Colton City Council Approves 135% Pay Increase for Council Members, Raising Compensation to $1,600 Monthly

The Colton City Council has approved an ordinance raising council and mayor pay to $1,600 a month — more than double the current total compensation — after two 3–2 votes and weeks of debate over parity with other cities, fairness to staff and public perception.

The increase, adopted Nov. 18 as Ordinance No. O-11-25, will not take effect until after Colton’s next regular municipal election on Nov. 3, 2026. It replaces the current structure of a $440 monthly salary plus a $242 automobile allowance — a total of $682 per month per elected official — with a single $1,600 monthly salary for each council member and the mayor.

Both on Nov. 4, when the council directed staff to draft the ordinance, and again on Nov. 18, when it passed the first reading, the vote was 3–2. Mayor Frank Navarro and Councilmember Dr. G opposed the increase both times.

On Nov. 18, City Manager Bill Smith said the ordinance implements the direction the council gave at its previous meeting.

“This action is the result of City Council direction at your last regular council meeting of November 4, 2025,” Smith said. “The ordinance before you is consistent with that direction, which was to bring forward an ordinance amending City Council compensation, increasing such to $1,600 per month, all inclusive. This action eliminates the current auto allowance of $242 monthly and increases the salary from $440 monthly to $1,600 monthly. This increase would take effect after your next regular election for any City Council seats, which is scheduled for November 3, 2026.”

According to the staff report, once fully implemented the change represents a net increase of $918 per month per elected official, or $11,016 annually, and would add approximately $63,875 in ongoing General Fund costs each year for salary and related benefits, based on five elected officials.

BBK/City Attorney Carlos Campos told the council Nov. 4 that the discussion stems from a recent change in state law.

“In 2023, the legislature amended government code section 36516, which is the government code section that allows councils to provide compensation to the city council and mayor,” Campos said. “And for general law cities like Colton, that compensation limit is set by your population. The 2023 legislation … did provide that going forward for cities the size of [Colton] the council could increase compensation to the maximum amount of $1,600 per month.”

Campos said Colton’s estimated 2025 population of 52,945 places it in the bracket for cities over 50,000 up to and including 75,000 residents, which allows for “a maximum salary of up to 1600 per month.”

He also explained that a 2010 California attorney general opinion requires Colton to treat the flat car allowance as part of total compensation rather than as a reimbursement.

“Currently it’s the compensation. That said as compensation is $440,” Campos said. “There’s an AG opinion that says we need to treat the auto since it’s a set amount as compensation and that is $242, for a total of $682.”

The last adjustment occurred in 2023, when the council raised the base salary from $400 to $440 and the auto allowance from $220 to $242, effective after the November 2024 election.

Councilmember Kelly Chastain, who asked staff to study council compensation earlier this year, said the current base pay dates back decades and now functions as a barrier to service.

Chastain said her concern was that the council had gone roughly 40 years with only a single 10% adjustment on a $400 base, which only bumped the council to $440 a month. “Our base was $400 and it has been that way since 1986,” she said. “And so we go forward, that’s 40 years that we haven’t had a raise. And when we did do the raise it was 10%, which was admirable. But 10% of 400, do the math. So now we’re at 440.”

Using figures from the staff report, she said the total $682 monthly compensation works out to only a few dollars an hour when measured against the hours council members actually put in.

“Right now, with our $682 per month in total compensation, our hourly rate is about $5.35 at 30 hours a week,” she said. She noted the staff report lists council members as part time “although we do a lot more than just part time work.” “So you can see how insufficient that is, it has been 40 years since we’ve come forward to talk about this.”

Chastain framed the proposed increase as a way to make local offices accessible to residents who cannot afford to take on what is effectively a second part-time job at below-minimum wage.

“I know it’s supposed to be a volunteer role, or that’s what it was deemed a long time ago,” she said. “But when you have a family and you can get about $20 an hour at Del Taco, it says something that people don’t have the time, nor can they substitute that by coming on to do public service.”

She also argued that the council had spent recent years bringing city employees up to parity with neighboring agencies and should not permanently leave elected officials behind.

“We’ve made it our mission to bring everybody in this organization to where they need to be or should be because they work hard and they do the job really well,” Chastain said. “And I believe that our council does the same thing up here.”

Chastain said she initially considered a more “modest” option — an $800 monthly stipend plus the existing $242 car allowance, totaling $1,042 a month and about $62,500 annually for five council members — but concluded that stopping short of the $1,600 cap could lock the city out of the higher ceiling in the future.

Chastain said choosing a lower amount now could lock the city out of ever reaching the $1,600 ceiling later. “If we make it lower — let’s say we do the thousand or eight hundred dollars a month plus the 242 — that would be set today,” she said. “I don’t think that we would be able to then do the sixteen hundred dollars later or reach that ceiling. Once we make the decision tonight, it’s basically a one and done, other than the 5% or CPI, whatever it is from here on out.”

She also translated the $1,600 figure into hourly pay.

Chastain also tried to illustrate how the $1,600 figure would translate into hourly pay. “In the moderate, modest and the maximum … the maximum, which is the ceiling of 1600. Just calculating that out, that’s about $20 an hour,” she said, adding that at 30 hours per week the pay would be “about $13.33 an hour.”

Later in the meeting, Chastain moved “that we would do the 1600 per month and do away with the auto allowance and bring back the opting out.” That direction led to the ordinance the council approved on Nov. 18.

Councilmember Dr. G called council pay a “touchy subject” and said his position was shaped by both regional comparisons and recent staff raises.

“I think extra money is always helpful. Sure, I get it,” he said Nov. 4. “However, being that I have to make a decision on behalf of my constituents, I think the way I took the approach is to look at this a little bit more logically.”

He told colleagues he checked what nearby cities pay their elected officials.

Dr. G said he started by looking at what he and nearby cities earn. “Mine is about $880 a month. I just looked at my check. So $880 a month,” he said. “Then I called Grand Terrace and talked with the mayor and they get $990 a month. And then I called Redlands and they get $1400 a month. Banning was $950 — that was online. Loma Linda is $1,066 per month.”

He said he also checked larger cities, citing Rialto at “$1,920 per month,” Ontario at “$2,550” and San Bernardino at “$3,125 per month.”

“Granted, we’re at the bottom of the list here. Okay,” he said.

He then pointed back to state law, citing Government Code section 36516 and the bill that raised Colton’s cap.

Dr. G pointed to the section of state law that ties council pay to city size. He said the statute’s “item C” covers “cities between 50,000 and 75,000 people” and “says up to 1600 a month. So, council members, you can go up to 1600, but you can also go less.” He also noted another provision: “No ordinance shall be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases.”

Given that the council had recently granted employees a 10% raise, Dr. G said he was only comfortable doing the same for council members.

“The way I see it, I believe the most reasonable move is to increase the council just 10% and no more. That’s it,” he said. “I feel that’s fair and consistent with employees who worked hard and asked for it and we gave it to them and everybody was fine. It just makes me feel funny to do any more than that, because what’s good for them is good for us.”

“Otherwise, I can’t justify going anything above that amount,” he added. “So my choice is a 10% raise. Thank you.”

Mayor Frank Navarro also pressed for the smaller increase, saying it was inappropriate to compare elected officials’ part-time workloads directly to full-time staff.

“As we sit here talking about compensation, we’re comparing ourselves to our employees. Some of our employees work 80 hours, 40 hours, 120 hours weekly,” Navarro said. “How many hours do we actually work? In our day, in our week, in our month that we put in that we can actually identify as work oriented?”

He reminded colleagues that the 10% raise for staff had been focused on retention and competition with other agencies.

“Yes. That was to bring them up to parity with our competing agencies that are taking our employees away,” Navarro said. “Nobody’s going to take us away. We’re elected. We’re here for the duration of our term until either we’re voted out or we get re-elected, whatever it may be.”

“You know, if we’re going to do anything as far as the salary, I’m going to support Dr. G’s recommendation of 10%,” he said, noting that under state law the council could consider future adjustments. “We do have the ability to move forward after that to do a 5% increase every year if we need to. We want to. Am I correct, Mr. Campos?” Campos responded, “Correct.”

Navarro also argued that a jump to $1,600 a month would look out of step given broader economic conditions.

“We’ve got people right now that are not getting benefits because their government is shut down,” he said. “We’re talking about giving ourselves a raise in front of the people that are not able to afford to buy their groceries, put gas in their car, take their children out on family outings. And when we’re talking about increasing our salary by whatever percentage it is, it takes it up to $1600 a month. I don’t support that. I’m sorry I don’t support that.”

“I think that we have to be realistic as far as our ask as far as compensation is concerned,” he said. “We’ll be honest with ourselves, am I worth that much money that I’m asking for? Am I really putting in that many hours for the money that I’m asking for?”

Chastain responded that her push was not about claiming council members work harder than staff, but about treating all parts of the organization fairly.

“I just want to make sure that the staff knows that I’m not in any way making myself out to be better than you guys or don’t think that you’re doing your job or that you are not worth what you are doing at all. That’s not what I’m saying,” she said.

She noted that because council members’ “base is a lot lower” than staff, a 10% increase does much less for them than it does for higher-paid employees.

Mayor Pro Tem David Toro said the same 10% figure had very different effects at different salary levels.

Mayor Pro Tem David Toro said the same 10% figure had very different impacts depending on people’s base pay. “Regarding the 10%, like Dr. G said and Chastain said, it’s 10%, but you look at the different salary ranges that that 10% gave,” Toro said. “We gave very large increases to a lot of individuals. So even though the 10% is, you know, across the board type of thing, it doesn’t bring us into parity, which is the word. So I’m going to support the $1,600 monthly compensation, and I would say with no car allowance.”

Mayor Pro Tem David Toro stressed that the increase would not benefit the current council. “You know, we’re up here saying [we’re] giving ourselves a raise but like Kelly said, this doesn’t go into effect until after the next election,” Toro said. “So that raise actually is not for this sitting council right now. It’ll be for future councils. And again, the opt out option is there as well.”

Much of the Nov. 4 discussion focused on how that opt-out would work. Mayor Frank Navarro and Councilmember Dr. G asked City Attorney Carlos Campos whether council members could decline part or all of the new pay. “Depends on what they’re opting out on, I guess. I mean, what’s the intent to opt out?” Campos said. “If you want to opt out of [the] entire salary, it’s fine, or a portion should be fine.” He added that if a member “doesn’t want to take 1600 and you say, ‘I want to only take 700,’” they could choose “either your current compensation or some other number.”

Finance Director Stacey Dabbs said her department could handle those choices. “We would roll with the punches,” she said. “We’re very capable of making those type of changes in the system.”

The staff report notes that under Government Code section 36516(f), “any City Council member may voluntarily waive all or part of the compensation permitted by this ordinance by notifying the Finance Department in writing.”

At the Nov. 18 meeting, Colton resident and Planning Commissioner Gary Grossich urged the council to scale back the proposal.

“I want to once again voice my concerns about this huge proposed city council raise which will make Colton one of the highest paid per capita city councils in San Bernardino county,” Grossich said.

He noted that “parity was repeatedly mentioned” in earlier discussions and defined it as “being paid fairly in relation to what others in similar positions are paid.”

“The fact is, with this increase, Colton will be the highest paid council with the lowest population of the cities in the 50,000 to 75,000 population range,” he said.

Grossich warned that setting the base at $1,600 per month — which he said is “264% higher than current pay” — would magnify the impact of future 5% raises allowed under state law.

“For example, in five years, a future council could give themselves a 25% raise, which would be an additional $400 per month,” he said. “If the base was a more reasonable $800 per month, that same 25% raise would only be $200.”

Recalling the city’s fiscal crisis more than a decade ago, he said that by 2010 Colton had laid off “over 100 city employees, closed libraries, had $55,000 in reserves, and was staring at a $5 million budget deficit.”

“I’d hate to see Colton start to backslide on the efforts and sacrifices of so many involved in our community,” Grossich said, adding that the raises now available were only possible because Measure S allowed the city to bring employee pay up to the regional median.

Grossich tied the raise to public distrust of tax measures like Measure S. “When tax increases such as Measure S are placed on the ballot, one of the biggest reasons why people vote against them is that they feel elected officials and bureaucrats will use the money to line their own pockets,” he said. “In the name of real parody and setting the example for our city employees, I would ask the council to reconsider this item and reduce the proposed compensation to an amount in keeping with what other cities our size are receiving.”

Ordinance No. O-11-25 amends Colton Municipal Code sections 2.12.030 and 2.12.050 to set the salary of each council member and the mayor at $1,600 per month. It eliminates the separate $242 automobile allowance once the salary increase takes effect. The staff report also notes that, under state law, a directly elected mayor may receive additional compensation in the future if the council chooses to provide it.

The ordinance becomes effective 30 days after adoption. However, in compliance with Government Code section 36516.5, the salary increases “shall take effect only when at least one member of the City Council commences a new term following the next municipal election.” Until that date, Colton’s elected officials will continue to receive $440 a month in salary and a $242 automobile allowance — and the community conversation over what constitutes “parity” for its part-time leaders is likely to continue well past the next election.