Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Payroll Wages topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Superior council refers nonunion wage increase back to HR committee after public opposition
Summary
Councilors debated a proposed 2.5% across‑the‑board nonunion pay increase to match union raises. Councilor Dan Olson and members of the public urged caution citing economic conditions and pay compression; the council voted to send the item back to the Human Resources Committee for further discussion.
The Common Council voted to refer a proposed 2.5% nonunion wage increase back to the Human Resources Committee after council and public debate about timing, pay compression and fairness.
The measure under consideration would have matched negotiated increases for union employees with a 2.5% increase for nonunion city staff effective Jan. 1, 2011. Council discussion and public testimony raised three central concerns: the effect of uniform percentage increases across wide salary ranges, the local economic climate, and whether the city should hold nonunion pay to the same terms as union contracts.
Councilor Dan Olson argued against an across‑the‑board increase, saying it “makes absolutely no sense” to give the same percentage raise to employees at widely different pay levels and that the council should account for compaction between union and management pay. He said that while individual employees may deserve raises, a flat percentage risks distortions between job classes.
Several residents and taxpayers spoke during public comment. Kevin Peterson said the Consumer Price Index has been flat for the last 2½ years and suggested a pay freeze, noting federal employees were facing pay restrictions and many residents live on fixed incomes. Marty Curtis urged a temporary city wage freeze until the economy improves and asked whether the city should instead ask for volunteer fundraising or other cost‑saving measures.
Councilor McKenzie said he had not been at the HR committee meeting and could not speak to the committee’s deliberations, and moved that the council refer the nonunion wage proposal back to the HR committee for further discussion with union representatives and other stakeholders. The motion carried by voice vote and the item will be reconsidered at committee.
What happened next: The council did not adopt the increase at the meeting. The referral means the HR committee will take up the matter for additional review; no new timetable or committee date was announced at the meeting.
Why it matters: The proposal would have affected city payroll and budget planning. Supporters viewed parity with union increases as necessary to avoid losing or demoting managers; opponents cited fiscal restraint and pay‑compression concerns.
