Suggested edit of the officeholder fund item from a math geek. 75k is 3× 25k, a 200 percent increase. 100k is twice 50k, a 100 percent increase. Thanks for reporting these agenda items
I was working from an iPhone and may have been too cryptic. What I was suggesting is:
Before: The city council’s June 17, 2025 amendments raised those limits to: $75,000 per year for district council members (a 300% increase), $100,000 per year for the at-large council member and city attorney (a 233% increase), and $100,000 per year for the mayor (a 200% increase).
Revised: The city council’s June 17, 2025 amendments raised those limits to: $75,000 per year for district council members (a 200% increase), $100,000 per year for the at-large council member and city attorney (a 233% increase), and $100,000 per year for the mayor (a 100% increase).
The first and third percentage increases are incorrect, the second is correct. And I know you have bigger fish to fry - was just trying to make this more accurate.
The PFRS surplus situation is fascinating given how rare pension surpluses are nowadays. Using that $262 million to pay down CalPERS unfunded liabilities and save $20 million annually in interest is probly the most fiscally responsible move, but I get why the board quorum issue has been a bottleneck. The aging membership (average 81 years) makes governance almost impossible, so expanding board eligibility seems pragmatic even if it opens up questions about who gets control over those descisions.
“Even if it opens up questions about who gets control of those decisions.” Indeed. It would be interesting to know what “qualified individuals” to serve means.
Suggested edit of the officeholder fund item from a math geek. 75k is 3× 25k, a 200 percent increase. 100k is twice 50k, a 100 percent increase. Thanks for reporting these agenda items
Mick, thank you for pointing that out! The article has been updated to say "3x increase" instead of "300% increase."
I was working from an iPhone and may have been too cryptic. What I was suggesting is:
Before: The city council’s June 17, 2025 amendments raised those limits to: $75,000 per year for district council members (a 300% increase), $100,000 per year for the at-large council member and city attorney (a 233% increase), and $100,000 per year for the mayor (a 200% increase).
Revised: The city council’s June 17, 2025 amendments raised those limits to: $75,000 per year for district council members (a 200% increase), $100,000 per year for the at-large council member and city attorney (a 233% increase), and $100,000 per year for the mayor (a 100% increase).
The first and third percentage increases are incorrect, the second is correct. And I know you have bigger fish to fry - was just trying to make this more accurate.
Best wishes
The PFRS surplus situation is fascinating given how rare pension surpluses are nowadays. Using that $262 million to pay down CalPERS unfunded liabilities and save $20 million annually in interest is probly the most fiscally responsible move, but I get why the board quorum issue has been a bottleneck. The aging membership (average 81 years) makes governance almost impossible, so expanding board eligibility seems pragmatic even if it opens up questions about who gets control over those descisions.
“Even if it opens up questions about who gets control of those decisions.” Indeed. It would be interesting to know what “qualified individuals” to serve means.