R8 Discussion and Possible Action Including Adopting the Resolution Setting the Salary for Chief Executive Officer from $250,000 to $300,000 Annually with an Estimated Annual Compensation of $510,000 Including Benefits
(Sponsor: Human Resources)
Vote Requirement: Majority
I oppose the proposed resolution increasing the Chief Executive Officer’s salary from $250,000 to $300,000—a 20% increase—with estimated total annual compensation of $510,000.
This is not remotely comparable to an ordinary government cost-of-living adjustment. Using 3% as the benchmark, a 20% raise represents more than six years of 3% increases granted at once. If the County considers this an extraordinary market adjustment rather than a cost-of-living increase, it must identify it accurately and provide evidence establishing why it is necessary.
The agenda materials do not establish that this amount is necessary or fiscally responsible. Human Resources cites “market conditions” and unsuccessful recruitment, but provides no compensation study, comparable-county analysis, candidate feedback, rejected-offer data, or evidence that salary caused the recruitment difficulty. The County’s recruitment announcement did not even disclose a salary range; it stated “Depends on Qualifications.” A failed recruitment conducted without transparent compensation information does not prove that taxpayers must fund a 20% increase.
Available public comparisons raise serious questions. The proposed $300,000 salary exceeds the reported base salary in every adjoining county except Sonoma. It is approximately 23% above the median among nearby northern and eastern counties and is essentially equal to Shasta County’s CEO salary, although Shasta serves approximately twice Mendocino County’s population.
Mendocino is being priced closer to a major metropolitan county than to similarly situated rural counties. Compensation structures differ—which is precisely why Human Resources should provide an adjusted, apples-to-apples comparison based on population, budget, workforce, responsibilities, benefits, and local economic conditions before asking the Board to vote.
The amount is also profoundly disconnected from local economic conditions. Mendocino County’s median household income is $68,092. The proposed salary alone is approximately 4.4 times that amount, and the $510,000 compensation package is approximately 7.5 times the income of an entire median County household.
The Board must also address whether the County can afford this recurring obligation and what public services will be displaced by it. The County has acknowledged continuing financial strain, while recently approving employee agreements carrying approximately $6 million in costs that were not included in the current budget.
Public safety presents a particularly important comparison. In July, the Board restored funding for six Sheriff’s Office positions that had previously been left unfunded as a cost-saving measure. Even after that action, the Sheriff’s Office reports serious staffing shortages, sectors operating without first-line supervisors, patrol shifts dependent on overtime, and personnel being removed from specialized units to cover patrol and homicide investigations.
Before committing as much as $510,000 annually to one executive position, the Board should publicly explain why this is a higher funding priority than unresolved front-line public-safety staffing and other essential County services. It should also identify the specific funding source and disclose whether the expense will require reduced staffing, reduced services, greater use of reserves, or additional structural-deficit spending.
The proposal also lacks:
• A breakdown explaining how a $300,000 salary becomes $510,000 in total compensation;
• The additional pension and long-term liability created by the increase;
• An identified ongoing funding source;
• An analysis of the services or positions that could otherwise be funded with the money;
• Objective performance requirements or measurable results tied to the compensation;
• A public review of the prior CEO’s objectives versus the results actually delivered;
• A justified salary range allowing compensation to reflect the selected candidate’s qualifications; and
• Analysis of non-salary causes of recruitment difficulty, including job scope, authority, governance, organizational stability, and recruitment design.
Please vote no or continue this item. Before reconsideration, require Human Resources to publish the complete market analysis, recruitment evidence, total current and proposed costs, funding source, service-priority analysis, prior performance results, and measurable requirements for the next CEO.
The Board should not approve compensation first and determine affordability, priorities, and accountability afterward.
Sources: Mendocino County Agenda File 26-0814; Mendocino County employment and budget records; U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts; California public-payroll records; California State Auditor Report 2025-049.
Raising the total compensation for the County CEO without a compelling argument that the proposed compensation will result in optimizing public benefit outcomes is a huge mistake. What the BoS is being asked to approve is compensation based on the failed argument that market rate compensation competitiveness will allow the county to recruit and retain the talent it needs. This is the same old strategy that has failed Mendocino County over and over again for decades. It’s time for a new recruitment and retention compensation strategy that actually secures the talent and leadership our County government needs to serve the public interest. And this isn’t it!
Seems pretty crazy to pay this kind of money in a County of this size! I would like to see the next CEO have a minimum of an MBA or a strong Accounting degree with years of experience.
Item R8 — File No. 26-0814
I oppose the proposed resolution increasing the Chief Executive Officer’s salary from $250,000 to $300,000—a 20% increase—with estimated total annual compensation of $510,000.
This is not remotely comparable to an ordinary government cost-of-living adjustment. Using 3% as the benchmark, a 20% raise represents more than six years of 3% increases granted at once. If the County considers this an extraordinary market adjustment rather than a cost-of-living increase, it must identify it accurately and provide evidence establishing why it is necessary.
The agenda materials do not establish that this amount is necessary or fiscally responsible. Human Resources cites “market conditions” and unsuccessful recruitment, but provides no compensation study, comparable-county analysis, candidate feedback, rejected-offer data, or evidence that salary caused the recruitment difficulty. The County’s recruitment announcement did not even disclose a salary range; it stated “Depends on Qualifications.” A failed recruitment conducted without transparent compensation information does not prove that taxpayers must fund a 20% increase.
Available public comparisons raise serious questions. The proposed $300,000 salary exceeds the reported base salary in every adjoining county except Sonoma. It is approximately 23% above the median among nearby northern and eastern counties and is essentially equal to Shasta County’s CEO salary, although Shasta serves approximately twice Mendocino County’s population.
Mendocino is being priced closer to a major metropolitan county than to similarly situated rural counties. Compensation structures differ—which is precisely why Human Resources should provide an adjusted, apples-to-apples comparison based on population, budget, workforce, responsibilities, benefits, and local economic conditions before asking the Board to vote.
The amount is also profoundly disconnected from local economic conditions. Mendocino County’s median household income is $68,092. The proposed salary alone is approximately 4.4 times that amount, and the $510,000 compensation package is approximately 7.5 times the income of an entire median County household.
The Board must also address whether the County can afford this recurring obligation and what public services will be displaced by it. The County has acknowledged continuing financial strain, while recently approving employee agreements carrying approximately $6 million in costs that were not included in the current budget.
Public safety presents a particularly important comparison. In July, the Board restored funding for six Sheriff’s Office positions that had previously been left unfunded as a cost-saving measure. Even after that action, the Sheriff’s Office reports serious staffing shortages, sectors operating without first-line supervisors, patrol shifts dependent on overtime, and personnel being removed from specialized units to cover patrol and homicide investigations.
Before committing as much as $510,000 annually to one executive position, the Board should publicly explain why this is a higher funding priority than unresolved front-line public-safety staffing and other essential County services. It should also identify the specific funding source and disclose whether the expense will require reduced staffing, reduced services, greater use of reserves, or additional structural-deficit spending.
The proposal also lacks:
• A breakdown explaining how a $300,000 salary becomes $510,000 in total compensation;
• The additional pension and long-term liability created by the increase;
• An identified ongoing funding source;
• An analysis of the services or positions that could otherwise be funded with the money;
• Objective performance requirements or measurable results tied to the compensation;
• A public review of the prior CEO’s objectives versus the results actually delivered;
• A justified salary range allowing compensation to reflect the selected candidate’s qualifications; and
• Analysis of non-salary causes of recruitment difficulty, including job scope, authority, governance, organizational stability, and recruitment design.
Please vote no or continue this item. Before reconsideration, require Human Resources to publish the complete market analysis, recruitment evidence, total current and proposed costs, funding source, service-priority analysis, prior performance results, and measurable requirements for the next CEO.
The Board should not approve compensation first and determine affordability, priorities, and accountability afterward.
Sources: Mendocino County Agenda File 26-0814; Mendocino County employment and budget records; U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts; California public-payroll records; California State Auditor Report 2025-049.
Raising the total compensation for the County CEO without a compelling argument that the proposed compensation will result in optimizing public benefit outcomes is a huge mistake. What the BoS is being asked to approve is compensation based on the failed argument that market rate compensation competitiveness will allow the county to recruit and retain the talent it needs. This is the same old strategy that has failed Mendocino County over and over again for decades. It’s time for a new recruitment and retention compensation strategy that actually secures the talent and leadership our County government needs to serve the public interest. And this isn’t it!
Seems pretty crazy to pay this kind of money in a County of this size! I would like to see the next CEO have a minimum of an MBA or a strong Accounting degree with years of experience.
It is INSANE to pay _anyone_ in Mendocino County Government $510,000 annually.