Council pay has not changed in 27 years, and it is time to catch up. Serving on the council carries real personal costs: many councilmembers have reduced their working hours, lost income, and paid out-of-pocket expenses just to serve our community. Improved salaries will allow more citizens to seek council seats without suffering financial harm. Our city council should reflect all of Pacific Grove, including younger families with children, seniors with special needs, and active mid-life residents who are deeply invested in our community's quality of life.

Currently, Pacific Grove councilmembers earn $420 per month and the Mayor earns $700 per month. These figures have not changed since 1998. The proposed measure would bring councilmember pay to $987 per month and the Mayor's pay to $1,645 per month. These new figures still place Pacific Grove at the low end of compensation among Monterey County cities, and no additional benefits such as health insurance are included.

The size of the increase reflects 27 years of no adjustment. State law SB 329 now permits cities to make a one-time catch-up adjustment based on cumulative cost-of-living changes compounded over that period. When viewed as annual increments over nearly three decades, the adjustment is consistent with how wages, pensions, Social Security, and everyday costs have risen across the country. In 1998, gasoline cost about $1.20 per gallon and the average California rent was under $990 per month. Today that average rent exceeds $2,700. The proposed increase simply reflects that same economic reality.

State law SB 329 raised the long-standing caps on council salaries in California. The Legislature had not adjusted those caps since 1984. Every city surrounding Pacific Grove, with the exception of Carmel, has already acted under this law. New pay scales are now in effect across Monterey County and throughout California. Pacific Grove is one of the last to act.

Even after this increase, Pacific Grove councilmembers and the Mayor will remain at the low end of the compensation ladder in Monterey County. Salaries will be comparable to Sand City and less than half of what Seaside and Monterey pay their council members. Unlike many surrounding cities, this measure adds no additional benefits such as health insurance.

Timing matters for prospective candidates. Many residents have raised the concern that candidates should know the compensation before deciding to run. A June vote ensures that information is available before the November election, when Pacific Grove will shift to district-based elections for the first time. Having two or more candidates in every district is highly desirable, and the belief is that updated compensation will help attract a broader and more competitive pool of candidates. The city attorney reviewed this question carefully and confirmed that placing the measure on the normal June Primary ballot is fully legal. Some citizens have claimed that November would have been the less expensive option. The council considered that possibility and unanimously determined that the benefit of informing prospective candidates before filing deadlines outweighed it. On February 18, 2026, all seven council members voted in favor.

The two regular monthly meetings represent only a fraction of the actual time commitment. Councilmembers spend significant hours reviewing agenda packages that often run into hundreds of pages. They serve in liaison roles on city boards and commissions, participate in regional bodies with their own preparation requirements, develop projects through research plus citizen and staff collaboration, and engage continuously with constituents outside of formal meetings. The campaign effort required to win a seat is grueling, expensive, and uncertain. The role operates in a demanding and often contentious public environment. The compensation reflects the full scope of that commitment, not just the meeting hours.

It is standard practice for legislative bodies to set their own compensation, and in practice they are typically very conservative about doing so. In Pacific Grove's case, the cost of placing a measure on the ballot has greatly exceeded the annual value of any raise the council might have given itself. State law also constrains increases tightly to approximately the cost-of-living, making excessive raises legally impossible. This measure goes further by freezing council salaries for five years, until 2031, providing voters with a clear and accountable timeline.

State law constrains pay increases very tightly to approximately the cost-of-living rate. The more common situation is that councils lag behind even that restrictive standard. This measure also freezes salaries until 2031, providing five years of stability. Pacific Grove has consistently been one of the most conservative cities in California when it comes to council compensation.

A city council role is different from a nonprofit board position. The difference begins with the intense effort required to get elected, the public scrutiny of personal and campaign finances, and the non-stop nature of the role across public meetings, community events, and everyday citizen interactions. The range of issues a councilmember must engage with, from street maintenance to emergency response to land use, is far broader than the focused mission of a nonprofit. The time commitment is substantially greater, and the environment is far more demanding. Compensation reflects that reality.

State law SB 329 provides one opportunity to make up the full 27-year gap. After that, only small single-year increments are permitted. It’s a “use it or lose it” situation. A partial increase now means permanently leaving the remainder on the table. The all-at-once approach is not a choice of convenience: it is the only path to full and fair adjustment under the law.

No. Benefits such as health care are separate considerations and are not included in this measure. Many cities across California include health insurance as part of total councilmember compensation. Pacific Grove does not, and this measure does not change that. Pacific Grove remains one of the most conservative cities in the state on this issue.

Yes. Pacific Grove's charter specifically defers to State General Law for compensation matters. SB 329 applies to Pacific Grove.

From the Author's Statement of SB 329 as developed in the California Senate: "City Councilmembers have one of the hardest jobs in California government. They deal with a wide range of issues, from street maintenance to emergency response duties. And all too often, they do this job with very little financial compensation. No one runs for City Council in order to make money. But the low levels of pay make it much harder for them to balance their careers and personal obligations with the calling to serve their community. The Legislature has not raised the base pay amounts for City Councilmembers since 1984. It's time those amounts caught up to the present economic reality, especially with the rapid increase in inflation we've seen recently. Raising the pay will also make it easier for members of marginalized communities to serve. City Councils should be reflective of the communities they represent and I believe raising their compensation is an important step to achieving that equitable outcome." There was no registered opposition to this bill.

This measure is supported by current and former Pacific Grove councilmembers, community leaders, and residents who believe that fair compensation is essential to attracting a diverse and qualified pool of candidates. It is not about enriching those currently in office: it is about ensuring that public service remains accessible to all residents, regardless of their financial circumstances.