The City Council is following an opaque and ambiguous process with this issue.  The Council is apparently updating the city ordinance related to council compensation and resolutions on city council benefits as two separate actions.   Residents assumed it was one process.  Ambiguous processes are a concern because they are typically intended to give constituents perfunctory input while meeting the letter of the law.

 

During the September 19th council meeting discussion, councilmembers gave numerous reasons for increasing council compensation that ranged from it had been 30 years since their “salary” was increased; previous councils reduced and/or eliminated benefits; a desire to help young people run for office who do not have the money and/or time wealthy residents and retirees have; a desire to encourage the underemployed and renters run for office; a desire to network with colleagues in other cities, a desire to lobby Sacramento and Washington, DC., a desire to attend conferences, to travel, to support future councils, etc. 

 

None of the "salary" and benefit options presented include a financial analysis that evaluates  “both the short‑term and long‑term financial implications of significant spending decisions” as recommended by the State Auditor and residents expect. Critical estimates such as annual council compensation and cost of various benefits are misleading , grossly under estimated, non-existent, and/or show a one-year expenditure estimate of the impact to the general fund. 

 

At the November 7th meeting, residents expressed concern over compensation increases, the under estimating, and that the item was one the consent calendar.   No councilmember responded to resident concerns.