By Jon Chown
SANTA CRUZ — The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday tabled a discussion on changing how supervisors’ salaries are determined, delaying consideration of possible pay raises until January. Even then, it sounded like the issue would be dead on arrival.
The supervisors’ salaries are currently linked to the compensation of California Superior Court judges. They are currently paid 62% of what the judges earn. County staff had recommended ending the link. The item followed an Aug. 11 discussion in which supervisors directed Human Resources Director Ajita Patel to return with an updated salary recommendation.
The supervisors currently earn $151,730.80 annually, plus benefits, with a $1,200 bonus to the board chair. Staff said tying supervisors’ salaries to judicial pay provides an objective benchmark, but does not account for local factors commonly used to determine compensation for county employees. Those factors include salaries in comparable counties, inflation, employee compensation trends and internal pay alignment.
A county analysis found that Santa Cruz County supervisors’ current compensation is about 12% below the market level. The study compared monthly salaries and county contributions toward benefits in Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma counties.
Staff presented supervisors with several options if they chose to end the connection to judicial salaries. The board could leave salaries unchanged; approve the same three-year cost-of-living increases granted to county labor groups; or combine those raises with a 4% equity adjustment spread over the first two years. Supervisors also could have selected different adjustment percentages.
The board did not select any of the proposed approaches before tabling the matter. Public sentiment had been overwhelmingly negative.
“I urge you to continue this linkage because it … shows you are not voting on your own salary and I think that means a lot to people,” said local resident Becky Steinbruner.
Justin Cummings said he brought the item forward because he believed the supervisors’ salaries didn’t “reflect our reality of what we’re facing today. The fact that we live in the most expensive rental market in the United States,” he said. “My intent was to see if we could have a different process that would allow for our salaries to be reflective of the reality we face living here in the community.”
Cummings said he understood the timing wasn’t great and he needed to reflect on what members of the community were telling him about it. “My motion is going to be that we continue this item to the second meeting in January so that the new board can have an opportunity to weigh in on this in the new year.”
Cummings clearly is seeking a raise, but his fellow supervisors showed no interest.
Supervisor Felipe Hernandez, who lost his bid for reelection, said Cummings “hit the nail right on the head,” by noting the bad timing and didn’t support removing the link. Supervisor Manu Koenig said he didn’t think raising the supervisors salaries was a good idea, nor did he want to see it back on the agenda in January. Supervisor Kim De Serpa agreed and said she felt the pay was adequate.
“This is not a money-making situation,” she said.