CORRESPONDENCES FROM THE PUBLIC
City Council Regular Meeting
August 12, 2025
DISCUSSION ITEM
D3 City Manager Employment Agreement
& D4 City Attorney Employment
Agreement:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
From: WBRocklin
To: Public Comments
Cc: Jill Gayaldo; David Bass; Ken Broadway; Bill Halldin; Greg Janda Subject: Public Comment for August 12th, 2025 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 8:00:16 AM
Dear City Clerk,
Please include this email as part of the official public record for the August 12th, 2025 City Council meeting, and have it read aloud during the public comment period.
From Concerned Citizen. Rocklin, Ca.
Dear Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Members, I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed compensation enhancements for both the City Manager and the City Attorney. These benefit packages are not only excessive but also inequitable, especially when compared to what is offered to the rest of the city’s workforce.
First, the proposal to offer the City Manager a significantly enhanced 457 retirement contribution—one that is not available to general city employees—is fundamentally unfair.
Taxpayer dollars should not be used to create privileged benefit tiers for upper management while frontline workers are denied similar opportunities. All employees deserve access to equitable retirement support, not just those in executive roles.
Secondly, the proposed retroactive payment of full family medical premiums for the City Attorney is deeply troubling. Covering past premiums for an entire family—at taxpayer expense—sets a dangerous precedent and again highlights a growing divide in how management and non-management employees are treated.
Finally, I strongly oppose the excessive salary increases being granted to the City Manager, especially when the City has repeatedly claimed to be in financial distress. It is disingenuous to tell employees and residents there is not enough money for essential services or fair wage adjustments, while simultaneously approving substantial raises for the highest-paid official in the city.
If the City is committed to fairness, transparency, and responsible stewardship of public funds, these kinds of exclusive benefit arrangements must be rejected. Compensation and benefits funded by taxpayers should be applied equitably and not serve as special perks for those at the top.
I urge the Council to reconsider these proposals and prioritize fair treatment for all city employees.
Sincerely,
An anonymous person afraid of being retaliated against, again.