LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — The Board of Supervisors is poised to give its members one of the largest raises in its history after voting to take the next steps to increase its pay during its meeting on Tuesday.
With Supervisor Moke Simon absent, the board voted 4-0 to direct staff to come back with a draft ordinance no later than Jan. 23, after property taxes have been determined for the coming year, to put the 38.8% raise into effect.
Staff proposed, and the board accepted, tying the board’s pay rate to those of Superior Court judges.
Under the planned action, the board would get 38.6% of the salaries of Superior Court judges, which as of July 1 totaled $229,125 annually.
That action would increase annual pay for a supervisor from a base pay of $63,714 — with an additional $2,400 for the chair — to $88,483.20 annually, a 38.8%-percent increase from the current salary level, with the chair to receive an additional 5%, or $4,472.
The 2020 American Community Survey showed that Lake County’s median income is $49,254 and mean income is $72,862, with median family income of $65,410.
The raise means board members would rise from a pay level into which 16.6% of residents fall to one that covers 11% of county residents.
Newest Supervisor Michael Green, sworn in last week after being appointed to fill the District 4 seat by Gov. Gavin Newsom, encouraged approval.
“I’m going to support this and we’re going to find the money to pay for it and we have a big ol’ budget and I acknowledge there may be some challenges in finding the sustainability but I have every confidence the staff will get us there,” Green said.
While tying the salaries to Superior Court judges is meant to “mitigate the appearance of a conflict of your Board approving raises for themselves,” according to County Administrative Officer Susan Parker’s written report, supervisors acknowledged that the fact remains that they are approving the mechanism and so are still responsible for setting their own pay.
If approved early in 2023, this will be the latest batch of raises the supervisors have given out during the pandemic. So far, the board has given out $21 million in raises since the fall of 2021, justifying them with the 2019 classification and compensation study.
Parker’s report to the board said the raises will increase payroll expenses by $125,918 a year, increasing total supervisorial salary costs from $323,832 to $449,750 annually.
However, that number did not include benefits. It was not until Tuesday’s meeting that Assistant County Administrative Officer Stephen Carter reported that the total cost for the increase, with benefits, would be $165,000 annually.
Carter said the increase would be covered by ongoing county revenue streams with overages, citing among them property tax. Savings from the county’s continued high number of vacancies is another funding source.
Supervisor Jessica Pyska said it was “obviously” an uncomfortable conversation, but giving the raise is, in her view, important to the health of the county and the board itself.
She said it will encourage qualified people to step up and take the jobs, pointing to the uncontested reelections this year of board members EJ Crandell and Bruno Sabatier.
Pyska also said it was difficult to fill the District 4 seat that Green now occupies.
Green echoed Pyska’s comments, acknowledging it did look awkward but again pointing to the concerns about the current pay rate, explaining that he had to consider the pay when deciding to pursue the appointment. “I’m all in on this.”
During public comment, several speakers weighed in, some saying the raise was necessary, others also asking for additional transparency about what board members do and how much time they spend doing it. One speaker said the board has executive-level positions, and executives don’t make less than $100,000 annually.
Staff did not answer a question posed by Lake County News about when was the last time the board received such a large raise.
Instead, Human Resources Director Pam Samac said the supervisors last received a raise in 2015, when all staff received a 3% cost of living adjustment.
Lake County News also asked why Pyska said the District 4 seat was hard to fill when, at that point, this reporter knew of three individuals — including Green — who had applied. However, only Green was acknowledged and interviewed by the Governor’s Office.
Pyska said she hadn’t known about the other two and that there had been a “significant amount of time” when only one person had applied for the seat.
Later in the meeting, Pyska’s campaign manager, Gillian Parrillo, weighed in via Zoom to double down on the claim that the seat was hard to fill, saying one of the applicants had not been in the district. She also raised the issue with whether 38% of a Superior Court judge’s pay was a high enough pay range for the supervisors.
Since the Tuesday meeting, Lake County News has confirmed there was a fourth individual who had wanted to pursue the District 4 seat, but was outside of the district boundaries.
Board members agreed to Pyska’s suggestion that county staff add language to the proposed ordinance to raise pay supervisorial to state that supervisors’ jobs are full-time, meaning, they are trading “part-time” pay of $63,714 to go to full time at $88,483.20.
Sabatier, who wanted to wait until the midyear budget review early next year to make a final decision on the pay increases, said he also wanted to have a future conversation about expectations for supervisors performance.
He pointed out that state law covers the job descriptions, however, a review of state Government Code shows that such job descriptions give few qualifications for supervisors beyond being a registered voter and living in their specific district.
County Counsel Anita Grant said the board has existing policies, procedures and conduct requirements for its members that can be augmented if the supervisors wish.
After several minutes of trying to come up with a motion, Green, with Grant’s help, moved to have staff bring back an ordinance with the new pay amounts no later than Jan. 23, which should give staff time to look at the final property tax roll for the next year. Sabatier seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
At Grant’s suggestion, the board also directed staff to come back with “a vehicle” for the supervisors to develop more fully the obligations, functions and duties of board members.
Grant said the proposed ordinance will require two readings and won’t go into effect until 60 days after the approval of the second reading.
Comparisons with neighboring counties
To put Lake’s current and proposed supervisorial salaries in context, the following is a list of the pay ranges for the boards of supervisors of Lake and neighboring counties, as well as those counties’ current populations, as reported to the State Controller’s Office through its Government Compensation in California website:
• Colusa County, population 21,807: $74,746 to $83,060.
• Glenn County, population 28,750: $40,526 to $41,887.
• Lake County, population 67,407: $65,738 to $69,796.
• Mendocino County, population 89,999: $92,996 to $102,107.
• Napa County, population 136,179: $107,456 to $111,255.
• Sonoma County, population 482,404: $174,472 to $185,069.
• Yolo County, population 221,165: $104,556 to $108,834.
The state’s lowest pay rate for supervisors is in Modoc County, population 8,690, where the range is from $19,705 to $23,905.
The highest pay rate in the state is for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, with a pay range of $259,794 to $272,832. Los Angeles County’s population is 9,861,224.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Board of Supervisors approves moving forward on 38% raise for members
- Elizabeth Larson