Quick Take
Santa Cruz County supervisors have tabled until January a discussion on potential changes to how their salaries are determined, following concerns from several board members, who pointed out that bringing up the issue while the county faces budgetary issues is "not a good look."
The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors tabled a discussion on potential changes to how it determines its own salaries to January, following concerns from several members of the board and community members that the timing of the discussion is “a bad look” as the county faces fiscal challenges.
The five-member board was scheduled to consider “delinking” its salaries from those of Superior Court judges and tying future pay increases to factors such as cost of living.
District 3 Supervisor Justin Cummings, who proposed revisiting the issue earlier this month, said he originally brought the item forward because the process didn’t reflect the circumstances in Santa Cruz County.
“The fact that we live in the most expensive rental market in the United States, and there are many other factors that impact our cost of living here in Santa Cruz,” Cummings said Tuesday afternoon. “My intent was to see if we could have a different process that would allow for our salaries to be reflective of the reality that we face living here in this community.”
Cummings acknowledged that revisiting this issue while the county is facing budgetary challenges was not the best decision to make, and recommended the discussion be tabled to early next year. He added that a new board member, Tony Nuñez, who will be assuming the District 4 supervisor seat in January, should have the opportunity to vote on this topic.
In 2021, the board unanimously voted to maintain supervisors’ salaries at 62% of the salary of Superior Court judges, with supervisors’ pay rising when judges’ salaries do. A state Superior Court judge earns $244,727 annually.
The board historically used this same approach until 1997, when it faced budgetary challenges, County Human Services Director Ajita Patel told supervisors in early August. At the time, the board amended the county code to allow elected officials to waive their salary or choose not to give themselves a raise.
Currently, the individual salary of a board of supervisor is $151,730.80; those selected as board chair (a position that’s rotated annually) get a small pay increase. County spokesperson Jason Hoppin told Lookout that supervisors received a 2.62% raise last year.
According to a county staff report, supervisors make about 12% below the average market rate in comparison to county elected officials in other jurisdictions. In Monterey County, a supervisor’s annual salary is $167,040.64.
“What’s being recommended is not something above and beyond what we are giving to our employees,” Cummings said earlier this month. “But it’s something that’s comparable to what our employees are facing in this financial time. I think we’re all feeling some financial pressures.”
The decision to table the salary discussion comes as the county confronts a significant budget shortfall. Earlier this month, supervisors declared financial distress and voted unanimously to place a five-year, half-cent sales tax increase before voters in November.
If approved, the tax could help maintain services including mental healthcare, food security programs and other health services as county staff project a reduction in revenue as a result of changes in federal funding.
The county also used nearly $43 million in combined one-time funding from its general fund reserves and departmental trust funds to help avoid employee layoffs and keep its safety net programs. Some county departments, such as the public defender’s office and parks, faced mounting pressure to balance their budgets, sometimes relying on other departments to help close funding gaps.
“I’m glad that I don’t have to vote no on something today because we’re in a budget crisis,” District 5 Supervisor Kim De Serpa said Tuesday. “We are going out for a half-cent sales tax. We are trying to make a case with the public about why that is so important. And sitting up here and voting ourselves a raise is just … it’s not a good look.”
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
