This bill authorizes the California secretary (Department of Food and Agriculture) to fix compensation for secretary-managers of district agricultural associations (DAAs), overriding several existing Government Code provisions. It requires the secretary to set a single salary range for the position and to consider DAA board recommendations and local budget constraints when placing an individual within that range.
The statute also creates a structured process for periodic market comparison, ties routine increases to the state’s general cost-of-living adjustments for state employees, allows additional merit and multi-site management pay, and directs the department to maintain job descriptions and gather performance information for merit decisions. The aim is to give DAAs a clearer, market-aware pay framework while centralizing certain pay-setting responsibilities at the departmental level.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill gives the secretary authority to set a single salary range for DAA secretary-managers and to fix individual pay within that range while taking board recommendations and local budgets into account. It requires the department to maintain the classification’s job description and to solicit performance information from boards for merit decisions.
Who It Affects
District agricultural association boards and their secretary-managers are directly affected; the Department of Food and Agriculture gains a central pay-setting role; trade associations and county event centers will be involved indirectly through the market-survey mechanism and funding arrangements.
Why It Matters
The measure centralizes a key pay decision that has been largely governed by existing state classifications, opens a pathway to align secretaries’ pay with comparable public and private-sector roles, and creates new fiscal dynamics for local DAAs that must absorb COLA, merit, and multi-site pay options.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill replaces the prior patchwork of compensation rules for DAA secretary-managers with a single, department-managed salary-range framework. Instead of relying solely on existing classification salary ranges and local practices, the secretary now has discretion to fix the range and to determine where an individual secretary-manager is paid within that range.
The statute explicitly directs the secretary to consider recruitment and retention requirements identified elsewhere in the Government Code when exercising that discretion.
To ground pay levels in the labor market, the department is required to use a salary survey process to compare the secretary-manager role to comparable chief executive positions across federal, state, regional, and local governments and in similar industries. That market input is meant to inform the salary range, but the department only conducts the survey if it receives designated nonstate funding for the work.
Until that market work is done, the bill preserves existing classification ranges as the interim benchmark for secretary-manager pay.The bill separates two adjustment tracks. Routine annual adjustments follow the state’s general cost-of-living salary increases for state employees, providing a predictable indexing mechanism.
A distinct merit pathway lets boards and the secretary grant additional increases based on performance; the department must solicit information from each board to document responsibilities and performance for those decisions. The scheme also contemplates higher compensation for managers who oversee more than one DAA, creating a discrete pay premium tied to additional responsibilities.Operationally, the department must keep the secretary-manager job description current and gather annual input from boards describing managers’ duties and performance.
Those administrative duties are intended to support transparent merit decisions and to produce a defensible classification should pay be challenged. Throughout, the secretary retains substantial discretion, with board advice and local budget realities explicitly framed as factors the secretary shall consider when fixing pay within the established range.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The department must conduct a salary survey on or before January 1, 2027 and then every three years thereafter to inform the salary range for secretary-managers.
The salary survey will only take place if the secretary receives nonstate funds from the California Emergency Response and Resiliency Venues and Fairgrounds trade association fair industry (e.g.
trade associations, DAAs, county event centers) specifically for that purpose.
Until the department completes the first required salary survey, secretary-manager compensation must be set within the salary ranges already established for the secretary-manager I–VII classifications or for the general manager of the California Exposition and State Fair.
Annual compensation is to be increased each year by an amount comparable to, but not exceeding, the percentage increase provided to state employees as a general cost-of-living salary increase.
Beyond the COLA linkage, a secretary-manager may receive an annual merit increase of up to 10 percent, and a secretary-manager who manages more than one DAA may be paid up to 40 percent more than the maximum salary limit determined for the position.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Secretary’s authority to fix compensation and applicability
This opening provision grants the secretary the power to set compensation for DAA secretary-managers notwithstanding several Government Code sections that previously governed pay. Practically, it elevates the department’s role above local classification practices and makes the secretary’s determination the controlling rule for this job class. The clause also frames the exercise of that authority by requiring the secretary to act reasonably and to consider recruitment-and-retention standards from other Government Code sections.
Single salary range and conditional market survey
The bill requires the secretary to adopt a single salary range for the secretary-manager title and directs the department to conduct a market salary survey to set that range. Important operational constraints: the department will only perform the survey if it receives nonstate funds from the named industry sources, and until the first such survey is completed the department must use existing state classification ranges as the interim benchmark. This creates a two-stage process—an interim state-classification fallback and a market-informed long-term benchmark—but makes the market phase contingent on outside funding.
Board recommendation and local budget as placement factors
When deciding an individual’s pay within the adopted range, the secretary must consider the DAA board’s recommendation and the association’s budget constraints. That structure keeps local stakeholders in the conversation but ultimately preserves departmental discretion, creating a formal tension between local fiscal limits and the department’s market-driven objectives.
Annual COLA linkage, merit increases, and multi-association premiums
The statute defines three distinct mechanisms to raise pay after the range is set: a routine annual increase tied to the state’s general COLA for state employees, an annual merit increase up to 10 percent, and an extra pay premium (up to 40 percent above the range maximum) for managers who oversee more than one DAA. Those mechanisms are additive to base pay and create multiple levers for compensation changes that local budgets may have to absorb.
Department administrative duties: job descriptions and performance information
The bill requires the department to maintain an accurate, separate job description for the secretary-manager classification and to solicit annual performance and responsibilities information from DAA boards to inform merit decisions. This turns local performance reporting into a statutory input for pay decisions and centralizes documentation that the secretary will rely on when granting merit increases.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Secretary-managers: The structure creates a clearer path to market-aligned pay, recurring COLA adjustments, and potential merit and multi-site premiums, improving compensation prospects and recruitment appeal.
- District agricultural association boards seeking competitive leaders: Boards gain a department-level mechanism to justify higher pay offers and to retain experienced managers, supported by job descriptions and survey data when available.
- Larger or multi-site DAAs and county event centers: Organizations that require managers to oversee multiple facilities can offer substantially higher compensation, making it easier to staff complex operations.
Who Bears the Cost
- District agricultural associations (local budgets): DAAs may have to fund COLA increases, merit raises, and multi-site premiums from their own budgets, increasing fiscal pressure on smaller or cash-strapped fairs.
- Department of Food and Agriculture: The department assumes added administrative duties—maintaining classifications, soliciting performance reports, and conducting or coordinating market surveys when funded—which requires staff time and process design.
- Trade associations and industry funders: Because the market survey only occurs if industry provides nonstate funds, trade groups and industry partners face a choice to fund the survey if they want market-based range-setting; that creates potential costs and influence opportunities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the goal of paying competitive, market-aligned wages to attract and retain experienced fair managers against the need to protect local public budgets and avoid conflicts of interest from industry-funded salary research; it solves the competitiveness problem by centralizing and opening pay channels, but that solution risks uneven application and fiscal pressure where industry funding or local resources are absent.
The bill builds a hybrid model that mixes centralized authority, market benchmarking, and local inputs—but that blend creates implementation frictions. Making the market survey contingent on industry funding produces an uneven rollout: some DAAs may quickly move to market-informed pay ranges if industry pays, while others remain on interim state-classification benchmarks indefinitely.
That conditional trigger also raises conflict-of-interest risks because the industry that benefits from higher public pay could fund the comparability work.
The statute’s multiple upward pay levers (COLA linkage, up-to-10% merit, and up-to-40% multi-site premiums) interact with a statutory cap rule that refers to excluding certain increases when measuring comparability—creating potential confusion about what counts toward the “maximum salary limit.” Local budget strain is the practical trade-off: the framework can make DAA leadership more competitive but pushes the financial burden onto individual associations, some of which operate on thin margins. Finally, the secretary’s broad discretion—framed by terms like “reasonably appropriate”—will require departments to define transparent policies and audit trails to avoid perceptions of ad hoc or uneven treatment.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.