###

It looks like most voters in Eureka don’t want their council members or mayor to get a raise. In election night results — and subsequent reports after additional ballot counting — a majority have opposed a measure to allow for increased monthly stipends for these elected officials.

Measure H needed a simple majority to pass, but it’s trailing by 2.6 percentage points or roughly 200 votes.

Over 90% of ballots across Humboldt County have been counted. While it’s possible the measure could swing the other way, that result is getting increasingly far-fetched.

The measure would amend the city charter to allow the council to initially double its members monthly stipends by ordinance. It would also allow the council to take on future adjustments annually (subject to a review by the City’s Finance Advisory Committee).

Asked why Measure H is trailing, Eureka Councilmember G. Mario Fernandez believes that communication could’ve been better. He also pointed to the state of the economy.

“When everybody else is, you know, having difficulty paying for groceries or housing or anything like that. You have state leaders that are going like, ‘Hey, do you mind if we get a raise, even though economically your employer or the general economy is unable to provide that for you?’”

“The sentiment is going to be largely ‘No,’” he said.

Eureka has five council members and a mayor. The current monthly stipend of $500 for council members and $625 for mayor has remained unchanged since it was set back in 1988. Adjusted for inflation, a council member then would be receiving roughly $1,370.70 in today’s money, according to the American Institute for Economic Research’s Cost of Living Calculator.

Eureka is a charter city, and this kind of change would require an amendment to the city’s charter. It’s the first time the council has attempted to change these 1988 rates, according to the city manager.

Fernandez knows there are more votes to count, and while he doesn’t think success is likely, he said 200 votes is still pretty close. He thinks the council should try pitching the measure again to voters if it fails.

“I would, yes, pursue this again, but through the lens of [future candidates]; if it’s not going to have an impact on me, then it certainly needs to have an impact on the person who comes in after me,” said Fernandez.

He suggested a couple changes for next time, perhaps making the increase go into effect after the sitting council is termed out, or prorating the stipend on attendance.

More broadly, sitting council members have said the measly stipend means many potential candidates simply couldn’t afford to serve, excluding working-class people from joining the council.

“It shouldn’t just be folks who have the idle time or the economic comfort to do it,” said Fernandez.

Plus, council members end up being paid much less than minimum wage for the hours they put into their positions, sometime exceeding 40 hours a week.

Fernandez said he has a living-wage job and is OK without the extra $500. But as a field representative for the California Faculty Association, he thinks people should be paid for the work they’re doing from a labor perspective.

“We want people to be leaders. We want people to be leaders for free. We want them to do work for free, and that’s hard for me to reconcile,” he said.

Opponents, at least those who have commented in council meetings, have countered by pointing to the total salary and benefits of council members. These officials can receive health benefits from the city, a small retirement contribution and certain reimbursements for travel — according to compensation details published on Transparent California, council members received pay and benefits between $15,265.96 to $40,857.96 in 2024, the latest year available.

Opponents also argued that civil service shouldn’t be a paid job, or the city needs to keep a watchful eye on finances.