Councillors cost taxpayers more than three-quarters of a million pounds last year.
Brighton and Hove's 54 city councillors claimed £767,976 in allowances and expenses in 2004-5.
This is £57,000 less than three years ago. Before the number of councillors was slashed from 78, the total spent was £824,000.
Last year's basic allowance was £10,283 but most topped this up with payments for travel expenses and special responsibilities such as chairing committees.
A council spokesman said: "Many councillors find their duties dominating their lives. Anyone becoming a councillor as a way of making money would possibly find bar work offering better hourly rates."
Most expensive was council leader Ken Bodfish, who claimed £36,717.
On top of his basic allowance, the Labour councillor received £26,434 for his role in leading the council.
Coun Bodfish, who is retired, said he spent 55 hours a week on council work.
He said: "The hours are put in on behalf of the city are heavy but I choose to do it."
In second place was his deputy, Sue John, who claimed a total of £26,314.
Coun John, who spent about 35 hours a week on council work, said her post was the equivalent of a non-executive director responsible for an annual turnover of half a billion pounds.
She said: "We need to encourage more women and people with families to become councillors and I don't see how we do that without some sort of recompense."
In third place was Labour councillor Brian Fitch who claimed £23,092 in allowances and expenses.
His travel and subsistence included a budget of £2,000 for his work for the International Association of Peace Messenger Cities.
Fourth was Garry Peltzer Dunn, leader of the Conservative opposition group, who received £12,688 on top of his basic, which with a claim of £82 for travel and subsistence produced a total of £23,054.
He has semi-retired from his job as a surveyor to find more time.
Coun Simon Burgess, whose £21,384 allowance pushed him into fifth place, said: "My role of dealing with finance is basically a full-time job.
"The danger is that if we were paid any less, then councillors would only be those who are retired or unemployed."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article