Council mulls amendment to raise salaries for future members

If there is one subject that is dicey for elected officials to discuss, it is their salary.

That might explain why, although city code says the subject should be addressed every two years, it has not been addressed since 2015.

That changed Tuesday when Councilman Steve Walton requested a discussion and possible direction to city staff on the subject of adjusting what council members are paid.

After a long discussion, the council voted 3-2 with Mayor Joe Hardy and Councilwoman Cokie Booth dissenting to direct staff to come back with a text amendment to city code that council salary be raised by $5,000 per year and the mayor’s compensation by 30% more than that ($6,500 per year) and in addition to that, a cost-of-living adjustment would happen each year based on CPI with a floor of 0% and a ceiling of 3%. The changes would be effective for future members of the council only.

According to a staff report, currently the members of the city council receive annual salaries in the amount of $20,000. The mayor receives an annual salary of $26,000. The mayor and council have not received a salary increase in nine years.

Other than reimbursement for mileage and travel expenses, those salaries are the only compensation or benefits received by elected officials in Boulder City.

Section 1-5-1 C of the city code provides that “[t]he City Council shall convene, in a regularly scheduled or special meeting, every two (2) years at some reasonable time prior to candidates filing for office, to deliberate, discuss, consider and reevaluate mayor and council salaries and adjust the same as appears reasonable and proper at that time.”

Section 6 of the city charter provides that the mayor and council members have the authority to set the salaries of the council and mayor by ordinance. However, no adjustment of salary can apply to any council member if that adjustment was approved during the term for which the council member was elected or appointed.

In non-legalese, that means that the council can vote on a raise but it would only apply to future members of the council and take effect when someone was elected, re-elected or appointed to fill an open seat. In other words, current members of the council can’t vote themselves a raise.

Remember that bit about the council addressing this issue every two years? That was added to the city code in 2015. When asked when the last meeting occurred on this subject, city staff responded that no one at city hall could remember it ever happening and that a search of city records did not come up with any meetings at which the subject was discussed.

In introducing the discussion, Walton noted that any action would only apply to future members of the council and only to current members if they chose to run for re-election and were elected. (Note that Councilwoman Sherri Jorgensen just started her second elected term and is term-limited, meaning it can’t affect her at all.) “Any statement that we’re giving ourselves a raise or talking about giving ourselves a raise is just simply inaccurate,” Walton said.

Noting that talk of council compensation can be a “snake pit of a discussion,” Walton emphasized that he was most interested in talking about possibly adopting an automatic cost-of-living (COLA) increase annually tied to the CPI as is part of the compensation of appointed members of city staff. He said that the advantage of a COLA tied to CPI is that it would mean the council could avoid the “discord” that discussions about salary almost inevitably entail.

A chart was provided showing the compensation for other local communities. As expected, Las Vegas and Henderson are much higher than Boulder City with Henderson officials getting about three times as much and Las Vegas closer to five times as much. Mesquite, a town that is roughly twice the population of BC appears to have significantly lower compensation. However, Walton noted that the listed amounts were not the “total package.”

“They also get a $200 a month car allowance and they get health care,” he said going on to note that he currently pays $18,000 per year for health care for himself and his wife.

When time for discussion came, Mayor Joe Hardy led off by thanking Walton for bringing the council into compliance with the law. He noted that the wording of the statute was that the council “shall” meet and discuss the issue every two years. “The shall word means you have to,” Hardy said.

Councilwoman Denise Ashurst said that nine years with no adjustment is a long time and proved that the people on the council are doing it to serve and not for the money. After noting that she had served in the military because she wanted to serve her country but that it was also a job that put food on the table, she agreed with everyone else on the council that it would not affect any of them unless one of them ran for re-election.

“Those who come after us, it does impact and I would like to see some younger faces up here,” she said. “We have 30- and 40-year-old people who are really brilliant in the way they think and they could add to the city in other ways than we can as people who are 60 and over.”

While all other members of the council were supportive in discussions of an automatic annual increase based on CPI, Hardy said he would not support it.

“I like to serve and I don’t like people to be mad at me,” he said. He went on to note that while the other members wanted to “do something,” he was not sure it is worth the political blowback.

Ashurst proposed both the automatic cost of living increase but also a bump of $10,000 per year for future council members.

There was significant discussion about the fact that council members “over the hill” all get medical insurance for themselves and their family. City Clerk Tami McKay informed the council that, per a ballot measure voted on in 2001, council members in Boulder City are only allowed compensation as provided by statute and no other benefits except those mandated by Nevada law. Because health insurance is not mandated for elected officials by state and federal law, it is not possible, under the city charter, for council members to get that benefit.

Under questioning by Hardy, McKay noted that the ballot measure limiting council compensation passed with 61% of the vote.

“That illustrates my point about the political reality of what we do,” Hardy replied.

Visibly frustrated, Walton talked about the perceptions of voters.

“There are issues,” he said, “that transcend the potential for my re-election. And if I feel that representing my community and making difficult decisions is the right thing to do, then I will do that. And if I don’t get re-elected, if my service is not valued so much that this issue is the tilt? Then I probably shouldn’t run anyway.”

The discussion was contentious and went on for more than an hour. Finally, Walton made the motion to both raise base compensation and institute a cost-of-living increase. Jorgensen and Ashurst joined Walton in approving the direction to staff.

Apparently speaking to the Review, Hardy said, “For the benefit of anybody who writes about this, we did not vote for the raise. We voted for this to come back when it is fully vetted and we would then have the ability to vote for what we decide at that time. I want to make sure that is clear in case there is a reporter listening. Did I just say that out loud?”