Local

How much should Sutter County supervisors be paid? Raises on hold after backlash

Sutter County Supervisor Mike Ziegenmeyer speaks during a Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2024, in Yuba City. Ziegenmeyer on Tuesday suggested citizens should decide on raises for all elected officials.
Sutter County Supervisor Mike Ziegenmeyer speaks during a Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2024, in Yuba City. Ziegenmeyer on Tuesday suggested citizens should decide on raises for all elected officials. pkitagaki@sacbee.com

How much should it pay to hold one of the top elected positions in a rural California county?

That’s a question supervisors, and potentially other elected officials, in Sutter County are facing after online backlash caused the board to table a $20,000 raise they were in line to approve for themselves.

The raise, which would still keep supervisor salaries below their counterparts in neighboring counties, was recommended last summer by a grand jury. But enacting it now would coincide with budget tightening and lean staffing throughout the county.

“How do we go out and tell you we’re going to have to make some really hard choices and cuts if we’ve just given ourselves a raise?” said Supervisor Jeff Stephens, clarifying that he was speaking for himself.

Supervisors were expected to consider an ordinance broaching the raise at their Tuesday meeting but instead tabled the item, leaving it on hold for now.

Supervisor Mike Ziegenmeyer, who referenced “incredible” online posts directed toward supervisors over the past couple of weeks, suggested forming a committee of citizens who would deliberate and decide on raises for all elected officials in the county, not just supervisors.

“In order for electeds to really do, and really consider pay raises, I believe it should go back to the people and have a people’s group that comes together and figures out what those raises should be for all electeds,” he said.

Details of a citizen group weren’t specified, but Zeigenmeyer said it should take into consideration what supervisors have done and the current budget in making its decisions.

“You tell me what I’m worth,” he added.

Ironically, the call for the raise came from the county’s grand jury, which is a collection of citizens.

Pay raises by committee?

Supervisor salaries sit below $34,500, plus benefits, and would rise to nearly $54,500 with the suggested raise. Even with the extra $20,000, Sutter County’s top officials would make less than their peers in surrounding counties. Yuba County supervisors make almost $86,500 annually, which includes about $1,700 a month for being Yuba Water Agency board members.

A county report showed how similar counties pay their supervisors, ranging from almost $63,000 in Butte County to more than $116,000 in Yolo County.

Besides five supervisors, county residents have elected an assessor, auditor, clerk, district attorney, sheriff and treasurer. Salaries for those positions ranged from about $125,000 for the county treasurer to sheriff’s salary of nearly $180,000, plus benefits, according to Transparent California.

Steve Smith, county administrator, said that among the state’s similarly sized counties, Sutter County has the second fewest employees per capita, in addition to 15-20% of its jobs unfilled.

“I do think we’re at the point where operations aren’t as efficient as they could be because we have too few people,” Smith said. “There is a saying, ‘doing more with less.’ But at some point you do less with less.”

Political consequences?

Another controversial pay hike by a board of supervisors showed the political consequences that hinge on such decisions.

Sacramento County supervisors approved substantial raises for themselves in 2023 and faced backlash from a subsequent grand jury report, which found poor math and an “astonishing lack of transparency” in scrutinizing the decision.

In proposing Sutter County’s raise, its grand jury noted the political implications that come with supervisors being the ones to decide on their own salaries, and offered an alternative idea of approving a raise that would kick in following the next election.

Still, supervisors voted 4-1 earlier this month — with Stephens as the lone dissenting vote — to move forward with the recommended raise they have since halted.

“We have cut and cut and cut,” Stephens said. “We’ve been told as a public that these problems are going to come. We’ve had grants that made us whole and we’re not getting those grants now. The state has dried up, feds have dried up. I’m trying every way to find money, but there’s going to be … some really tough choices coming up.”

JG
Jake Goodrick
The Sacramento Bee
Jake Goodrick is a former reporter for The Sacramento Bee.
Get one year of unlimited digital access for $159.99
#ReadLocal

Only 44¢ per day

SUBSCRIBE NOW