Other California cities pay big money to their managers (Palo Alto, Long Beach, Riverside)

[alp227]

Reporting from Sacramento —
Although eclipsed by the pay in Bell, other cities throughout California are heaping big money on their top managers, including six-figure loans to buy houses and benefits that more than double base pay, according to a study released by state lawmakers Wednesday.

The report also found that more than two months after the Bell scandal, many cities are still not doing enough to make it easy for the public to find out what top officials are paid.

Issued by the staff of the state Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review, the report said most cities reported posting salaries on their websites, but "city websites were often difficult to navigate and … many cities posted incomplete information."

Full story: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-city-salaries-20100923,0,3721755.story

[KamaAina]

1. Long Beach is larger than Oakland.

It is, in fact, the fifth-largest city in the state. Riverside is also rather large and sprawling. Managing either is a far more complex job than managing mid-size, compact Bell. As for Palo Alto, well, they can afford it. :eyes:

While we're at it, let's throw in San Jose, where Debra Figone pulls down about a quarter-mil a year -- in a city that also has an elected mayor! Then again, different parts of town here have different school districts, which existed before San Jose annexed them in the '50s and '60s. It's pretty strange up here.

[mackerel]

2. What about Vallejo? They pay their

City Manager $351,000 while the city filed for bankruptcy.

[KamaAina]

3. Ouch!

:wtf:

[Xithras]

4. In some cities, the City Manager is more powerful than the mayor.

It really depends on how the particular town in chartered. In many cities, the Mayor is mostly a part-time political position, with little real role in running the city. In those types of towns, the City Manager is the real power in the city, running city services on a day to day basis.

I don't really have a problem compensating someone well for running a large city. Especially as MANY cities (including Palo Alto, the 5th most expensive city in the U.S.) require their city managers to live INSIDE THE CITY, so they can better respond to disasters and emergencies. The average home price in Palo Alto is $1.7 million, so the city extending a "six figure" real estate loan to the city manager really isn't all that generous.

[Gormy Cuss]

5. Palo Alto offers up to a 500K loan and co-ownership of a residence worth up to 1.5 M

On top of that, they're paying a high salary. I think little Palo Alto (pop. < 60K) has figured out how to attract a city manager who can afford to live in the community. The job's also not that hard in a small city and really doesn't warrant >300K in salary but Palo Alto can afford to pay top dollar.

It's a different story in cities like Bell or Vallejo.