The Colton City Council is fixing to give itself a 400 percent raise, a move which will make its five members the second-most financially burdensome set of municipal officials in San Bernardino County when the cost of their remuneration is considered from the standpoint of the per capita cost borne by city residents.
The move comes three years after the council induced Colton’s voters to pass Measure S, which imposed on them and those shopping in the Hub City a one-cent per dollar sales tax. In the few days since the city council on a 3-to-2 vote on November 4 instructed city staff to ready a resolution and ordinance that will raise the $400 per month stipend council members receive to attend two meetings per month to $1,600, some residents have expressed the view that the council, in particular those members who stumped for the approval of the tax measure, misled and misdirected the voters by promising the money would be used for “general municipal services and to ward off a budget deficit and service reductions,” rather than to line their own pockets. Some of those residents, while conceding the council for a considerable time had forgone a pay increase and was perhaps entitled to a modest stipend adjustment, were nonetheless taken aback by the way in which the three moved in to grant themselves the maximum increase they can claim under California law.
The council did not take action to institute the increases Tuesday night, but directed city staff to draft the documents needed to effectuate the change, including a payment schedule, a city code adjustment, an ordinance and resolution to do so at its next meeting. That direction came from council members Kelly Chastain, John Echevarria and David Toro. It was opposed by Councilman Gonzales and Mayor . Based on statements at the meeting and documents presented to the council to edify them and the public prior to that evening’s discussion, the pay increase will not go into effect immediately but will be effective following the 2026 election.
Following the meeting, there were a range of objections expressed to the action the council majority is preparing to take, not the least of which was the indication that the consensus arrived at Tuesday, taken in consideration with vote alignments on past votes pertaining to different issues and initiatives is indicative of the formation of a heretofore less-than-fully-formed ruling coalition or voting block on the council.
For some, the leadership role Councilwoman Chastain played in pushing for the raise, given the top-heavy administrative philosophy emphasizing the primacy of management of line employees which predominated during her mayoral administration nearly two decades ago during her first run in office in Colton which preceded an economic disaster that nearly resulted in Colton’s dissolution as a municipal enity more than 123 years after it had become the second city in San Bernardino to incorporate.
In 1996, when the Colton City Council consisted of six council members representing as many districts and and a mayor elected at large, Chastain defeated embattled Third District Councilman Abe Beltran in the same election in which Mayor George Fulp was recalled from office after he served just two years.
Chastain immediately formed a firm and fast alliance with Fifth District Councilwoman Deirdre Bennett, one which lasted almost a decade during which time Bennett made the transition to Colton Mayor. That amiable relationship came to an abrupt end in 2006, however, when in that November’s election, Chastain eked out nine-vote victory over Bennett in the mayoral contest, 3,235 votes or 49.93 percent to 3,226 votes or 49.79 percent, wherein the margin of victory was a by-product of the 18 votes that were cast during the contest for write-in candidates. Chastain continued with many of the missteps that had been perpetuated under Bennett’s rule, which included Colton’s forced annexations of property lying at the periphery of the city wherein a majority or even all of the residents or landowners therein or thereon were in opposition to what was occurring. Chastain doubled down on accepting Bennett’s previous hiring of then-Fontana Mayor Mark Nuami, whose professional training was that of an electrical engineer, as Colton’s assistant city manager. There was considerable controversy at the time over Nuami’s hiring, touching on multiple issues. Previously, it had been the council’s consensus that Colton’s standing as San Bernardino County’s tenth smallest or 15th largest of 24 municipalities, meant it was not populous or substantial enough to have need of an assistant city manager or multiple layers of assistant department heads. Nevertheless, Nuami, whose experience in municipal management/governance consisted solely of his six years as a Fontana City Council member from 1996 until 2002 and his slightly more than three years as Fontana mayor following his 2002 election to that position, took on the assistant city manager’s post in then-50,357-population Colton despite the city having laid off a previous assistant city manager because he was considered a third wheel at City Hall.
Nuami was largely used as what was described as then-City Manager Darryl Parrish’s “henchman” or “grim reaper” in enforcing policies city employees found objectionable or, variously, pushing policies favored by the mayor and one or two council members that had not been ratified by a vote of the council and mayor at an open council meeting. At certain times, Parrish served as city manager in absentia in that Nuami had been given run of the city. This was done unofficially, since state law prohibits a mayor of one California city serving as the city manager of another California city. What came to be widely recognized in Fontana, Colton and elsewhere in San Bernardino County was that Nuami’s tenure as assistant city manager was a political arrangement and that he had been given a high-paying managerial/administrative post in Colton for which he had no training, experience or particular skill because of his ability to vector, as the mayor of Fontana, which was experiencing a rate of development and an accompanying population surge surpassing that of any other city in the county, political donations from principals in the construction industry and business community.
While Nuami was working in the capacity of assistant city manager and interacting with Chastain as a co-equal in their capacities as representatives of their respective cities on three separate regional joint powers authorities, he became known as Chastain’s political attack dog, verbally assailing those who questioned city policies or Colton City Council decisions in which Chastain voted in the majority.
At the end of 2007, the economic downturn which would become known as “The Great Recession” created severe financial hardship for governmental entities across the country as a consequence of diminishing tax revenue. Cities in Southern California were no exception to that trend. Colton, under the leadership of Chastain, Parrish and Nuami proved particularly ill-equipped to deal with the challenges. Rather than making across-the-board economies that uniformly reduced municipal programs in proportional increments, the three remained intent on maintaining a hierarchical approach to reducing Colton’s governmental spending which spared those at the top of the totem pole to the detriment of those at the bottom of the city’s structure. Ultimately, Chastain, the Chastain-led council and Parrish settled upon laying off 60 Colton employees, and used Nuami – the grim reaper – to deliver the news to those being axed.
When Parrish made his exit from the city to take on the city manager’s post with the City of Covina in 2009, Nuami was not put into the position of interim city manager, but was rather replaced on a temporary basis by Police Chief Bob Miller, partially because of the state law that discouraged a mayor of another city from serving as city manager but also because it was understood that Nuami simply did not have ability to manage a city unsupervised and that he was in place not because of his operational know-how but his ability to be of political value to Chastain and run interference for her.
It was decided that given the hard feelings engendered by the strategy Chastain, Parrish and Nuami used in attempting to overcome the city’s financial challenges, it was best that Nuami himself go. Unlike with the other “expendables” at the city, in handing himself a pink slip, Nuami conferred upon himself, with Chastain’s concurrence, a “golden parachute,” i.e., a hefty severance package.
Colton hired as Parrish’s ultimate replacement, Rod Foster, who had been assistant city manager in both Hesperia and Upland, as well as the acting/interim city manager in Hesperia and the de facto though not official city manager in Upland. Upon coming in to Colton, Foster recognized that the belated strategy that Chastain, Parrish and Nuami had brought to bear in the face of the economic downturn was wholly inadequate and that Colton was yet underneath a fiscal crisis that threatened the city’s solvency and had it teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, raising the possibility that it would need to dissolve its charter, relinquish its municipal status and become an administrative zone of San Bernardino County.
Foster, cognizant of who the political wheeling and dealing engaged in by Chastain and Nuami was a major factor in the city’s dire financial circumstance and that Chastain’s moral authority, understanding of practical circumstance and control over the city council as it was then composed was at best tenuous, effectively ignored here attempts resist his recovery plan and pushed it through. This included imposing on all city employees, including himself, a ten percent reduction in pay.
In the run-up to 2010 election, the financial mismanagement of the city during Chastain’s tenure as mayor was obvious and a multitude of scandals had taken their toll upon Chastain’s reputation. She was swept from office in November, and former Colton Community Development Director Zamora was elected to replace her as mayor.
In 2016, Chastain sought to get back into the political game, running again in District 3 against the-then incumbent, Frank Navarro, who handily beat her, 1,127 votes or 61.69 percent to 700 votes or 38.31 percent.
In 2022, as Colton was effectuating a reduction of the city council from a mayor elected at large along with six council positions representing six separate districts to a mayor elected at large with four council positions representing as many districts, Chastain mounted another political comeback attempt. In the redrawn council map, Chastain had been placed into the new District 2, which was represented by Kenneth Koperski, then the District 3 incumbent. In that year’s Colton Municipal Election, voters had also been asked to consider Measure S, a one cent per dollar sales tax initiative. Placed on the ballot by the city council, Measure S was needed, city officials said, because the city, which was no longer in danger of having to disincorporate, was nevertheless still behind the eight ball financially. In promoting Measure S, a handbill put out by the city council stated the approximate$9,500,000 to be generated in sales tax annually if the measure passed would be used exclusively to supplement the city’s “general municipal services, including fire, police, and emergency 911 medical response, repair streets, sidewalks and street light, clean and maintain parks, recreational, and community facilities, provide library services, as well as fund after-school programs, provide services for senior citizens, homelessness response; and engage in gang/drug interdiction and crime prevention,” a city document that essentially promoted the measure stated. “In recent years, the city’s ability to maintain these services has become more challenging due to operating costs rising at a faster pace than revenues. The city has been operating with fewer employees, has instituted a hiring freeze, and has been applying for grants. Based on current projections, unless a new revenue source is identified, the city faces substantial budget deficits and service reductions. Measure S provides a way to close the budget gap.”
Chastain, in her campaign and independently, went on record as being opposed to Measure S.
While Measure S received an overwhelming endorsement of 5,110 or 66.7 percent of the voters throughout the city with 2,551 or 33.3 percent in opposition, in the city’s Second District, Chastain brought in 952 or 59.06 percent of the vote to defeat Koperski, who polled or 660 votes or 40.94 percent.

In laying out the options with regard to the increase in council pay, city staff said the council could take no action and leave the current arrangement, by which the council receives a $440 per month stipend and a $242 per month vehicle allowance in place. It further stated the city council could elect to give itself what the staff report characterized as a “modest increase” [to] $800-1,000 monthly total compensation” to consist of “a modest increase of $558-758 salary + $242 auto allowance, or consolidated into a single $800-1,000 salary.” According to the report provided by city staff, “This level matches averages in cities like Highland (population 57,000; approximately $800 monthly) or Apple Valley (population 75,000; approximately $800). This level provides a measured response to inflation without approaching the state maximum.” On the positive side, according to staff, this “addresses basic cost of living and opportunity costs for part-time service” makes for a “low fiscal burden [which] encourages public support [and] promotes equity without overcommitting resources, potentially improving candidate pools.” On the downside, paying the council that amount “may not fully resolve recruitment barriers in a high-cost region like the Inland Empire” Colton would still lag behind some cities which have increased their council compensation in the aftermath of a state law – Senate Bill 329 – which allows general law cities to up council pay to $1,600 per month, such that in the future the council would need to engage in a further review of the compensation level and adjust it upward “if inflation persists.”
The staff report also said the council should contemplate giving itself a “moderate increase [to] $1,200-1,400 monthly total compensation,” which the report described as “a balanced midpoint within the statutory bracket, e.g., $958 salary + $242 auto allowance, or consolidated $1,200 salary.” This was presented as being “rational and comparable” to council salaries provided in other juristictions such as 73,000-population Redlands and 51,000-population Redlands, which pay their council members approximately approximately $1,400. “It balances the need to address intensified duties (e.g., regional collaboration on housing and infrastructure) with fiscal responsibility,” the staff report states. This would, on the good side, according to city staff, provide “meaningful recognition of time commitments and cost pressures, potentially attracting more diverse candidates” and foster “equity with staff raises” while serving as a “midpoint” salary that “avoids extremes while signaling commitment to effective governance.” It would have “moderate taxpayer impact,” the report said, and “might not fully compete with higher-paying nearby cities.”
According to the staff report, the city council had the option of providing its members with the “full statutory maximum [of] $1,600 monthly total compensation” which would “maximize the population-based cap under Government Code Section 36516, structured as sub-option A, retain[ing the] automobile allowance [by providing] $1,358 salary + $242 auto allowance or sub-option B, consolidat[ing] and eliminating the] automobile allowance) [with a] single $1,600 salary. The report said this was “rationale and comparable” to “cities like Lodi (San Joaquin County, population 67,000; approved $1,600 in 2024 post-SB 329) [and] in the Inland Empire, [where] smaller cities lag [but] larger ones like San Bernardino ($3,125 monthly, higher bracket) and Riverside ($3,811 monthly) show trends toward fuller utilization of the state law caps.” On the positive side, according to the report, this “fully compensates for responsibilities and inflation, enhancing diversity and retention (e.g., reducing financial barriers for non-wealthy candidates); aligns with SB 329’s intent to update outdated caps.” On the downside, according to the staff report, going to a stipend of $1,600 would have the “highest fiscal impact [and be] perceived as [a] significant raise despite historical underutilization [of pay increase options.”
The staff report cautioned the council that “Any adjustment to city council and mayor compensation would result in increased expenditures from the general fund, with the exact amount varying based on the selected option and level of increase. For instance, modest adjustments could add several thousand dollars annually, while adopting the full statutory maximum might increase costs by tens of thousands. These impacts would only materialize upon full implementation after the next municipal election, ensuring no immediate budget strain during current terms. Overall, the fiscal implications are manageable within the city’s budget, but they should be weighed against other priorities such as public
services and infrastructure investments.”
It was Chastain who was the prime mover in having the city staff present the discussion of the council pay increase to the city.
Unstated in the staff report is that it is the revenue coming into the city as a consequence of the sales tax override approved with the passage of Measure S that is making increasing the city council stipend feasible. In pressing for the increase, it has been Chastain’s position that since she was not on the city council when Measure S was proposed, she was not a member of the city council as it was then composed when a commitment was made to use the funds for civic needs other than a pay increase for the city council and since she was herself opposed to Measure S, she is not bound by the commitment the city made to the city’s voters in appealing to them to support the sales tax override initiative.
Chastain combined forces with Fourth District Councilman John Echevarria and First District Councilman David Toro in directing that staff provide them with an item relating to the council salary increase at an upcoming meeting.
Observers were alarmed at indications the trio were motivated by pecuniary interest in giving staff that direction.
Echevarria, who began his career in Law Enforcement with the Upland Police Department in 1996 and joined the San Bernardino Police Department in 2002, will be eligible to retire and receive a pension equal to 100 percent of his highest level of pay in 2030, putting him on a trajectory to collect $224,119 on a yearly basis for the rest of his life based on his law enforcement career alone. The increase to his council compensation on top of his pay from the City of San Bernardino carries with it the possibility his pension could be increased to as much as $240,000 per year, depending on how long he remains in elected office.
Toro, who was first elected to the city council in 2006, is Colton’s longest consecutively and currently serving councilman. His more recent statements asserting that members of the council merited higher pay clashed with his past statements that suggested the financial benefit of holding public office should not be a consideration in an individual’s decision or willingness to seek election.
A pattern has emerged over the past two years in which Chastain, Echevarria and Toro have supported items before the council which have had a significant monetary impact on franchisees, project proponents and businesses. Meanwhile, those entities positively impacted by those votes have expressed an interest in supporting the trio in the furtherance of their political careers. The Colton City Clerk’s Office, under former city clerks Helen Ramos, Eileen Gomez, Carolina Padilla, Acting City Clerk Stephanie and current City Clerk Isaac Suchil have an established tradition of making it virtually impossible for citizens examine the California Form 460 documents filed with the Colton City Clerk’s Office which disclose the donations provided to the city’s mayor and city council members. Unlike virtually every other city or town in San Bernardino County, Colton does not post the city’s elected officials’ Form 460 campaign disclosure documents on its website. Nor are the 460 documents available for perusal at the city clerk’s office at City Hall. This lack of transparency, coupled with the lockstep voting among Chastain, Echevarria and Toro, has contributed to the perception that there is a hidden commonality of financial support for at least three-fifths of the current council that is driving public policy in Colton.
Simultaneously, the staff report pertaining to the council stipend increase options cited “potentially improving candidate pools” and “potentially attracting more diverse candidates,” while Chastain, Echevarria and Toro gave indication that they were supporting the stipend increase to infuse the council with new blood by bringing in new members to replace all or some of the council’s current five members, who have served an average of more than 12 years in office. None, however, have given indication that they are considering leaving office or abandoning the power of incumbency. Statistically, incumbents fare significantly better in getting reelected than do their opponents in challenging them. The Colton City Council has taken no action to compel the Colton City Clerk to make available for public scrutiny the Form 460s they file which show the political advantage they maintain over their challengers and would-be challengers in terms of fundraising. These factors taken together, some Colton residents have said, are an indication that Chastain, Echevarria and Toro were being disingenuous at best when they asserted that upping the council’s pay would diversify or otherwise increase the pool of candidates for city council or result in a changeover of the council’s membership.