Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS AGENDA
Lower Level Council Chambers – 57 East First Street Monday, January 11, 2016 – 11:00 A.M.
Compensation Commission:
Claudia Walters – Chair
Bryan Raines – Vice Chair Pete Lesar
Gary Levine Anne McCawley
Citizen Participation
All citizens are permitted and encouraged to speak on agenda items. If you wish to speak to the Commission on any item on the agenda, please fill out a "Notice" slip with your name and the item number about which you wish to speak. Hand this to a staff person or take it to the front table. The Chairperson will call upon you in turn. 1. Approval of the minutes of the Independent Commission on Compensation for
Elected Officials meeting held on November 17, 2015.
2. Discuss and consider authorizing Chairman Walters to review and approve the minutes from today’s meeting and forward to the City Council for acknowledgement.
3. Discuss and take action on the Report and Recommendations to the Mayor and
City Council regarding the compensation for Mesa’s elected officials.
4. Items from citizens present. The City of Mesa is committed to making its public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. For special accommodations, please contact the City Manager's Office at (480) 644-3333 or AZRelay 7-1-1 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Si necesita asistencia o traducción en español, favor de llamar al menos 48 horas antes de la reunión al 480-644-2767.
Agenda Item 1
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
MINUTES
November 17, 2015 The Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials met in the lower level meeting room of the Council Chambers, 57 East 1st Street, on November 17, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
Claudia Walters, Chairperson None John Pombier Pete Lesar Alfred Smith Gary Levine Dee Ann Mickelsen Anne McCawley Bryan Raines
Chairperson Walters stated that if there were any citizens in the audience who wished to address the Commission, she would encourage them to fill out a speaker card and hand it to a staff member, who will forward it on to her.
1. Approval of the minutes of the Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials
meeting held on November 3, 2015. It was moved by Commission Member Lesar, seconded by Commission Member Levine, that
the minutes from the November 3, 2015 meeting be approved. Carried unanimously. 2. Hear a presentation and discuss updated compensation data collected for elected officials of
similarly situated municipalities, by City staff. Senior Human Resources Analyst Linda White stated that at the Commission’s November 3,
2015 meeting, she was asked to compile additional information in an effort to assist the Commission Members in their decision-making process. She noted that she has completed such research and was prepared to present her findings at this time.
Ms. White referenced a document titled “Mayor and Council Salary/Benefits Information.” (See
Attachment 1) She pointed out that one of the items she compiled is a listing of the “Total City Budget Amount” for various municipalities that are similar in size to Mesa.
Ms. White also highlighted a document, which was previously distributed to the Commission Members, and now contains two additional columns as follows: “Process/Factor used to
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials November 17, 2015 Page 2
increase Mayor and Council Salary” and “Expected Salary Increase prior to 2017.” (See Attachment 2) She explained that such information identifies the processes and factors that are taken into consideration by the respective communities as it relates to salary increases for their elected officials. She pointed out that several cities use a multi-pronged approach to determine salaries, such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) data, and whether employees have received pay raises and/or cost of living adjustments (COLAs). Chairperson Walters expressed appreciation to Ms. White for her efforts and hard work in compiling the additional information requested by the Commission Members. Ms. White further reviewed a chart detailing the car allowance and phone allowance for the City’s executive staff; the City-issued iPad and Data Plan; and the Mayor/Council’s estimated personal phone costs. (See Attachment 3) She reported that she recently became aware of the fact that the City issues iPads to the Mayor and Councilmembers, for which they receive an additional $40/month for the associated 4G Data Plan. Ms. White, in addition, remarked that in conducting her research, she learned that none of the cities she contacted use a specific formula to establish a phone allowance for their respective elected officials, but merely select an arbitrary amount that seems reasonable. She noted that staff inquired of the Mayor and Councilmembers regarding their estimated personal cell phone costs. She said that with respect to the Councilmembers, it was determined that such costs average $94.36/month ($1,132.33 annually). She added that staff was unable to obtain data as it relates to the Mayor’s expenses prior to today’s meeting. In response to a question from Commission Member Lesar, Assistant City Manager John Pombier clarified that for those City employees who do not receive a monthly car allowance, but use their personal vehicles for City business, they receive a .59/mile reimbursement, which is the rate set by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Chairperson Walters commented that even if a Councilmember receives a monthly car allowance, once he or she travels more than 100 miles to attend a City-related meeting, the person would receive a mileage reimbursement. She explained that the car allowance anticipates use within the region, but not for extended distances. Responding to a question from Commission Member Lesar, Mr. Pombier indicated that the phone allowance for all of the Council-appointed positions is negotiated as a term of their respective contracts with the City Council. He stated that throughout the City, executive level staff receive a car allowance of $80/month, while front line and other staff members receive between $40 and $50/month, depending upon usage. Ms. White continued with her presentation and provided a short synopsis of a document containing CPI information, as well as a historical overview of the Social Security Administration’s COLAs. (See Attachment 4) In response to a question from Commission Member Levine, Ms. White clarified that the $40/month Data Plan allowance that the Councilmembers receive is in addition to the $80/month communications allowance. Chairperson Walters thanked staff for the presentation.
Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials November 17, 2015 Page 3 3. Discuss and provide direction to City staff on the Commission’s recommendation to the City
Council regarding compensation for Mesa’s elected officials and the process for finalizing the report for Council consideration.
Chairperson Walters stated that in anticipation of today’s meeting, she has drafted some
concepts that she would like to share with her fellow Commission Members that might assist in their decision-making process. (See Attachment 5) She commented that she wanted to make it very clear for the record that she has not spoken to Mayor Giles or any of the Councilmembers as it relates to the Commission’s recommendation concerning the matter of compensation for elected officials.
Chairperson Walters remarked that it was important for the Commission Members to be cognizant of the fact that the Mayor and Councilmembers “live in a political world.” She stated that although the Commission Members can discuss “what is right and fair for all of the work” Mesa’s elected officials perform, it does not reflect the political reality of where they live and what they have to vote on. She added that ultimately, it will be necessary for the Mayor and the Councilmembers to vote on the Commission’s recommendation. Responding to a question from Commission Member Levine, Deputy City Attorney Alfred Smith clarified that if the Commission recommends any changes to the elected officials’ compensation, such changes would not go into effect until January 2017 when the newly-elected Councilmembers begin their terms in office. Chairperson Walters noted that her concepts are “a framework for discussion” and include a philosophy that she would like her fellow Commission Members to consider. She suggested that it might be appropriate to move the Councilmembers’ ratio of the Mayor’s salary toward 60% instead of 50%, which could be accomplished gradually over five years. She stated the opinion that such a ratio would reflect the fact that Councilmembers are more than "half time employees.” Chairperson Walters indicated that it was her understanding that when the City Council was first established, the original concept was that the Councilmembers would work approximately ten hours a week, while the Mayor would work an estimated 20 hours per week. She also said that currently, the Councilmembers “work full time and more” and the Mayor “works double full time and more.” Chairperson Walters, in addition, briefly reviewed additional philosophical concepts for the Commission’s consideration as follows: ensure that vehicle and communications allowances are appropriate to cover costs; and have a compensation package that reflects local sensibilities, while expanding the potential pool of individuals who can afford the economic sacrifices involved in public service. Chairperson Walters further commented that in reviewing all of the data provided by staff, filtering out information from other states, and focusing on what Arizona elected officials are earning, in her opinion, the Mayor’s compensation is “probably fairly close to where it should be right now.” She added that none of the Arizona municipalities surveyed anticipate salary increases for their Mayors.
Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials November 17, 2015 Page 4
Chairperson Walters stated that she would propose increasing the base salary for Councilmembers by $3,750 per year as a step toward moving the Mayor/Council ratio toward 60%. She suggested, in addition, increasing the Councilmembers’ communications allowance for cell phones from $80/month to $100/month to more accurately reflect the actual costs that are incurred. Chairperson Walters asked that her fellow Commission Members provide their feedback and input with respect to her proposal. Vice Chairperson Raines remarked that the proposal does not include any adjustments to the Mayor’s compensation. Chairperson Walters confirmed Vice Chairperson Raines’ statement and explained that her proposal reflects political sensibilities. Responding to a question from Commission Member McCawley, Chairperson Walters offered clarification with respect to a prior statement she made as follows: she would propose that by 2017, the Councilmembers’ salary would be increased by $3,750; and she would further recommend that in 2019, such salary would once again be increased in order to reach the Mayor/Council ratio of 60%. She explained that her rationale behind the proposal was that it would be easier for the Councilmembers to vote on such a recommendation if it were accomplished in a two-step process. In response to a question from Vice Chairperson Raines, Mr. Pombier advised that per the ordinance, the Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials is required to meet every two years, at a minimum. Vice Chairperson Raines indicated that in 2017, the Commission would meet again, at which time the members could address the additional increase, per Chairperson Walters’ recommendation, that would take effect in 2019. Commission Member Lesar stated the opinion that the Mayor serves the community in a capacity that is “more than a full time job.” Chairperson Walters clarified that the point she was trying to make was not that the Mayor’s salary is adequate for the job that it entails, but rather that there was a political expediency for the City Council. She noted that per the ordinance, the City Council does not have the ability to decrease the proposed recommendation, but merely to approve it or deny it. Chairperson Walters reiterated that it was important for the Commission Members to take into consideration the political issues that the City Council must address. She stated that in 2013, the previous City Council made a courageous decision to move the Mayor and Councilmembers’ compensation “into the 21st century” in relation to every other city in the Valley. Responding to a question from Commission Member Lesar, Chairperson Walters provided a brief historical overview of the manner in which previous City Councils were reimbursed for car mileage associated with City business, which eventually resulted in the current car allowance. She suggested that a possible alternative to the proposed car allowance might be that the
Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials November 17, 2015 Page 5
Councilmembers could submit their miles for reimbursement. She added that in her opinion, the current car allowance for the Councilmembers “is in the ballpark.” Discussion ensued relative to the process by which City employees receive pay raises. Chairperson Walters noted that her proposal to increase the Councilmembers’ annual base salary by $3,750, which would total approximately $40,500, does not take into account the vehicle allowance and cell phone allowance. Commission Member Levine stated that he would recommend that the proposed salary increase to move the Mayor/Council ratio to 60% occur sooner rather than later. He suggested that it should not take five years in order to achieve that goal. He added that he would prefer to implement the full 60% increase in 2017 or 2018, at the latest. Chairperson Walters clarified that although her recommendation reflects five years, functionally, the 60% ratio would be reached three years from January 2016. Commission Member Levine also expressed support for increasing the Councilmembers’ cell phone allowance from $80/month to $100/month. Commission Member Lesar remarked that the full 60% ratio would equate to approximately $7,295.00 Chairperson Walters commented that she was not opposed to the Councilmembers receiving the full 60% increase. She pointed out, however, that from a philosophical point of view, if the Commission made a recommendation to implement the full salary increase at one time, as opposed to incrementally, some of the Councilmembers might be placed in a position where they would feel compelled to vote against such a recommendation. Additional discussion ensued relative to Commission Member Levine’s preference to recommend the full 60% salary increase in 2017 (i.e., $7,295) and not wait until 2019; that it was the opinion of Chairperson Walters that the City Council could possibly reject such a proposal; that Commission Member Levine subsequently agreed to support Chairperson Walter’s proposal for an incremental salary increase in an effort to alleviate her concerns; and that the Commission could only make a recommendation for a salary increase that goes into effect in January 2017, but not beyond that period of time. Commission Member Lesar agreed with Chairperson Walters’ concept of a philosophical position and concurred that the Councilmembers’ job is “more than half a job.” He stated that in the future, the ratio could possibly fluctuate between 60% and 80% of the Mayor’s salary. Commission Member Lesar further remarked that if the Commission’s recommendation was to increase the Councilmembers’ annual base salary by $3,750, it might be appropriate to include language in the recommendation reflecting that in the next review of the elected officials’ compensation, the Commission Members consider moving the Councilmembers’ salary closer to 60% of the Mayor’s salary. Chairperson Walters indicated that if there were a philosophical agreement contained in the Commission’s recommendation, whoever serves on future Commissions will be apprised of
Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials November 17, 2015 Page 6
today’s philosophical discussion and what the current Commission Members’ thoughts were in that regard. Vice Chairperson Raines expressed support for increasing the annual base salary for the Councilmembers by $3,750; and also increasing the communications allowance for cell phones to $100 in order to reimburse the Councilmembers for the actual costs incurred for such service. He noted that he was comfortable with the Mayor’s compensation remaining at its current level. Responding to a question from Chairperson Walters, Commission Members Lesar, Levine, McCawley and Raines all spoke in support of the Councilmembers’ car allowance remaining at $350/month. It was moved by Commission Member McCawley, to approve Chairperson Walters’ recommendation for certain changes to the Councilmembers’ compensation package as follows: increase the communications allowance for cell phones from $80/month to $100/month; increase the annual base salary for the Councilmembers by $3,750; and that such changes would go into effect in January, 2017. Chairperson Walters clarified that the communications allowance was for the purpose of cell phones only and does not reflect the $40/month allowance provided to the Councilmembers for their City-issued iPad/4G Data Plan. Vice Chairperson Raines seconded the motion. Carried unanimously.
Chairperson Walters stated that it was her understanding of the process that City Manager
Christopher Brady will review the Commission’s recommendation; staff prepares a report, which is brought back to the Commission Members for their approval; after which time, the report is forwarded on to the City Council. She suggested that due to the upcoming holiday season, it might be appropriate for the Commission to meet again in mid-January, 2016.
Commission Member McCawley requested that staff advise the Commission Members as soon
as possible of the meeting date in January to ensure that they can include it on their calendars. 4. Discuss and provide direction to City staff as to what additional information the Commission
may need at a future meeting. Chairperson Walters stated that the Commission did not require any additional information from
staff. 5. Discuss and set dates for upcoming meetings. Chairperson Walters noted that staff will inform the Commission Members of the upcoming
meeting date in January, 2016. 6. Items from citizens present. There were no items from citizens present.
Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials November 17, 2015 Page 7 7. Adjournment. Without objection, the Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials meeting
adjourned at 2:10 p.m. I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials held on the 17th day of November, 2015. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
_________________________________________ DEE ANN MICKELSEN, CITY CLERK
pag (attachments – 5)
Last revision date: 11/10/2015
City Total City Budget Amount Process/Factor used to increase
Mayor and Council Salary
Expected Salary Increase prior
to 2017
Arlington, TX $427,290,097
Salaries are set by Charter and
increases are done through election No
change in salary since 10/1/1980. No
specific data info to report.
No increases proposed at this
time
Aurora, CO $700,000,000
The Charter provides for the possibility
of annual Council and Mayor salary
increases. Their raises are based on
the amount equal to the cost of living
increase or decrease occurring during
the previous calendar year as
determined by the US Department of
Labor Consumer Price Index for the
region which includes the Denver
metropolitan area of the average
increase or decrease given to all city
employees, whichever is less.
Not providing raises on 1/1/2016
for the calendar year.
Fresno, CA $1,251,867,100 Waiting on Info Waiting on Info
Glendale, AZ $632,000,000
Most current salary was set by Council
Salary Review Commission in 4/11/06.
Waiting on more detailed research info.
No
Kansas City, MO $1,474,941,054
Council votes on salaries for next 4
year term, combination of factors are
used, CPI, consideration of what other
employee groups received, salary
survey data.
No
MAYOR AND COUNCIL SALARY/BENEFITS INFORMATION
Additional Research Info Requested at 11/3/15 Meeting
City Total City Budget Amount Process/Factor used to increase
Mayor and Council Salary
Expected Salary Increase prior
to 2017
Long Beach, CA $2,672,371,463
Charter set Mayor's base salary at
$67,500 in 1988; it is adjusted annually
on July 1 by CPI. Charter sets Council
Member pay at 25% of Mayor's.
Next increase maybe on July 1,
2016
Mesa, AZ $1,610,000,000
Current salary set by Independent
Compensation Commission for Elected
Officials in 11/2013; effective 01/2015
Would not be effective until 2017
Peoria, AZ $511,000,000
Citizens Commission on Salaries for
Elected City Officials. They meet every
other year. Unknown what the increase
was based on.
Unknown at this time.
Phoenix, AZ $3,702,298,000
Citizens’ Commission on Salaries for
Elected City Officials meets every two
years. Various data is used - including
rates of pay of other Mayor and
Councils, increases given to city
employees, and the review of Consumer
Price Index - All Urban Consumers (CPI-
U). It is up to the commission members
to decide what they would like to review.
Salary has not changed since
2005. 2007 recommendation
voted down on ballot. Commission
meeting this year.
Sacramento, CA $951,600,000
Per our City Charter Section 29, an
Independent Compensation
Commission reviews benchmarked
City’s annually and a new resolution is
adopted. Commission reviews
benchmark cities, employee salary
adjustments, current compensation
levels of public members of City Boards
and Commissions.
Won’t know if there will be any
changes until a new resolution for
the increase in 2016 is voted on
and adopted
City Total City Budget Amount Process/Factor used to increase
Mayor and Council Salary
Expected Salary Increase prior
to 2017
San Jose, CA $3,190,000,000
The Council Salary Setting Commission
makes recommendations to Council for
salary adjustments every two years.
Waiting on more detailed research info.
San Jose's Salary Setting
Commission voted to put an
initiative on a ballot to raise both
Mayor and Council compensation.
This is currently not scheduled to
be acted upon. If approved, the
new amounts would be $125,000
per year for the Mayor; $92,000 for
members of Council.
Tacoma, WA $3,076,902,560
Citizens Commission on Elected
Salaries added to City Charter 7/15/14.
Commission will begin meeting in 2015.
Effective January 1, 2018 Mayor
$76,000
Council Member $38,000
Also effective January 1, 2018, the
Commission decided to eliminate
the annual 2.75% salary increase
for all future years.
Tempe, AZ $607,500,000
Tempe uses the Employment Cost
Index to determine any increases. It is
generally done annually at the beginning
of the fiscal year.
It is possible that they may
receive another increase in July
2016.
Tucson, AZ 1,367,000,000
Citizens' Commission on Public Service
and Compensation determines whether
to make a request of the voters every
other year (on the odd year) whether
Mayor and/or Council should get a pay
raise. An inflation factor was discussed
in the meetings. However it is not a
mandatory discussion nor is Mayor and
Council pay rates tied to an inflation
rate.
The Commission met 4 times in
2015 and did put an initiative on
the ballot. It failed this year by a
margin of 60% to 40%
(approximately). This was the first
attempt for a pay increase since
2007. In the three prior occasions,
the Committee voted not to put an
initiative on the ballot
Virginia Beach, VA Waiting on Info Waiting on Info Waiting on Info
Las
t re
visi
on
dat
e:11
/10/
2015
Co
lor
Key
:N
EW
INF
OR
MA
TIO
N
11/1
7/20
15O
ut o
f Sta
teN
EW
INF
OR
MA
TIO
N
11/1
7/20
15
NE
W IN
FO
RM
AT
ION
11/1
7/20
15
Cit
yT
ota
l Cit
y B
ud
get
Am
ou
nt
Po
p.
An
nu
al M
ayo
r
Sal
ary
An
nu
al M
ayo
r B
ase
Sal
ary
Ad
just
ed
wit
h S
alar
y
Cal
cula
tor*
TO
TA
L
CO
MP
EN
SA
TIO
N
An
nu
al M
ayo
r T
ota
l
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Ad
just
ed w
ith
Sal
ary
Cal
cula
tor
and
incl
ud
es v
ehic
le,
ph
on
e, e
xpen
se
allo
wan
ce
An
nu
al
Co
un
cilm
emb
er
Sal
ary
An
nu
al C
ou
nci
l
Bas
e S
alar
y
Ad
just
ed w
ith
Sal
ary
Cal
cula
tor*
TO
TA
L
CO
MP
EN
SA
TIO
N
An
nu
al C
ou
nci
l T
ota
l
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Ad
just
ed w
ith
Sal
ary
Cal
cula
tor
and
in
clu
des
veh
icle
, ph
on
e,
exp
ense
allo
wan
ce
Veh
icle
All
ow
ance
per
mo
nth
/yea
r.
All
ow
ance
is
the
sam
e fo
r b
oth
May
or
and
Co
un
cil
un
less
no
ted
bel
ow
Ad
dit
ion
al P
ho
ne,
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
s o
r E
xpen
se
allo
wan
ce p
er m
on
th/y
ear.
All
ow
ance
is t
he
sam
e fo
r b
oth
May
or
and
Co
un
cil
un
less
no
ted
bel
ow
Pro
vid
es R
etir
ee H
ealt
h I
nsu
ran
ce
Op
tio
ns
to e
lect
ed o
ffic
ials
?
Pro
cess
/Fac
tor
use
d t
o i
ncr
ease
May
or
and
Co
un
cil
Sal
ary
Exp
ecte
d S
alar
y In
crea
se p
rio
r
to 2
017
Arli
ngto
n, T
X$4
27,2
90,0
97
36
5,43
8 $3
,000
.00
$2,9
70.2
6$3
,912
.26
$2,4
00.0
0$2
,376
.21
$3,3
18.2
1
No
$78.
50 m
os -
$94
2 yr
.
N
ote
: a
ll
but 2
cou
ncil
mem
bers
rec
eive
phon
e al
low
ance
s
Arli
ngto
n do
es n
ot p
rovi
de R
etire
e
Hea
lth I
nsur
ance
to
our
elec
ted
offic
ials
.
Sal
arie
s ar
e se
t by
Cha
rter
and
incr
ease
s ar
e do
ne t
hrou
gh e
lect
ion
No
chan
ge in
sal
ary
sinc
e 10
/1/1
980.
No
incr
ease
s pr
opos
ed a
t th
is
time
Aur
ora,
CO
$700
,000
,000
332,
354
$58,
548.
00$5
5,93
2.87
$67,
403.
87$1
3,45
1.00
$12,
850.
19$2
6,29
6.19
May
or $
789.
75 m
os -
$9,
477
yr.;
Cou
ncil
$760
.50
mos
/
$9,1
26 y
r.
Exp
Allo
wan
ce (
i.e.
supp
lies,
mile
age,
tra
nspo
rtat
ion,
mea
ls,
lodg
ing)
: May
or $
166
mos
- $
1,99
4
yr.;
Cou
ncil
$360
mos
- $
4,32
0 yr
.
Yes
. E
lect
ed o
ffic
ials
hire
d be
fore
11/2
013
mus
t be
at
leas
t 56
and
hav
e
com
plet
ed 6
yea
rs o
f se
rvic
e.
Ele
cted
Off
icia
ls h
ired
afte
r 11
/201
3 m
ust
be a
t
leas
t 62
and
hav
e co
mpl
eted
6 y
ears
of
serv
ice.
The
Cha
rter
pro
vide
s fo
r th
e po
ssib
ility
of a
nnua
l Cou
ncil
and
May
or s
alar
y
incr
ease
s.
The
ir ra
ises
are
bas
ed o
n
the
amou
nt e
qual
to
the
cost
of
livin
g
incr
ease
or
decr
ease
occ
urrin
g du
ring
the
prev
ious
cal
enda
r ye
ar a
s
dete
rmin
ed b
y th
e U
S D
epar
tmen
t of
Labo
r C
onsu
mer
Pric
e In
dex
for
the
regi
on w
hich
incl
udes
the
Den
ver
met
ropo
litan
are
a of
the
ave
rage
incr
ease
or
decr
ease
giv
en to
all
city
empl
oyee
s, w
hich
ever
is le
ss.
Not
pro
vidi
ng r
aise
s on
1/1
/201
6
for
the
cale
ndar
yea
r.
Fre
sno,
CA
$1,2
51,8
67,1
00
500,
121
$130
,000
.00
$120
,786
.95
$120
,786
.95
$65,
000.
00$6
0,39
3.47
$60,
393.
47 N
o N
o N
o.
Not
in t
heir
retir
emen
t sys
tem
. W
aitin
g on
Info
W
aitin
g on
Info
Gle
ndal
e, A
Z$6
32,0
00,0
00
22
6,72
1 $4
8,00
0.00
---
$48,
000.
00$3
4,00
0.00
---
$34,
900.
00 N
o C
ounc
il M
embe
rs O
nly
$75
mos
-
$900
yr.
Ret
iree
Hea
lth B
enef
its a
re o
ffer
ed t
o
elec
ted
offic
ials
. C
ost/
requ
irem
ents
and
optio
ns a
re t
he s
ame
as t
hose
for
regu
lar
empl
oyee
ret
irees
.
Mos
t cu
rren
t sa
lary
was
set
by
Cou
ncil
Sal
ary
Rev
iew
Com
mis
sion
in 4
/11/
06.
Wai
ting
on c
opy
of r
epor
t fr
om G
lend
ale
No
Kan
sas
City
, M
O$1
,474
,941
,054
459,
787
$123
,156
.00
$126
,821
.92
$126
,821
.92
$61,
569.
00$6
3,40
1.69
$63,
401.
69 N
o C
ity p
rovi
des
phon
e (n
o ad
ditio
nal
com
p)
Yes
. A
ny r
etire
e ca
n be
par
t of
hea
lth
insu
ranc
e op
tions
, th
ey p
ay t
he fu
ll co
st
(em
ploy
ee a
nd C
ity c
osts
)
Cou
ncil
vote
s on
sal
arie
s fo
r ne
xt 4
year
ter
m,
com
bina
tion
of f
acto
rs a
re
used
, CP
I, c
onsi
dera
tion
of w
hat o
ther
empl
oyee
gro
ups
rece
ived
, sal
ary
surv
ey d
ata.
No
Long
Bea
ch, C
A$2
,672
,371
,463
472,
779
$136
,152
.00
$118
,176
.29
$123
,936
.29
$34,
044.
00$2
9,54
9.28
$35,
309.
28 $
450
mos
- $
5,40
0 yr
$
30 m
os -
$36
0 yr
Yes
. P
rovi
ded
Ope
n E
nrol
lmen
t lin
k
http
://w
ww
.long
beac
h.go
v/hr
/med
ia-
libra
ry/d
ocum
ents
/city
-
empl
oyee
s/em
ploy
ee-b
enef
its/o
pen-
enro
llmen
t-be
nefit
-gui
des/
2015
-city
-of-
long
-bea
ch-r
etire
e-be
nefit
-bro
chur
e---
final
/
Cha
rter
set
May
or's
bas
e sa
lary
at
$67,
500
in 1
988;
it is
adj
uste
d an
nual
ly
on J
uly
1 by
CP
I. C
hart
er s
ets
Cou
ncil
Mem
ber
pay
at 2
5% o
f M
ayor
's.
Nex
t in
crea
se m
aybe
on
July
1,
2016
MA
YO
R A
ND
CO
UN
CIL
SA
LA
RY
/BE
NE
FIT
S IN
FO
RM
AT
ION
Rev
ised
11/
17/2
015
Cit
yT
ota
l Cit
y B
ud
get
Am
ou
nt
Po
p.
An
nu
al M
ayo
r
Sal
ary
An
nu
al M
ayo
r B
ase
Sal
ary
Ad
just
ed
wit
h S
alar
y
Cal
cula
tor*
TO
TA
L
CO
MP
EN
SA
TIO
N
An
nu
al M
ayo
r T
ota
l
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Ad
just
ed w
ith
Sal
ary
Cal
cula
tor
and
incl
ud
es v
ehic
le,
ph
on
e, e
xpen
se
allo
wan
ce
An
nu
al
Co
un
cilm
emb
er
Sal
ary
An
nu
al C
ou
nci
l
Bas
e S
alar
y
Ad
just
ed w
ith
Sal
ary
Cal
cula
tor*
TO
TA
L
CO
MP
EN
SA
TIO
N
An
nu
al C
ou
nci
l T
ota
l
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Ad
just
ed w
ith
Sal
ary
Cal
cula
tor
and
in
clu
des
veh
icle
, ph
on
e,
exp
ense
allo
wan
ce
Veh
icle
All
ow
ance
per
mo
nth
/yea
r.
All
ow
ance
is
the
sam
e fo
r b
oth
May
or
and
Co
un
cil
un
less
no
ted
bel
ow
Ad
dit
ion
al P
ho
ne,
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
s o
r E
xpen
se
allo
wan
ce p
er m
on
th/y
ear.
All
ow
ance
is t
he
sam
e fo
r b
oth
May
or
and
Co
un
cil
un
less
no
ted
bel
ow
Pro
vid
es R
etir
ee H
ealt
h I
nsu
ran
ce
Op
tio
ns
to e
lect
ed o
ffic
ials
?
Pro
cess
/Fac
tor
use
d t
o i
ncr
ease
May
or
and
Co
un
cil
Sal
ary
Exp
ecte
d S
alar
y In
crea
se p
rio
r
to 2
017
Mes
a, A
Z$1
,610
,000
,000
462,
376
$73,
545.
00--
-$8
1,10
5.00
$36,
832.
00--
-$4
1,99
2.00
May
or
$550
mo
s -
$6,6
00 y
r.
Co
un
cil
$350
mo
s -
$4,2
00
yr.
Rev
ised
11/
4/15
Cel
l p
ho
ne
$80
mo
s -
$960
yr.
Cit
y is
sued
IP
AD
an
d $
40 m
os
-
$480
yea
r fo
r d
ata
for
IPA
D
Cur
rent
sal
ary
set
by I
ndep
ende
nt
Com
pens
atio
n C
omm
issi
on f
or E
lect
ed
Off
icia
ls in
11/
2013
; ef
fect
ive
01/2
015
Wo
uld
no
t b
e ef
fect
ive
un
til
2017
Peo
ria,
AZ
$511
,000
,000
165,
000
$31,
337.
52--
-$3
4,33
7.52
$20,
891.
68--
-$2
6,11
1.68
C
ounc
il =
$27
5 m
os -
$3,
300
yr.
Not
e:
curr
ent
May
or d
oes
not r
ecei
ve a
llow
ance
he
is
prov
ided
a v
ehic
le.
May
or $
250
mos
- $
3,00
0 yr
.
Cou
ncil
$160
mos
- $
1,92
0 yr
. N
o
Citi
zens
Com
mis
sion
on
Sal
arie
s fo
r
Ele
cted
City
Off
icia
ls.
The
y m
eet e
very
othe
r ye
ar.
Unk
now
n w
hat t
he in
crea
se
was
bas
ed o
n.
Unk
now
n at
thi
s tim
e.
Pho
enix
, A
Z$3
,702
,298
,000
1,4
51,9
66
$88,
000.
00--
-$9
4,42
0.00
$61,
600.
00--
-$6
8,02
0.00
$43
5 m
os -
$5,
220
yr.
$100
mos
- $
1,20
0 yr
. H
andl
ed t
hrou
gh t
he S
tate
’s E
OR
P.
Citi
zens
’ Com
mis
sion
on
Sal
arie
s fo
r
Ele
cted
City
Off
icia
ls m
eets
eve
ry t
wo
year
s.
Var
ious
dat
a is
use
d -
incl
udin
g
rate
s of
pay
of
oth
er M
ayor
and
Cou
ncils
, in
crea
ses
give
n to
city
empl
oyee
s, a
nd t
he r
evie
w o
f C
onsu
mer
Pric
e In
dex
- A
ll U
rban
Con
sum
ers
(CP
I-
U)
may
als
o be
incl
uded
it is
up
to t
he
com
mis
sion
mem
bers
to
deci
de w
hat
they
wou
ld li
ke t
o re
view
.
Sal
ary
has
not c
hang
ed s
ince
2005
. 2
007
reco
mm
enda
tion
vote
d do
wn
on b
allo
t. C
omm
issi
on
mee
ting
this
yea
r.
Sac
ram
ento
, CA
$95
1,60
0,00
0
48
5,19
9 $1
20,2
18.0
0$1
04,6
15.9
6$1
18,8
15.9
6$6
3,27
2.00
$55,
060.
48$6
3,56
0.48
May
or $
600
mos
- $
7200
yr.
Cou
ncil
$400
mos
- $
4800
yr.
Tec
h A
llow
ance
: M
ayor
$16
6 m
os
- $2
000
per
year
; C
ounc
il $1
00
mos
- $
1200
per
yea
r E
xpen
se:
May
or $
417m
os
- $5
000
yr.
Cou
ncil
$208
mos
- $
2500
yr.
Ret
iree
bene
fits
for
Ele
cted
Off
icia
ls a
re
the
sam
e as
the
City
em
ploy
ees
(cos
ts
tiere
d by
num
ber
of y
ears
wor
ked)
.
Per
our
City
Cha
rter
Sec
tion
29, a
n
Inde
pend
ent
Com
pens
atio
n
Com
mis
sion
rev
iew
s be
nchm
arke
d
City
’s a
nnua
lly a
nd a
new
res
olut
ion
is
adop
ted.
Com
mis
sion
rev
iew
s
benc
hmar
k ci
ties,
em
ploy
ee s
alar
y
adju
stm
ents
, cu
rren
t co
mpe
nsat
ion
leve
ls o
f pu
blic
mem
bers
of
City
Boa
rds
and
Com
mis
sion
s.
Won
’t kn
ow if
the
re w
ill b
e an
y
chan
ges
until
a n
ew r
esol
utio
n fo
r
the
incr
ease
in 2
016
is v
oted
on
and
adop
ted
San
Jos
e, C
A
$3,1
90,0
00,0
00
96
7,48
7 $1
14,0
00.0
0$8
9,14
9.55
$94,
249.
55$8
1,00
0.00
$63,
343.
10$6
8,44
3.10
$35
0 m
os -
$4,
200
yr.
$75
mos
- $
900
yr.
San
Jos
e do
es n
ot o
ffer
Ret
iree
Hea
lth
Insu
ranc
e to
ele
cted
off
icia
ls.
How
ever
,
if an
ele
cted
off
icia
l was
a C
ity
empl
oyee
, AN
D if
tha
t for
mer
em
ploy
ee
was
in T
ier
1 fo
r re
tirem
ent b
enef
its
AN
D if
the
y ha
d 15
yea
rs o
f se
rvic
e,
only
the
n w
ould
the
y be
elig
ible
for
heal
th in
sura
nce
bene
fits.
The
Cou
ncil
Sal
ary
Set
ting
Com
mis
sion
mak
es r
ecom
men
datio
ns t
o C
ounc
il fo
r
sala
ry a
djus
tmen
ts e
very
tw
o ye
ars.
San
Jos
e's
Sal
ary
Set
ting
Com
mis
sion
vot
ed to
put
an
initi
ativ
e on
a b
allo
t to
rai
se b
oth
May
or a
nd C
ounc
il co
mpe
nsat
ion.
Thi
s is
cur
rent
ly n
ot s
ched
uled
to
be a
cted
upo
n.
If a
ppro
ved,
the
new
am
ount
s w
ould
be
$125
,000
per
year
for
the
May
or;
$92,
000
for
mem
bers
of
Cou
ncil.
Cit
yT
ota
l Cit
y B
ud
get
Am
ou
nt
Po
p.
An
nu
al M
ayo
r
Sal
ary
An
nu
al M
ayo
r B
ase
Sal
ary
Ad
just
ed
wit
h S
alar
y
Cal
cula
tor*
TO
TA
L
CO
MP
EN
SA
TIO
N
An
nu
al M
ayo
r T
ota
l
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Ad
just
ed w
ith
Sal
ary
Cal
cula
tor
and
incl
ud
es v
ehic
le,
ph
on
e, e
xpen
se
allo
wan
ce
An
nu
al
Co
un
cilm
emb
er
Sal
ary
An
nu
al C
ou
nci
l
Bas
e S
alar
y
Ad
just
ed w
ith
Sal
ary
Cal
cula
tor*
TO
TA
L
CO
MP
EN
SA
TIO
N
An
nu
al C
ou
nci
l T
ota
l
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Ad
just
ed w
ith
Sal
ary
Cal
cula
tor
and
in
clu
des
veh
icle
, ph
on
e,
exp
ense
allo
wan
ce
Veh
icle
All
ow
ance
per
mo
nth
/yea
r.
All
ow
ance
is
the
sam
e fo
r b
oth
May
or
and
Co
un
cil
un
less
no
ted
bel
ow
Ad
dit
ion
al P
ho
ne,
Co
mm
un
icat
ion
s o
r E
xpen
se
allo
wan
ce p
er m
on
th/y
ear.
All
ow
ance
is t
he
sam
e fo
r b
oth
May
or
and
Co
un
cil
un
less
no
ted
bel
ow
Pro
vid
es R
etir
ee H
ealt
h I
nsu
ran
ce
Op
tio
ns
to e
lect
ed o
ffic
ials
?
Pro
cess
/Fac
tor
use
d t
o i
ncr
ease
May
or
and
Co
un
cil
Sal
ary
Exp
ecte
d S
alar
y In
crea
se p
rio
r
to 2
017
Tac
oma,
WA
$3,0
76,9
02,5
60
204,
000
$96,
117.
00$9
2,48
4.93
$99,
084.
96$4
3,57
6.00
$41,
929.
35$4
1,92
9.35
May
or o
nly:
$5
50 m
os -
$6,6
00 y
r. N
o N
o
Citi
zens
Com
mis
sion
on
Ele
cted
Sal
arie
s ad
ded
to C
ity C
hart
er 7
/15/
14.
Com
mis
sion
will
beg
in m
eetin
g in
201
5.
Eff
ectiv
e Ja
nuar
y 1,
201
8
M
ayor
$76,
000
Cou
ncil
Mem
ber
$38,
000
Als
o ef
fect
ive
Janu
ary
1, 2
018,
the
Com
mis
sion
dec
ided
to
elim
inat
e
the
annu
al 2
.75%
sal
ary
incr
ease
for
all f
utur
e ye
ars.
Tem
pe, A
Z $
607,
500,
000
161,
719
$57,
262.
00--
-$5
7,26
2.00
$28,
334.
00--
-$2
8,33
4.00
No
City
will
pay
per
sona
l cel
l pho
ne,
if th
ey c
hoos
e to
hav
e th
eir
phon
e
plan
thr
ough
the
City
(V
eriz
on)
Pla
n.
Yes
. E
ligib
le f
or r
etire
e be
nefit
s if
they
have
8 y
ears
of
cont
inuo
us s
ervi
ce.
If
they
wer
e hi
red
afte
r 20
09,
they
wou
ld
rece
ive
an H
RA
like
reg
ular
em
ploy
ees.
Tem
pe u
ses
the
Em
ploy
men
t Cos
t
Inde
x to
det
erm
ine
any
incr
ease
s.
It is
gene
rally
don
e an
nual
ly a
t th
e be
ginn
ing
of t
he fi
scal
yea
r.
It
is p
ossi
ble
that
the
y m
ay
rece
ive
anot
her
incr
ease
in J
uly
2016
.
Tuc
son,
AZ
1,36
7,00
0,00
0
52
4,29
5 $4
2,00
0.00
---
$42,
000.
00$2
4,00
0.00
---
$24,
000.
00 N
o N
o
Yes
, if
elig
ible
for
ret
irem
ent u
nder
EO
RP
/PS
PR
S/T
SR
S t
hey
wou
ld b
e
elig
ible
for
ret
ire in
sura
nce.
M
edic
al is
only
if u
nder
65.
If
the
y ar
e no
t elig
ible
for
one
of t
he r
etire
men
t pen
sion
s th
ey
wou
ldn'
t be
con
side
red
retir
ees
ther
efor
e w
ould
not
be
elig
ible
.
Citi
zens
' Com
mis
sion
on
Pub
lic S
ervi
ce
and
Com
pens
atio
n de
term
ines
whe
ther
to m
ake
a re
ques
t of
the
vot
ers
ever
y
othe
r ye
ar (
on t
he o
dd y
ear)
whe
ther
May
or a
nd/o
r C
ounc
il sh
ould
get
a p
ay
rais
e.
An
infla
tion
fact
or w
as d
iscu
ssed
in t
he m
eetin
gs.
How
ever
it is
not
a
man
dato
ry d
iscu
ssio
n no
r is
May
or a
nd
Cou
ncil
pay
rate
s tie
d to
an
infla
tion
rate
.
The
Com
mis
sion
met
4 t
imes
in
2015
and
did
put
an
initi
ativ
e on
the
ballo
t.
It f
aile
d th
is y
ear
by a
mar
gin
of 6
0% t
o 40
%
(app
roxi
mat
ely)
. T
his
was
the
firs
t
atte
mpt
for
a p
ay in
crea
se s
ince
2007
. I
n th
e th
ree
prio
r oc
casi
ons,
the
Com
mitt
ee v
oted
not
to
put a
n
initi
ativ
e on
the
ballo
t
Virg
inia
Bea
ch,
VA
Wai
ting
on In
fo
447,
021
$30,
000.
00$2
9,07
4.79
$29,
074.
79$2
8,00
0.00
$27,
136.
47$2
7,13
6.47
No
No
No
W
aitin
g on
Info
W
aitin
g on
Info
AV
ER
AG
E$7
6,75
5.70
$82,
223.
72$7
6,08
0.74
$39,
864.
65$3
9,56
0.03
$40,
876.
39
Fo
otn
ote
s:
*Th
e co
st o
f li
vin
g c
alcu
lato
r u
sed
fo
r th
is r
epo
rt i
s C
ity
Rat
ing
.co
m (
htt
p:/
/ww
w.c
ityr
atin
g.c
om
/co
sto
fliv
ing
.asp
) w
hic
h i
s m
ain
ly b
ased
on
th
e C
on
sum
er P
rice
Ind
ex (
CP
I) (
pu
bli
shed
by
the
U.S
. B
ure
au o
f L
abo
r S
tati
stic
s):
Titl
eA
llo
wan
ce
All
ow
ance
Am
ou
nt
All
ow
ance
All
ow
ance
Am
ou
nt
Cit
y M
anag
erC
AR
60
0.0
0$
PH
ON
E1
10
.00
$
May
or
CA
R5
50
.00
$
P
HO
NE
80
.00
$
Dep
uty
Cit
y M
anag
er (
1)
CA
R4
50
.00
$
P
HO
NE
80
.00
$
Cit
y A
tto
rney
CA
R
40
0.0
0$
PH
ON
E8
0.0
0$
Cit
y A
ud
ito
rC
AR
4
00
.00
$
P
HO
NE
80
.00
$
Co
un
cilm
em
ber
CA
R3
50
.00
$
P
HO
NE
80
.00
$
Ass
ista
nt
Cit
y M
anag
ers,
Dep
uty
Cit
y M
anag
er (
1),
Dep
t
Dir
ecto
rsC
AR
30
0.0
0$
PH
ON
E
$4
0 /
$5
0/$
80
dep
end
ing
on
usa
ge
May
or
IPA
D/4
g D
ata
pla
n4
0.0
0$
Co
un
cilm
em
ber
IPA
D/4
g D
ata
pla
n4
0.0
0$
Ye
arly
Ave
rage
1,1
32
.33
$
Mo
nth
ly A
vera
ge9
4.3
6$
*No
te:
Do
es n
ot
inclu
de
th
e M
ayo
r's e
xp
en
se
s t
he
y w
ere
un
ava
ilab
le a
t p
rin
tin
g 1
1/1
0/1
5 @
2:0
2p
m
Exe
cuti
ve C
ar a
nd
Ph
on
e A
low
ance
Lis
tin
g 1
1-4
-15
May
or/
Co
un
cil E
stim
ate
d P
ers
on
al P
ho
ne
Co
sts*
Cit
y Is
sue
d IP
AD
an
d D
ata
Allo
wan
ce
Cons
umer
Pric
e In
dex I
nfor
mat
ion
Th
e O
ffice
of M
anag
emen
t and
Bud
get u
ses
the
"Uni
ted
Stat
es-W
este
rn R
egio
n Co
nsum
er P
rice
Inde
x fo
r all
Urb
an C
onsu
mer
s: A
ll Ite
ms,
Reb
ased
: 201
0=10
0" w
hen
fore
cast
ing
othe
r ser
vice
s an
d co
mm
oditi
es.
This
info
rmat
ion
is p
rovi
ded
by th
e U
of A
For
ecas
ting
Proj
ect g
roup
with
info
rmat
ion
from
Glo
bal I
nsig
ht, I
nc.
The
Cons
umer
Pric
e In
dex
(CPI
) is a
way
to m
easu
re th
e ch
ange
s in
the
pric
e of
a g
roup
of g
oods
and
serv
ices
com
mon
ly p
urch
ased
by
hous
ehol
ds fr
om y
ear t
o ye
ar. T
his g
roup
of g
oods
and
serv
ices
is a
lso k
now
n as
a
mar
ket b
aske
t. Th
ere
are
diffe
rent
“m
arke
t bas
ket”
CPI
indi
ces c
alcu
late
d fo
r the
diff
eren
t reg
ions
in th
e U
nite
d St
ates
, be
caus
e of
the
diffe
renc
e of
goo
ds p
urch
ased
in th
ose
regi
ons.
We
use
the
CPI U
rban
Wes
t Ind
ex.
The
wes
t re
gion
cov
ers A
lask
a, A
rizon
a, C
alifo
rnia
, Col
orad
o, H
awai
i, Id
aho,
Mon
tana
, Nev
ada,
New
Mex
ico,
Ore
gon,
U
tah,
Was
hing
ton,
and
Wyo
min
g.
Belo
w is
a li
nk fo
r the
bas
ket t
hat m
akes
up
CPI t
o th
e Bu
reau
of L
abor
Sta
tistic
s:
http
://w
ww
.bls.
gov/
regi
ons/
wes
t/ne
ws-
rele
ase/
cons
umer
pric
eind
ex_w
est.h
tm#t
able
a M
esa
uses
the
perc
ent c
hang
e fro
m 3
rd qu
arte
r of t
he p
revi
ous
year
to th
e 3rd
quar
ter i
ndex
num
ber o
f th
e cu
rrent
yea
r. T
he p
erce
nt in
flatio
n fa
ctor
s fo
r the
per
iod
of F
Y12
/13
thro
ugh
FY23
/24
are:
FY12
/13
2.01
%
FY13
/14
1.59
%
FY14
/15
2.16
%
FY15
/16
1.06
%
FY16
/17
1.85
%
FY17
/18
2.34
%
FY18
/19
2.54
%
FY19
/20
2.41
%
FY20
/21
1.91
%
FY21
/22
2.18
%
FY22
/23
2.64
%
FY23
/24
2.74
%
The
Offi
ce o
f Man
agem
ent a
nd B
udge
t rev
iew
s and
upd
ates
thes
e nu
mbe
rs e
ach
year
as
econ
omic
co
nditi
ons c
hang
e.
Soci
al S
ecur
ity
Adm
inis
trat
ion
- His
tory
of A
utom
atic
Cos
t-O
f-
Livi
ng A
djus
tmen
ts
(htt
ps://
ww
w.so
cial
secu
rity.
gov/
new
s/co
la/a
utom
atic
-col
a.ht
m)
Auto
mat
ic b
enef
it in
crea
ses,
also
kno
wn
as c
ost-
of-li
ving
adj
ustm
ents
or
COLA
s, ha
ve b
een
in
effe
ct s
ince
197
5. T
he 1
975-
82 C
OLA
s w
ere
effe
ctiv
e w
ith S
ocia
l Sec
urity
ben
efits
pay
able
for
June
(rec
eive
d by
ben
efic
iarie
s in
July
) in
each
of t
hose
yea
rs. A
fter
198
2, C
OLA
s ha
ve b
een
effe
ctiv
e w
ith b
enef
its p
ayab
le fo
r D
ecem
ber
(rece
ived
by
bene
ficia
ries
in J
anua
ry).
A
utom
atic
Cos
t-O
f-Li
ving
Adj
ustm
ents
Info
rmat
ion
prov
ided
by
the
Offi
ce o
f Bud
get a
nd M
anag
emen
t O
ther
inf
orm
atio
n:
Cost
-of-L
ivin
g Ad
just
men
ts (F
act s
heet
) Pr
ior C
ost-
Of-L
ivin
g Ad
just
men
ts
His
tory
of A
utom
atic
Cos
t-O
f-Liv
ing
Adju
stm
ents
July
197
5 --
8.0
%
Janu
ary
1997
--
2.9%
Ju
ly 1
976
-- 6
.4%
Ja
nuar
y 19
98 -
- 2.
1%
July
197
7 --
5.9
%
Janu
ary
1999
--
1.3%
Ju
ly 1
978
-- 6
.5%
Ja
nuar
y 20
00 --
2.5
%(1
) Ju
ly 1
979
-- 9
.9%
Ja
nuar
y 20
01 -
- 3.
5%
July
198
0 --
14.
3%
Janu
ary
2002
--
2.6%
Ju
ly 1
981
-- 1
1.2%
Ja
nuar
y 20
03 -
- 1.
4%
July
198
2 --
7.4
%
Janu
ary
2004
--
2.1%
Ja
nuar
y 19
84 -
- 3.
5%
Janu
ary
2005
--
2.7%
Ja
nuar
y 19
85 -
- 3.
5%
Janu
ary
2006
--
4.1%
Ja
nuar
y 19
86 -
- 3.
1%
Janu
ary
2007
--
3.3%
Ja
nuar
y 19
87 -
- 1.
3%
Janu
ary
2008
--
2.3%
Ja
nuar
y 19
88 -
- 4.
2%
Janu
ary
2009
--
5.8%
Ja
nuar
y 19
89 -
- 4.
0%
Janu
ary
2010
--
0.0%
Janu
ary
1990
--
4.7%
Ja
nuar
y 20
11 -
- 0.
0%
Janu
ary
1991
--
5.4%
Ja
nuar
y 20
12 -
- 3.
6%
Janu
ary
1992
--
3.7%
Ja
nuar
y 20
13 -
- 1.
7%
Janu
ary
1993
--
3.0%
Ja
nuar
y 20
14 -
- 1.
5%
Janu
ary
1994
--
2.6%
Ja
nuar
y 20
15 -
- 1.
7%
Janu
ary
1995
--
2.8%
Ja
nuar
y 20
16 -
- 0.
0%
Janu
ary
1996
--
2.6%
(1) T
he C
OLA
for D
ecem
ber 1
999
was
orig
inal
ly d
eter
min
ed a
s 2.
4 pe
rcen
t bas
ed o
n CP
Is
Agenda Item 3
1 | P a g e
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MESA, AZ
Submitted by INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION
FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
January 11, 2016
BACKGROUND On August 20, 2012, the Mesa City Council created the Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials. The purpose of the Commission is to establish a fair and reasonable compensation for Mesa’s elected officials. The Commission is to ensure that the Mayor and City Council are “compensated for their time, and effort on behalf of the City at a level that (1) is reasonable in light of the compensation paid to elected officials in other municipalities in the United States of similar size, (2) will include the costs and expenses necessary to perform their duties, (3) is likely to attract competent and effective people to serve in public office, (4) makes public service possible for every eligible citizen, not just those whose financial status enables them to serve, (5) takes into account the financial circumstances of the City, and (6) is determined by an Independent Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials.” (2-25-1). The Ordinance states that the Commission shall determine the compensation of the Council and the Mayor by comparing the compensation provided to elected officials in similarly situated cities within the United States. (2-25-3(B)) The Commission is to provide a report and recommendation to the Council within ninety (90) days following its initial meeting. “The recommendations of the Commission must be approved or rejected as a whole by the City Council.” (2-25-3(A)). To accomplish its purpose, the Commission held several public meetings, received and reviewed compensation and benefits data from numerous comparable cities across the United States, with particular focus on the State of Arizona. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION: The following Mesa residents were appointed to serve on the Independent Commission: Claudia Walters (chairperson), Bryan Raines (vice-chairperson) Gary Levine (reappointment), Pete Lesar, Anne McCawley.
2 | P a g e
INFORMATION PROVIDED AND REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION:
Based on the request of the past Commission members and additional information as requested by the current Commission, staff provided the following information:
• Summary of the 2012 and 2013 Commission’s report and recommendations to the City Council.
• Data from comparable cities across the United States that included: (1) the annual salaries for the elected officials; (2) benefits provided to the elected officials (e.g., vehicle allowance, communication allowance, medical/dental insurance); (3) retiree health insurance options to elected officials; (4) population; (5) total municipality budget; (6) process/factor used to adjust elected officials’ salaries; (7) any expected salary increases prior to 2017.
• Post-retirement benefits offered to City employees. • Current executive City employees’ vehicle and phone allowance. • Current Mayor and Councilmember iPad and data allowance. • Current Mayor and Councilmember personal cell phone costs. • Consumer Price Index and Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments.
HISTORY OF MESA’S CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION Since adoption of the Mesa Charter in 1967, the compensation for the Mesa City Council has been adjusted three times. In 1986, the annual salaries were adjusted to $19,200 for Mayor and $9,600 for Councilmember. In 1998, the annual salaries were adjusted to $33,600 for Mayor and $16,800 for Councilmember.1 In 2015, the annual salaries were adjusted to $73,545 for Mayor and $36,832 for Councilmember. The Commission believes that salaries of Mesa’s Mayor and Councilmembers should be commensurate with that of comparable cities, especially those in the State of Arizona. In 2001, the Mayor and Councilmembers began receiving a $150/month vehicle allowance. In 2015, the vehicle allowance was adjusted to $550/month for Mayor and $350/month for Councilmember. Since 2005, the Mayor and Councilmembers have received an $80/month communication allowance, which has not been adjusted since initial adoption. SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS:
In November 2015, and January 2016, the Commission met on three occasions to review and discuss the materials provided by City staff and to finalize their recommendations.
1 The Mayor and Council have received cost of living adjustments provided to all City employees.
3 | P a g e
The following is a summary of the Commission discussions:
• The eligibility of elected officials for City retirement health care benefits was discussed. The Commission considered a wide range of options, but ultimately concluded that, based on the City Charter regarding term limits, and a variety of other factors, Mesa’s elected officials are unable to meet the necessary eligibility requirements for a City employee retiree benefits package. *Note: At the onset of this discussion, Chairperson Walters declared a potential conflict of interest and refrained from discussion or voting on the eligibility of elected officials for retiree benefits.
• The Commission discussed the compensation provided to Mesa’s elected officials and those of comparable cities. The data shows that of the Mayors in Arizona, Mesa’s Mayor currently receives an appropriate base salary, second only to Phoenix. After a discussion and analysis of the data, the Commission agreed that the Mayor’s current base salary is appropriate and does not warrant adjustment at this time.
• Taking into account the Councilmember base salary, the data indicates that Mesa is also ranked second to Phoenix in the state. The Commission also discussed the current 50 percent ratio between the Mayor base salary and the Councilmember base salary. The Commission agreed that the ratio should be 60 percent to better reflect the amount of time worked is more than that of a “half-time” employee. The philosophy of the Commission is to incrementally increase the Councilmember base salary to ultimately reach a 60 percent ratio.
• The vehicle allowance for Mayor and Council was considered, and after a review of the vehicle allowances given to the executive staff of the City, the Commission agreed that the current vehicle allowances for Mayor and Council are adequate and do not warrant adjustment at this time.
• The Commission discussed the communication allowance for Mayor and Council. They considered the current average cell phone bill of each Councilmember and agreed that to adequately cover the total cost of the monthly cellular phone service, the allowance should be increased.
RECOMMENDATIONS To accomplish the goals set forth in the Ordinance, and to ensure that Mesa can attract competent and effective leaders to serve as Mayor and Council, the Commission recommends that the Mesa City Council approve the following compensation package for Mesa’s elected officials. Annual Salary: Mayor: $73,545 – (No change) Councilmembers: $40,582 – (Increase of $3,750) It is the current Commission’s stated philosophy to incrementally increase the Councilmember base salary to reach a 60 percent ratio of the Mayor base salary.
4 | P a g e
Vehicle Allowance: The elected officials use their private vehicles to travel throughout the county and should be compensated for this expense. The Commission recommends that the Mayor continue to receive $550/month and Councilmembers continue to receive $350/month as a vehicle allowance. Communication Allowance: The elected officials use their private cell phones for City business and should be compensated for this expense. The Commission recommends that the Mayor and Councilmembers receive $100/month (a $20/month increase) as a communication allowance. City Benefits: The Commission recommends that the Mayor and Councilmembers continue to be eligible for City benefits consistent with those provided to executive level City employees, which may, from time-to-time be amended, as employee benefits are amended. Retiree Benefits: After much consideration, the Commission recommends that a City retiree benefits package not be created for elected officials. CONCLUSION The members of the Independent Compensation Commission feel strongly that Mesa must continue to attract effective leaders for the positions of Mayor and Councilmember. To do so, the City must reasonably compensate its elected officials to ensure that public service is available to all residents. The compensation for Mesa’s elected officials should be commensurate with elected officials in similarly situated cities. The Commission believes that these recommendations will help Mesa move toward this goal, but that additional adjustments should be considered in the future to fully satisfy this goal.
The Commission requests that the City Council adopt the recommendations of this Independent Compensation Commission.
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of January, 2016.
____________________________ Claudia Walters Chairperson
