Why I Would Vote Against the Proposed City Manager Salary and Staff Increases

As an aspiring council member, I believe it’s important to communicate openly with St. Helena residents about my perspective on decisions that impact our city’s fiscal health. One such decision is the upcoming proposal set for a vote on Nov. 12th  This proposal will increase the city manager’s salary, extend his contract, and approve several staff reclassifications and additions. If I were a seated council member, I would vote against this package, and here’s why.

Contradicting Their Own Financial Messaging

For the past two years, the city and council have underscored the severity of St. Helena’s financial crisis, indicating that only an additional $7 million in revenue would allow us to maintain essential services. This led to placing Measure A, a real property transfer tax, on the ballot, with the promise that its projected $5.3 million in annual revenue was necessary to avoid cuts in public safety and city services. The message to residents was clear: without this revenue, St. Helena would face difficult cutbacks.

Now, with Measure A likely headed for defeat, it’s perplexing to see those who voiced these concerns propose a series of salary increases and staff expansions, including reclassifications that will increase recurring costs. This sends a mixed message to the community about our financial priorities and risks undermining trust about the city’s fiscal challenges.

Deepening Our Structural Deficit

St. Helena’s budget deficit is not a temporary issue—it is a structural one, rooted in an ongoing imbalance between recurring revenues and expenses. Increasing salaries and adding positions only deepens our financial commitments, raising baseline costs that we will have to meet every year. Among the changes proposed are:

• Reclassify the Assistant Public Works Director as Deputy City Manager overseeing Public Works, with a salary range from $148,087 to $180,000.

• Add an Assistant Planner in the Community Development Department, with an estimated annual cost of $77,297 to $93,955, including salary and benefits.

• Reclassify and expand the Community Services Officer role to a full-time Property & Evidence Technician, with a salary range of $69,421 to $84,382.

  
  

Each of these changes represents an added recurring expense that will impact future budgets and increase CalPERS liabilities, which currently sit at $16.5 million. Cities with similar financial challenges often freeze new hires and salary increases to control costs. By focusing on core services and minimizing long-term commitments, cities can stabilize financially before expanding. St. Helena’s approach here is atypical for a city claiming fiscal crisis.

Unpacking the “Savings” Claim

The city claims $65,550 in "net savings" by reallocating costs across different funds rather than reducing total expenditures.

Reallocations Across Funds: The city is adjusting budget allocations by reducing spending in specific funds (particularly the Water and Wastewater Funds) to offset added expenses in the General Fund. For example, certain positions in these funds have been downgraded or reclassified, creating savings that help balance new expenses in the General Fund.

Increases in the General Fund: The city is proposing new costs for roles in the General Fund, with an estimated increase of $21,569 due to raises, new hires, and reclassifications. This includes added roles like the new Assistant Planner in the Community Development Department and the reclassification of other positions.

Unfreezing the Senior Planner Position: The Community Development Department’s budget has included a Senior Planner position for four years, but this role was frozen and left unfilled during that time, meaning its budget allocation wasn’t actually spent. By unfreezing and actively filling this position alongside the new Assistant Planner, the department faces an actual increase in spending. However, because this position was technically “budgeted” on paper, the city is treating it as if the funds were already accounted for, even though it represents a new recurring expense in practice.

Additionally, to fully fund each new employee and prevent further increases to the city’s unfunded accrued liability (UAL)—without paying down the existing UAL balance—the city would need to contribute an estimated $9,027 per $100,000 in employee salary. This is on top of the normal cost of 25.76%. With a UAL of $16.5 million growing at 5.49% annually, these extra contributions are essential to avoid compounding liabilities. Without increasing our payments, the city will continue to underfund its pension obligations, adding to CalPERS liabilities and compromising the budget's long-term stability.

True Budget Increase Explained

To understand how unfreezing a previously budgeted position and adding a new one creates a real budget increase, imagine the city’s budget is like a family budget.

If you’ve been planning to buy a car, setting aside $1,000 each month, but haven’t bought it yet, that money remains unspent. When you finally buy the car and decide to add a second one to your budget, your actual expenses double. St. Helena’s case is similar: the Senior Planner position was budgeted but left unfilled, meaning the funds weren’t actually spent. Now, by unfreezing that role and adding an Assistant Planner, we’re moving from hypothetical to real spending, which raises the city’s actual costs.

These staffing changes lead to a real increase in spending because the city is moving from a hypothetical plan to actual expenses for two positions, rather than none. This shift increases the department’s real costs, even though the funds were previously “budgeted” but unspent.

Public Trust and Fiscal Responsibility

The community has generally supported the council’s financial messaging in recent years, even being asked to consider new taxes to address the budget crisis. Moving forward with raises, new positions, and expanded roles now risks sending an inconsistent message to residents who were told our city’s finances are in critical need. Public trust is essential, and our actions must align with the fiscal urgency communicated to residents.

In Conclusion

While I am not yet a seated council member, I feel it’s important to make my position known. Given the city’s fiscal situation, I would vote against the proposed salary increase for the city manager & a contract extension, along with the other staff increases currently recommended, until our financial house is in order. Fiscal responsibility, public trust, and a commitment to sustainable budgeting are essential for St. Helena’s long-term stability. We need to hold off on discretionary spending until we have a clear and sustainable financial plan.

Thank you for allowing me to share my perspective. What's yours? Comment below.