Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Administrator Hiring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pacific aldermen raise salary range, relax water‑sewer requirement for city administrator after heated discussion
Summary
The Board of Aldermen voted May 20 to raise the city administrator salary range to $120,000–$150,000 and to move prior water/sewer management experience from required to preferred in the candidate profile.
The Board of Aldermen on May 20 approved multiple changes to the city administrator position profile used in the ongoing recruitment.
A motion to change the advertised salary range from $90,000–$120,000 to $120,000–$150,000 passed 3‑2. Board members said the recruiting firm (SGR) recommended the higher range to reach candidates with the skills the city seeks; some members said the recruiter suggested a wider “sweet spot” centered above $120,000. Opponents said the board had already run recruitment materials and that changing the salary mid‑process was procedurally troubling; Attorney Jones said changing the posted range is legally permissible.
Separately, the board voted 4‑1 to move “previous water and sewer management experience with knowledge of regulatory frameworks and industry standards related to water and sewer services” from the required section of the profile into the preferred section. The change was intended to broaden the candidate pool, per the recruiting firm’s advice.
The board also approved a motion requiring a selected candidate to establish residence within a 30‑mile radius of the city limits within one year of employment; that motion passed without recorded dissent in the transcript.
Alderman Kelly objected on the record to discussing and approving the recruitment changes during the meeting because the profile revisions had not appeared as a separate public line item in the packet; she asked that her objection be entered into the record. City staff and other aldermen said the changes originated in the administrative committee and were appropriate for board discussion under that committee report.
Staff said they had already shared a proposed profile with the board and that SGR advised that making the water‑and‑sewer requirement preferred — not mandatory — would increase the pool of qualified candidates. The board directed staff to send the updated profile to SGR and to proceed under the revised salary range and qualifications.
The board also discussed benefits, vacation weeks and other contract terms as negotiable items, and directed staff to update the recruitment brochure to reflect the agreed changes.
