pursue in the charter at this time (roll-call result recorded). Second, the group voted to continue the compensation-methodology discussion and asked staff to return with specific, alternative proposals (a menu of options such as CPI-indexing, judge-salary percentage, or a broader-market total compensation study).
Why it matters: Supervisor compensation influences who can afford to run and serve. Committee members noted that low pay discourages candidates who cannot maintain private employment while serving, and they highlighted that total compensation (salary plus benefits) can vary substantially across counties.
What staff and HR said: Ben Mills (County Executive Office) and Joe Ambrosini (HR director) explained the county's current practice: HR runs compensation surveys of comparable agencies and administers benefits that generally rank Placer in the higher tier for benefits while base pay typically lies in the mid-range. Nicole Howard, assistant auditor-controller, said her office verifies the annual calculation that implements the charter formula.
Next steps: The committee asked staff to prepare several methodology scenarios and relevant comparisons (sample counties, judge-salary percentage option, CPI alternatives, total-compensation approach) and return for the next meeting.
