The Placer County Charter Review Committee on Dec. 8 recommended the Board of Supervisors revise how the county sets supervisors’ pay, endorsing a new formula that ties salary to a percentage of superior court judges' pay.

Ben Mills, a staff member in the county executive office, opened the agenda item on compensation by explaining the current charter formula ties supervisors’ pay to an average of three counties and that staff had prepared comparative analyses of nine jurisdictions. ‘‘The comparative data and the salary setting methods for those counties can be found on page 3, table 1,’’ Mills said while asking the committee whether it wanted to revise the formula or leave it as is.

Joe Ambrose, the county HR director, told the committee the county does not generally tie employee pay increases to the consumer price index and that alternate approaches such as CPI are options but not current practice. ‘‘CPI may be brought up as a topic or as a negotiating tactic, but we don't ultimately agree to what we call general wage increases or GWIs,’’ Ambrose said.

Committee members debated replacing the existing multi‑county formula with a single, simpler benchmark: a fixed percentage of superior court judge pay. Suggested percentages ranged from roughly 50% to as high as 67% of a judge's salary. Concerns centered on optics for voters, the size of any immediate increase, the value of the supervisors’ benefit package (staff cited an approximately $77,000 package), and whether to phase any change in over time.

After discussion, Speaker 10 moved that the committee ‘‘recommend to the Board of Supervisors to change the Board of Supervisors compensation formula to reflect an annual salary of 55% of a superior court judge's salary, except, however, no annual pay raise will exceed 10% in any given year, and that effective date and other details specific to HR will be determined by HR before the proposal goes to the Board of Supervisors.’’ Ben Mills read the proposed language back to the group for clarity.

The committee conducted a roll‑call vote and the motion passed. The committee asked HR to return implementation details (including the date and mechanics used to compute judge pay) before the item is presented to the Board.

What happens next: the committee will forward the recommendation and draft language to the Board of Supervisors. If the Board approves placing the change on a ballot, voters would decide whether to amend the charter. The committee and HR flagged additional implementation questions — including a clear effective date and how judge pay will be measured — that staff will prepare before a Board presentation.