Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council splits on raises; workshop declines across‑the‑board 3% increase, debates covering 8.1% insurance rise
Summary
At the Aug. 11 budget workshop councilors debated a staff proposal for a 3% across‑the‑board pay increase and whether the city should absorb an 8.1% increase in employee health premiums; council direction was mixed and staff recorded opposition to raises during the workshop.
City staff told the council at the Aug. 11 budget workshop that a 3% across‑the‑board salary increase would add roughly $660,000 to the fiscal 2026 budget and that health‑insurance premiums were projected to rise about 8.1 (an estimated $170,000).
City Manager Don Rosenthal explained the figures and asked council for direction. The proposal would have two distinct effects: (1) cover the insurer’s premium increase so employees do not realize a pay reduction through higher benefits costs, and (2) a separate 3% across‑the‑board raise for city employees.
Council reaction split. Several council members — citing past raises, near‑term fiscal uncertainty and pressure on property taxpayers — opposed a blanket increase. Councilman Carter said he was not in favor of raises at this time, noting recent adjustments in the previous year. Others argued for targeted or larger raises for front‑line workers. Councilman Jernigan voiced strong support for raising pay “for the boots on the ground” and said he favored covering the insurance increase plus higher raises for lower‑paid staff.
After discussion, the council informally signaled no across‑the‑board 3% raise would be budgeted: staff recorded three council members opposing the 3% proposal during the workshop conversation. The workshop did not record a formal binding vote; staff said the discussion and the council’s direction would be reflected in the draft budget prepared for the formal adoption process.
On the health‑insurance premium increase, the council again divided. Some members supported city coverage of the 8.1% premium increase to avoid reducing employee take‑home pay; others opposed adding the $170,000 to the general fund amid concerns over state policy proposals that could reduce future property tax revenue. Staff said the insurance renewal process had been competitively procured through their broker and that the quoted 8.1% was the negotiated rate after market adjustments.
Staff asked for explicit guidance to include or exclude the two items in the draft budget; councilors left final decisions for inclusion in the proposed budget based on the majority guidance recorded at the workshop.
