City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2025-00721 3/25/2025 Discussion Item 18.
City Manager Executive Recruitment Process
File ID: 2025-00721
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: 1) Receive CPS HR Consulting’s report on the consensus of Mayor and City Council input for the City Manager executive recruitment process and compensation assessment; 2) provide final direction on the executive recruitment process; and 3) pass a Motion directing CPS HR Consulting to proceed with the executive recruitment process.
Contact: Jennifer Wilkinson, Administrative Officer, (916) 808-5295, [email protected], Department of Human Resources Presenter: Jennifer Wilkinson, Administrative Officer, (916) 808-5295, [email protected], Department of Human Resources; Pamela Derby, Executive Recruitment Manager, CPS HR Consulting.
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-CPS HR Consulting Report
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The position of City Manager was vacated effective December 31, 2024. The City Council has begun a recruitment process for the position of City Manager.
On October 22, 2024, the City Council approved entering into professional service agreements with five firms for executive recruitment services. With that action, the Council pre-approved executive recruitment vendors who had successfully met the requirements of the City's Request for Proposals for Executive Recruitment Services on an as-needed basis. The rationale provided for this Council action was that since each of the five firms on the list met the qualities the City sought such as unique experience, recruitment approach, geographic reach, fee schedule, and diversity profile, their pre-approval would give the City much needed flexibility and agility in meeting its executive recruitment needs. As the City has contracts in place with these five firms, the City requested that each of the firms submit cost proposals and respond to basic process questions. CPS HR Consulting and MGT Impact Solutions submitted cost proposals.
File ID: 2025-00721 3/25/2025 Discussion Item 18.
On January 28, 2025, the City Council referred to the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee the evaluation of executive recruitment search firms from the list of firms approved by the City Council on October 22, 2024, and directed the P&PE Committee to return to the City Council with a recommendation on the executive recruitment search firm to use in the City Manager recruitment no later than March 1, 2025.
On February 4, 2025, the P&PE Committee reviewed cost and process proposals of firms proposing to conduct the executive recruitment for City Manager, discussed comments and suggestions from City Councilmembers at the January 28, 2025, Council meeting, discussed the executive recruitment firms’ qualifications and proposals, and passed a motion directing the City Clerk to invite CPS HR Consulting and MGT Impact Solutions to present to the P&PE Committee on February 18, 2025.
On February 18, 2025, the P&PE Committee conducted interviews of the two firms who submitted cost proposals, CPS HR Consulting and MGT Impact Solutions, and passed a motion recommending to the City Council engagement of CPS HR Consulting to conduct the executive recruitment for City Manager.
On February 25, 2025, the City Council agreed with the P&PE Committee recommendation of CPS HR Consulting to conduct the executive recruitment for the City Manager and passed a motion directing staff to begin the recruitment process with CPS HR Consulting.
February 26, 2025, through March 12, 2025, CPS HR Consulting held individual interviews with the Mayor and City Council to obtain critical information necessary to conduct a thorough and targeted recruitment and completed a City Manager compensation study. CPS HR Consulting prepared a report on the City Council’s input and compensation results in Attachment 2.
Policy Considerations: Not applicable.
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
Environmental Considerations: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This action is not a project that is subject to CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines §15378(b)(5)).
Sustainability: Not applicable.
Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable.
Rationale for Recommendation: Using an outside firm to conduct the recruitment for an executive level position is consistent with past practices.
File ID: 2025-00721 3/25/2025 Discussion Item 18.
Financial Considerations: The estimated total cost for the recruitment is $40,000, which is already appropriated in the department’s FY2024/25 Approved Budget.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
1 TO: Mayor and City Council
City of Sacramento
FROM: Pam Derby, Manager
Executive Recruitment
Cc: Human Resources
DATE: March 19, 2025
SUBJECT: City Manager Executive Recruitment
As directed by the Mayor and City Council, CPS HR has conducted individual feedback conversations with each Councilmember. These discussions focused on the attributes the Council is seeking in the next City Manager. This information will be used to create recruitment marketing materials, ensure CPS HR is seeking candidates who possess the desired attributes and, assist in formulating interview questions and selection processes that will help identify the characteristics and qualities sought in the next City Manager.
In addition, Councilmembers provided their expectations regarding the manner in which CPS HR will conduct public, staff and stakeholder engagement activities.
Summary of Desired Attributes for the Next City Manager – City of Sacramento
1. Fairness, Transparency, and Council Relations
• Treats all Councilmembers equally, without favoritism. • Ensures openness and transparency in decision-making. • Effectively communicates with Councilmembers, adapting to their individual engagement needs.
• Strong relationship-builder with the entire Council, able to navigate different personalities. • Can secure consensus and align the Council around a shared vision.
2. Leadership and Organizational Culture
• Sets a strong culture of customer service and efficiency from the top. • Encourages collaboration across departments, avoiding silos. • Fosters a team-oriented environment with clear direction and follow-through. • Leads by example, ensuring staff have the tools to succeed. • Values innovation, open to new ideas, and embraces constructive criticism.
2 3. Public Engagement and Community Connection
• Actively engages with residents beyond City Hall.
• Attends town halls and community events alongside Councilmembers. • Balances relationships with businesses and community-based organizations. • Understands and prioritizes the needs of diverse neighborhoods. • Receptive to public concerns and input.
4. Experience and Strategic Vision
• Sacramento is not a "training ground"— must be an experienced leader with a strategic mindset.
• Understands California-specific challenges (e.g., labor laws, permitting, collective bargaining).
• Familiar with issues facing mid-sized cities with complex governance. • Background in public safety, finance, development, and infrastructure preferred. • Experienced in cities with significant ethnic diversity and social equity challenges.
5. Decision-Making and Governance
• Understands the legislative framework at the local, state, and federal levels. • Can navigate labor relations, working with Sacramento’s 11 unions. • Able to implement Council ordinances effectively, including Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) policies.
• Uses data-driven decision-making and reporting to improve city operations. • Ensures strong project follow-through—avoiding a “my way or the highway” approach.
6. Visionary Leadership and Innovation
• Must be a strong, strategic leader while remaining open to alternative ideas. • Capable of uniting the Council and City staff under a shared vision. • Ready to tackle key city issues, including homelessness, affordable housing, and public safety.
• Encourages modernization and efficiency in city services. • Collaborative with strong political acumen while avoiding political maneuvering.
7. Integrity and Professionalism
• Takes pride in public service and the role of government. • Respects the Mayor, Council, and governance structure. • Acts with integrity, avoiding political entanglements. • Committed to leaving Sacramento in a better state than they found it.
The ideal City Manager is a visionary yet adaptable leader who fosters teamwork, communicates effectively, and drives results—all while maintaining fairness, transparency, and strong public engagement.
3 Summary of Sacramento City Council Feedback on Public, Staff, and Stakeholder Engagement for the City Manager Recruitment Process
1. Expanding Community Engagement
• Increase communication channels to reach diverse communities, particularly in North and South Sacramento.
• Engage Hmong communities and consider partnering with non-profits for outreach. • Ensure community and staff input early in the process to inform decision-making.
2. Structured but Efficient Process
• Some Councilmembers prefer community meetings for input, while others do not want to slow the process with extensive public meetings.
• Stakeholder meetings should be structured, interactive, and not open-mic free-for-alls. • A mix of engagement methods, including surveys, breakout sessions, and virtual town halls, is preferred.
3. Key Stakeholder Groups to Engage
• Community Groups: Each Councilmember should identify their top three groups for outreach.
• Sac Metro Chamber Board: Regularly meets with City leadership and has business ties. • Business & Economic Leaders: Representatives from key industries (e.g., Kings, manufacturers, soccer arena).
• Labor Organizations: Engage labor leaders with differing perspectives. • Language & Accessibility Considerations:
o Top languages: Spanish, Vietnamese, Cantonese.
o Ensure interpreters at in-person meetings where needed. o Advertise community meetings effectively to ensure attendance.
4. Staff & Leadership Input
• Essential to gather insights from Department Heads, Assistant City Managers), and Charter Officers.
• These discussions provide internal perspectives on leadership needs.
Key Takeaways
The City Council seeks balanced, efficient engagement that ensures diverse community input without slowing the hiring process. They favor structured stakeholder meetings, surveys, and targeted conversations. Early input from staff, business, labor, and community groups is critical to building trust and guiding the selection.
A Community Engagement Plan is attached to this memo and included in the Recruitment Schedule/Workplan also included in this packet.
City of Sacramento – City Manager
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
CITY MANAGER
RECRUITMENT WORK PLAN/SCHEDULE
Timeframe Activity
PLANNING AND PREPARATION
2/28 – 3/10
2/28 – 3/17
3/25
Activities:
Consultant meets with City Council members individually to discuss ideal candidate attributes, engagement activities and recruitment plan. CPS HR Compensation Professional conducts an executive compensation study and prepares report.
Consultant presents findings and makes recommendations regarding ideal candidate profile, engagement activities and compensation.
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
3/31
3/26 – 4/11
4/14 – 4/21
Online Survey Deployed
CPS HR speaks with Charter Officers, Assistant City Managers and schedules meetings with groups identified by Councilmembers. CPS HR conducts in-person and virtual community engagement workshops.
RECRUITMENT MATERIALS
4/23
4/28
4/30
5/2
Recruitment Brochure:
CPS HR submits draft recruitment brochure text to P&PE Committee. P&PE Committee submits text edits to CPS HR.
CPS HR submits draft recruitment brochure PDF to P&PE Committee. P&PE Committee provides final approval of recruitment brochure.
ACTIVE RECRUITMENT
Week of 5/5 –
6/9
Marketing:
Consultant posts the job opening to various websites and publications:
City website, CPS HR Website, ICMA, Western City, CSAC, California City News, Public CEO, National Association of Cities, National Forum for Black Public Administrators, Local Government Hispanic Network, International Network of Asian Public Administrators, Women Leading in Government and LinkedIn.
City of Sacramento – City Manager
CPS HR sends initial e-mail campaign to almost 10,000 government executives across the country.
Aggressive Outreach/Application Process:
CPS HR follows up with targeted/qualified candidates (those who are a match to the candidate profile) to ascertain interest and encourage application.
Candidates apply through the CPS HR website, receipt of applicant materials acknowledged.
Consultant vets candidate resumes against minimum qualifications. Consultant provides weekly updates to P&PE Committee regarding recruitment activities.
SELECTION ACTIVITIES
6/11 – 6/20
6/24
Screening Interviews:
Consultant conducts comprehensive screening interviews with candidates who meet minimum qualifications.
CPS HR provides Client Report which includes application materials for candidates screened and recommendations regarding candidates for further consideration.
7/1 Client Report Meeting:
In Closed Session, Consultant meets City Council to discuss candidate pool and determine semi-finalist candidates.
7/22 Semi-finalist Interview:
In Closed Session, City Council interviews semi-finalist candidates and determines candidates for a final interview process.
Immediately
following semi-
finalist
interviews
Reference/Assessment Activities:
Consultant conducts reference checks on the finalist candidates. Finalist candidates will participate in any pre-determined assessment exercises.
Consultant prepares all materials and coordinates any assessment activities.
7/29 Finalist Interviews:
In Closed Session, City Council conducts interviews with finalist candidates.
Consultant prepares all materials and coordinates any assessment activities.
City of Sacramento – City Manager
CPS BACKGROUND CHECK
Post Final
Interviews
Consultant conducts background check including criminal, civil, driving, education, and credit.
NEGOTIATION OF OFFER
Post Final
Interviews
Consultant is available to assist with negotiation of salary offer and terms and conditions of employment with the selected candidate as desired by the City Council.
City of Sacramento
City Manager
Community Engagement Plan
In order to ensure ample opportunity is provided to City stakeholders including the general public, business community, community based and non-governmental organizations, unions and staff, a robust engagement process is being planned over the next month. Activities include the opportunity for one-on-one meetings with the consultant, four (4) in-person community meetings and two (2) virtual community meetings, in addition to an online survey that will be deployed in English, Spanish, Vietnamese and Cantonese, with hard copies also available at appropriate locations throughout the City. These activities will be coordinated in consultation with the City’s Community Engagement team.
While a tentative schedule is provided below, virtual and in-person community meeting logistics will need to be coordinated with the Community Engagement team.
Tentative Schedule of Activities
3/31 Online Survey Deployed
3/26 – 4/11 Individual discussions with Charter Officers, Assistant City Managers and meetings with groups identified by Councilmembers. It is anticipated these meetings will take place via telephone or Zoom.
4/14 – 4/21 Conduct two (2) virtual community meetings anticipate one morning and one evening.
Conduct four (4) in-person community meetings. Suggest two (2) each in the North and South split between morning and evening sessions.
1 To: Mayor and City Council, City of Sacramento
From: Teddi Anderson, Project Consultant
RE: Total Compensation for City Manager, City of Sacramento
Summary
The City Manager compensation for the City of Sacramento was reviewed. This memo describes the methodology, data obtained, and considerations based on the findings. The primary recommendation is to consider eliminating or minimizing the supplemental leave incentive of 2,320 hours that was negotiated and cashed out by the previous City Manager in 2023. This large one-time payout of over $200,000 significantly impacts the market position. The tables below reflect the side-by-side comparison of current data (actual salaries) for 2025 when including (Table A) or excluding this incentive (Table B). Recommendations based on this data and other factors are in the conclusion section of this memo.
Table A Table B
Background
The City of Sacramento (City) is the capital city of the state of California. Based on the U.S.
Census, the population estimate for the City in 2023 was 526,384. Currently, the position of City Manager is vacant. CPS HR and the City are in the planning stages of a nationwide executive search. Part of this plan typically includes a review of salary in order to gauge market competitiveness and provide an opportunity to make any changes. Prior to my analysis, the city contracted with another firm to conduct compensation analysis, using established pay ranges for various positions. Although using the ranges is a valid and helpful data point for both the agency and candidates, my analysis included actual and current salaries when possible. This memo is not meant to audit other consultants’ work, but it will include additional elements such as actual pay, value of leave, and more specifically, cost of living based on the similar position within the comparable agencies.
Position City COL Adjusted Total
Compensation With
Supplemental Leave
Position City COL Adjusted Total
Compensation Without
Supplemental Leave
City Manager Anaheim 506,577 City Manager Anaheim 506,577 City Manager Bakersfield 417,157 City Manager Bakersfield 417,157 CEO/GM CSDA 443,214 CEO/GM CSDA 443,214 City Manager Fresno 471,253 City Manager Fresno 471,253 City Manager Long Beach 614,366 City Manager Long Beach 614,366 City Admin Oakland 576,759 City Admin Oakland 576,759 City Manager Roseville 530,016 City Manager Roseville 530,016 CEO Sac County 409,007 CEO Sac County 409,007 CEO SACOG 598,238 CEO SACOG 598,238 COO San Diego 425,059 COO San Diego 425,059 Dept Head V San Francisco 384,502 Dept Head V San Francisco 384,502 City Manager San Jose 600,881 City Manager San Jose 600,881 CEO/GM SMUD 761,308 CEO/GM SMUD 761,308 City Manager Stockton 562,365 City Manager Stockton 562,365 Average 521,479 Average 521,479 City Manager Sacramento 844,231 City Manager Sacramento 493,634 Variance 47% Variance -5.49%
2 Market Factors
There are many factors that go into reviewing the elements of salary for City Managers and equivalent positions in local government, such as County Administrators and General Managers. A common practice for these positions includes a more formal employment agreement updated annually or during their performance review. These agreements go beyond just base salary to include other “perks” or economic adds of their employment. Additionally, not only are these contracts available upon public records request they are often displayed on agency websites or included in media articles.
All of these factors and considerations are taken into account when establishing and analyzing total compensation packages for executives. Additionally, while recruiting, it can help inform us about the success of a strong candidate pool and help quantify the total cost of a position for budgeting purposes. A critical consideration is that any change in compensation to one position in the agency may have unintended consequences, most specifically a domino effect as it relates to internal equity and compression.
Market Pay
Market pay is typically defined as the average pay of actual salaries, salary ranges and/or total compensation for similar positions in comparable agencies. Depending on the agencies’ pay philosophy, the target market rate can vary. Rates can be determined or relative to the average of the minimum, midpoint, or maximum range or market average of actuals, or a combination of both. Additionally, whereas California is very transparent about sharing or listing salaries, current and actual salaries or related benefits are not always accessible in a timely manner.
Due to the volatility of the labor market, it is important to review market pay and include actual salary as well as ranges annually OR when there is a significant vacancy. This data can help determine competitiveness and in turn support a more successful recruitment. As the world changes around us, it has become even more difficult to persuade passive candidates to leave the security of their agency unless there is a significant economic impact. Although most of the surveys look at market average, it does not always reflect what candidates will expect. We cannot predict where every candidate places their value, but it is not unusual for strong candidates to ask for 20% or more above their current salary in order to accept job offers.
Pay Philosophy and Structure
A common philosophy and best practice related to range placement for market competitiveness is allowing for variation of data points that contribute to market pay including hiring rate and internal equity. The City’s practice of +/- 5% pay philosophy is a strong, valid practice. Although this can vary from agency to agency, having a desired market target rate or market target range is essential when determining pay philosophy. Additionally, in regard to salary structure, many executive positions do not have a range (min and max) but use a single hiring rate that can be adjusted annually based on a number of factors, in addition to internal equity, including qualifications, performance, cost of living and budget.
3 Budget
Budget is a critical consideration when determining market pay. Not everyone can afford the average market rate and regardless of your pay philosophy, once established, it is imperative to know how competitive your pay is. Looking at total compensation is also an ideal way to project the budget for the cost of a full-time employee (FTE). Many agencies supplement salaries with other economic adds to increase the overall total compensation package. Although we see these economic adds primarily in employment contracts for executives it can include other positions. These pay elements should be considered in totality.
Comparable Agencies
Determining which comparable agencies to use are essential. Typically, agencies are chosen based on similar population, size of agency, size of budget, scope of duties and span of control (direct reports/FTE). A lesser-known element is using agencies with similar revenue sources.
These factors as well as others determined by the agency all contribute to their established market pay. Many organizations and survey data show that an established market driven philosophy that includes proximity of agencies, that have or will draw talent can be helpful in preventing turnover. The lists below represent both those agencies the city has identified as comparable well as those included following discussion with City Council:
• Bakersfield
• Fresno
• Long Beach
• Oakland-Strong Mayor
• Roseville
• Sacramento County
• San Francisco- Strong Mayor
• San Jose
• Stockton
• State of California
Additional Agencies added
• SMUD
• CSDA
• SACOG
Anaheim
For the purposes of City Manager analysis, these are solid comparable agencies, the exception being the State of California. Additionally, and I agree with the previous analysis conducted, the State of California does not have a strong match for this position, therefore no data was used for this agency. It is important to note that Oakland, San Diego and San Francisco have a Strong Mayor form of Government, and, although the salary is comparable, some agencies may choose to exclude it in their analysis. Although there is no “rule” for number of comparable agencies you use, the more you include, the less the variance in the average if/when one agency changes pay and conversely, the smaller number of comparables, the more dynamic the change.
Cost of Living
Cost of living is also a significant factor to consider when establishing pay. When conducting analysis, it is important to consider cost-of-living variances, especially as it relates to attraction and retention. For purposes of this analysis, I used a credible, validated source for determining cost of living, the Economic Research Institute Cost of Living Comparison Calculator | Living
4 Cost Comparison Tool | ERI. In order to be as specific as possible and also from the perspective of candidates that would consider relocating to Sacramento, I used the calculator that allows the user to put in the comparable agency position and then compare it to the City Manager at the City of Sacramento.
The table below reflects the cost of living compared with the City of Sacramento. Additionally, if the % is green-this means that Sacramento has a lower cost of living than the comparable agency and conversely if the % is red it reflects a higher cost of living in Sacramento. The data was then adjusted accordingly. For agencies in Sacramento County, no adjustments were made.
The results of using the aforementioned calculator are below in Table #1:
Table #1: Cost of Living Differences
Attraction and Retention
All the factors above are driving factors in attracting and retaining quality talent in an organization. Savvy executive level candidates may utilize the same resources and calculators when making a decision to apply or go elsewhere. Candidates and employees may also expect that the previous incumbents’ pay is available to them upon hire, promotion or achievable through established pay strategies.
Data Resources and Transparency
Although these resources are available to the public there are considerations when using one or more for analytical purposes. The primary consideration is the year in which the data was reported. Typically, these lag 1-2 years and are reported annually. If current data is not Position Agency
City
Population/Population
Served
County
SAC has
LOWER/HIGHER % of
Cost of Living than
comp agency (ERI)
City Manager Anaheim 340160 Orange County -2%
City Manager Bakersfield 413,381 Kern County 9.0%
City Manager Fresno 545,716 Fresno County 12.0%
City Manager Long Beach 449,468 Los Angeles County 0.1% City Admin Oakland-Strong Mayor 436,504 Alameda County -5.0% City Manager Roseville 159,135 Placer County 3.0%
CEO Sacramento County 1,584,104 Sacramento County 0.0%
COO San Diego-Strong
Mayor 1,138,800 San Diego County -6.0%
Dept Head V San Francisco- Strong
Mayor 808,988 San Francisco County -17.0%
City Manager San Jose 969,655 Santa Clara County -7.0%
City Manager Stockton 319,543 San Joaquin County 8.0%
CEO SACOG 28 agencies Sacramento/Placer County 0%
CEO/GM CSDA 1300 agencies Sacramento County 0.0%
CEO/GM SMUD 1,500,000 Sacramento/Placer County 0.0%
5 available, these numbers can be “aged” by adding the known cost of living increase or other monetary increases for those years not reflected. It is important to note that these numbers are a snapshot in time, and they do not account for mid-reporting turnover, nor do they reflect any details distinguishing the difference between an ongoing, potentially compounded incentive and a severance one-time payout upon separation.
For example, included in 2023 data for the previous City Manager was a large supplemental leave negotiated in his contract. This represented $200,000 in additional “other pay” and increased the total compensation well above market (details in tables #2 and #4 below.) Although significant for transparency purposes, if these large sums are not explained or compared as a one-time payout, it can misrepresent the data for purposes of market comparison. To show how the data compares I included the data resources, a brief definition and a side-by-side comparison.
• Actuals: Current data derived directly from agencies through current employment agreements, or from agency staff, this is the most credible and timely data. Data is adjusted for cost of living and includes value of vacation or other compensable leave.
Additionally, depending on the reason for the analysis, such as future recruitment, certain incentives may not be available to the future incumbent. Where actuals were unavailable, Public Pay was used for 2023.
• Public pay: Government Compensation in California through the State Controller’s Officer. They do not include value of all elements, including leave in their total comp calculations. Most recent data is 2023.
• Transparent pay: I did not utilize this resource. Represented as California’s largest public pay and pension database. Transparent California is provided by Nevada Policy as a public service. It is not known how the data is validated and by whom. They do not include value of all elements, including leave in their total comp calculations. Most recent data is for 2023.
Table #2 below represents the three data sources. Although these sources can be used as a tool, those who use the data would need to make sure they understand each total compensation element. As you can see below the average changes from one data source to another.
Variations due to one or more of the following:
Most recent data is from 2023
Reporting and collecting variables
Inconsistent “total comp” elements
Turnover and/or difference in negotiated terms.
6 Table #2: Comparison of Public Data Sources
Methodology
The data for the incumbent position and comparable agencies were collected. As part of the analysis, I researched employment agreements, annual actual salary, salary ranges (if applicable) and other related executive incentives or perks for those comparable agency positions. Most of the salary data was current as of March 2025. This data was translated into several tables for a visual representation throughout this memo. Additionally, these data points reflect a point in time obtained of March 2025. The data was NOT aged to represent any projections or increases that are yet to occur in 2025.
Total Compensation Common Elements
Although the following elements are typically included in total compensation, it does not prohibit the agency from adding or excluding other unique or lesser-known perks negotiated by the candidate upon hire.
The common elements or total compensation included are:
• Base Salary
• Additional contribution and/or match to a 401 (or similar): Typically, a % of annual salary or lump sum amount.
HR did not verify the current contribution, therefore 2023 data was used in the total compensation analysis.
• Performance/merit-based annual bonus or lump sum payment. • Car, phone allowances: Use of a vehicle, or a monthly allowance. Other perks can include an annual allowance to cover additional expenses, or less commonly longevity pay.
The previous CM received $400/month for city expenses. • Value of Health, Dental and Vision Benefits (Employer Paid) Position City Public Pay 2023
(Total Comp)
Transparent Pay 2023
(Total Comp)
Actuals Adjusted
(Total
Compensation
2025)
City Manager Anaheim 390,985 471,702 506,577 City Manager Bakersfield 263,376 288,201 417,157 CEO/GM CSDA Not Listed 443,214
City Manager Fresno 324,320 324,320 471,253 City Manager Long Beach 502,482 502,482 614,366 City Admin Oakland 294,588 294,588 576,759 City Manager Roseville 421,102 497,427 530,016 CEO Sac County 491,037 533,923 409,007 CEO SACOG 363,421 363,421 598,238 COO San Diego 448,812 604,669 425,059 Dept Head V San Francisco 462,432 Not Listed 384,502 City Manager San Jose 504,316 504,574 600,881 CEO/GM SMUD Not Listed 1,004,969 761,308 City Manager Stockton 415,343 415,343 562,365 Average 406,851 483,802 521,479 City Manager Sacramento 657,298 710,036 493,634
7 Although it is more complex to quantify due to plan design variances, the total employer paid value of the employee’s benefits offered are included.
Health Insurance premium portion/subsidy
• Some agencies may contribute a greater portion towards the employees’ premiums, as a % or lump sum
• Additionally, depending on the reason for the analysis, employee paid portions are included.
• Leave: Value of Vacation, SL or PTO Accruals
Higher level accruals or “front loaded” banks applied annually or upon hire.
Administrative or supplemental leave bank, separate from but in addition to traditional vacation, sick leave and holiday leave accruals. Compensable leave, such as Vacation or PTO are the most commonly used as they are more likely to be pensionable than sick leave. Cash in lieu of leave: Some organizations allow employees to cash up to a certain amount of their leave annually reflected as a lump sum and is not added to their annual salary.
• Note: Although included in total compensation for the previous Sacramento City Manager, according to HR, this incentive and respective amount would have to be re-negotiated with any future candidate and is not an automatic perk nor part of the initial offer of the position.
• Upon hire: Relocation or other hiring “bonus”
• Other: Wellness incentives, utilization of a clinic or gym, dry cleaning just to name a few
• Severance: Although not typically quantified for total compensation purposes, it can influence the candidate’s decision to apply as well as having significant impact on the budget upon separation.
Note: the common severance package is a designated duration for which salary is paid upon separation, typically 6 months. Mr. Chan negotiated 12 months of fully paid medical, dental and vision.
Salary and Total Compensation Analysis
When comparing the analysis, to simplify and account for variances in negotiating terms of an employment agreement, I broke the visual table out by salary only and by total compensation.
Both were adjusted based on cost of living. As reflected in the table below, based on the current actual salaries only, the City Manager salary is only -3.22% behind the market average.
8 Table #3: Salary Only
Total Compensation
Table #4 Contains elements of total compensation and the previous CM’s negotiated supplemental leave. As mentioned above, this large payout impacted the market position significantly.
Position City COL
Adjusted
Salary Only
City Manager Anaheim 360,917
City Manager Bakersfield 313,920
CEO/GM CSDA 366,990
City Manager Fresno 345,645
City Manager Long Beach 362,535
City Admin Oakland 409,830
City Manager Roseville 373,647
CEO Sac County 336,000
CEO SACOG 396,209
COO San Diego 360,294
Dept Head V San Francisco 314,228
City Manager San Jose 417,618
CEO/GM SMUD 600,000
City Manager Stockton 375,840
Average 380,977
City Manager Sacramento 368,894
Variance -3.22%
Position City COL Adjusted
Total
Compensation
City Manager Anaheim 506,577
City Manager Bakersfield 417,157
CEO/GM CSDA 443,214
City Manager Fresno 471,253
City Manager Long Beach 614,366
City Admin Oakland 576,759
City Manager Roseville 530,016
CEO Sac County 409,007
CEO SACOG 598,238
COO San Diego 425,059
Dept Head V San Francisco 384,502
City Manager San Jose 600,881
CEO/GM SMUD 761,308
City Manager Stockton 562,365
Average 521,479
City Manager Sacramento 844,231
Variance 47%
9 Based on the recommendation to modify an incentive, a second set of data was included. This excluded the 2,320 hours of supplemental leave, which is not only expensive, but this large amount is uncommon in the market.
Table #5 Total Compensation elements, without previous CM’s negotiated supplemental leave.
Ranges
Salary ranges are typically the most recent and visible data reflected on agency websites or listed in job announcements. Range placement and range movement can vary based on the agencies range structure, pay philosophy, internal equity, compression and budget. Obtaining pay philosophy for comparable agencies was outside the scope of this analysis. Only 5 of the 8 agencies have ranges. Based on the ranges collected the minimum of the range for the City of Sacramento is significantly behind the market average (-27.7%) and the max of the range is -
7.6% behind market. Although candidates may always desire the top step/max of the range, having a less competitive minimum range may impact their decision to apply, especially if they do not know the typical “starting pay.”
Position City COL Adjusted Total
Compensation
City Manager Anaheim 506,577
City Manager Bakersfield 417,157
CEO/GM CSDA 443,214
City Manager Fresno 471,253
City Manager Long Beach 614,366
City Admin Oakland 576,759
City Manager Roseville 530,016
CEO Sac County 409,007
CEO SACOG 598,238
COO San Diego 425,059
Dept Head V San Francisco 384,502
City Manager San Jose 600,881
CEO/GM SMUD 761,308
City Manager Stockton 562,365
Average 521,479
City Manager Sacramento 493,634
Variance -5.49%
10 Conclusion
Based on the data collected and analysis, a review of the current incentives available to the future City Manager is recommended.
More specifically the city might consider the following:
1. Consider eliminating or minimizing the supplemental leave package to be more aligned with the market.
2. Consider changing severance to a traditional duration i.e., 6 months of salary.
3. If the city desires a +/-5% market rate for the future CM, consider adding more to the deferred compensation in order to bring it into that competitive market range.
4. Consider modifying the min and/or max of the range.
Position City COL Adjusted
Annual Range Min
(if applicable)
COL Adjusted
annual Range
Max
City Manager Anaheim n/a 360,917
City Manager Bakersfield n/a 313,920
CEO/GM CSDA 248,594 372,891
City Manager Fresno 217,908 345,650
City Manager Long Beach n/a 362,535
City Admin Oakland 313,593 409,830
City Manager Roseville n/a 373,647
CEO Sac County 276,000 336,000
CEO SACOG 380,016 418,978
COO San Diego n/a 360,294
Dept Head V San Francisco 256,004 397,115 City Manager San Jose 335,873 421,799 CEO/GM SMUD 600,000 1,200,000
City Manager Stockton n/a 375,840
Average 328,498 432,101
City Manager Sacramento 248,465 400,652 Variance -27.74% -7.6%