Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Pay Periods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members raise concerns over handling of 27 pay periods in proposed budget
Summary
Council members asked the comptroller and budget staff how the proposed budget accounts for a calendar year with 27 biweekly pay periods and discussed options including footnoting or redistributing the extra pay period.
Several council members on May 19 pressed city budget staff about how the proposed 2025 budget handles an extra biweekly pay period in the calendar year, a technical issue that can change pay-period accounting.
Council members said the proposed budget appears to reflect 27 biweekly pay periods and asked how the additional pay week would be treated so it does not become an automatic baseline for future salary calculations. Staff discussed alternatives: (1) footnote salary pages to indicate the budget year includes 27 pay periods; (2) convert salaries to an annual figure based on 26 pay periods and place the extra pay period in a separate line; or (3) rework salaries on every page to remove the extra pay period. Staff described the last option as “a lot more work.”
Council Member Surdi and others asked staff to check how the city handled the comparable situation in the 2021 budget. A budget staffer and consultant Mike Ito discussed a compromise staff would prefer: add a footnote on salary pages noting the year includes an extra pay period and leave exhibits otherwise intact. Council members said they needed time to consider the approach and requested follow-up to ensure disclosures are clear and to avoid confusion or future disputes over baseline salaries.
No ordinance or formal change was adopted at the meeting; the discussion ended with direction for staff to research past practice and provide clearer disclosures in the budget documents.
