Trotwood council rejects compensation board pay recommendation and asks board to reconvene

The Trotwood City Council on a special meeting rejected a motion to schedule a May 5 public hearing and to have the law director draft an ordinance accepting the compensation board—s April 7 pay recommendations, then approved a separate motion to reject the compensation board—s report and request that the board reconvene and submit a revised report.

The council—s action came after extended discussion about staggered terms and a state law prohibition on interim pay increases, which council members said results in members starting new terms receiving raises at different times. Council members also discussed the 30-day window for accepting or rejecting the compensation board—s report and whether reconvening would meet statutory timing requirements.

Why it matters: The compensation board—s recommendations would change elected officials— pay starting at the beginning of the next terms; council members questioned whether staggered term start dates would create unequal pay for members doing the same work. By rejecting the report and asking the compensation board to reconvene, council created a path for the board to review the rationale and return with a revised recommendation before the council—s next substantive vote.

Council members pressed legal and timing details. City Attorney Steve Landis explained that council has 30 days from receipt of the compensation board—s report to accept or reject it; if council rejects the report the compensation board is to reconvene and submit a revised report. Landis cautioned that the board could return with the same recommendation but said the board is "to go back, meet, restudy it, submit a revised report." Several council members said they wanted the board to address rationales and explain why certain amounts or staggered timing were recommended.

Council members also cited Ohio law limiting pay increases to take effect only at the start of an official—s next term, which council members said makes it impossible to give an interim increase to some incumbents without disadvantaging others. One council member noted the perceived inequity if some members starting a term in 2026 received a raise while others starting in 2028 would not see the same adjustment until their next term.

Votes at a glance: The first motion, to schedule a May 5 public hearing and authorize the law director to draft an ordinance accepting the compensation board recommendation (as presented April 7), failed on a roll call recorded in the meeting: Council member Moore — No; Council member Gales — No; Council member Billing — No; Council member Pearson — No; Vice Mayor Brown — No; Mayor Pate — No. The second motion, to reject the compensation board report and request that the compensation board reconvene and submit a revised report as soon as practicable, was made, seconded and carried (partial roll call recorded: Council member Moore — Yes; Vice Mayor Brown — Yes). The full roll call for the second motion was not entirely recorded in the meeting transcript provided.

What happens next: Under the charter and state timeline discussed at the meeting, the compensation board is expected to reconvene, review the council—s statements placed on the public record, and issue a revised report. The council may either accept or reject the revised report when it returns as an ordinance vote at a later meeting; if council again rejects a report it may request further revision. City staff said the board could likely meet in May and provide an updated report in time to meet the statutory deadlines.

Clarifying details: The compensation board—s initial report was presented to council on April 7. Council discussed scheduling a public hearing for May 5; the statutory deadline referenced in discussion was a June 1 target for board reports. Council members repeatedly emphasized that state law forbids interim pay increases and that pay increases take effect at the start of the next term (examples discussed in the meeting referenced January 1, 2026 and January 1, 2028 as implementation points). The precise dollar amounts recommended by the compensation board were discussed in general terms (members referenced mayor and council salary differentials and a separate remark alluded to a roughly $3,000 difference), but exact new salaries were not uniformly read into the record; the transcript includes a line noting council would be at $10,000 and the mayor's base $12,000 in one place but the meeting focused on procedure rather than adopting those figures that night.

Ending: The rejection sends the matter back to the compensation board for further study. Council members instructed that council—s questions and comments be included in the public record so the compensation board will have specific issues to address when it reconvenes.