Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budget Compensation And Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Centerville council debates merit pay, code enforcement position and grant consultant spending in tentative budget
Summary
Councilors and staff debated proposed pay adjustments (COLA and merit), a part-time code-enforcement placeholder, planning software and continued use of the Ferguson group for grant work; no final budget vote was taken and staff will return with clarifications and minor line-item reductions.
Centerville city staff and councilors spent the largest portion of the May 20 meeting discussing the tentative fiscal 2025-26 budget, focusing on employee pay, a proposed part-time code-enforcement position, planning-permit software and the city's continued contract with a grant-seeking consultant.
Brent (city finance/accounting lead) explained the tentative budget includes a 2.5% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and a 2% merit pool; staff said a 1% merit increase equals roughly $69,000 so the 2% merit pool would be about $138,000. Department heads told council they use merit increases to reward performance and to encourage improvement; some council members said merit pay preserves morale and accountability while others recommended raising the uniform COLA and reconsidering the merit design.
Councilors debated a part-time, complaint-driven code-enforcement position proposed as a placeholder in the budget. Several members said existing staff could handle initial outreach and low-intensity cases and asked for more precise scope and documentation before fully funding a new hire; others argued complaints and follow-up already consume substantial staff time and favored retaining a placeholder so the city can pilot the role. Council directed staff to return with more details and requested monthly reports that show complaints received, staff actions and any citations issued.
On capital and operations, staff proposed software to digitize building permits, planning and code enforcement workflows at an estimated $25,000 per year with a one-time implementation cost of about $12,000. Several councilors supported the software as a customer-service and efficiency investment given current paper-based permit handling, while others asked for further analysis of permit volumes and fee structures (including the possibility of adjusting permit fees to offset costs).
The council also discussed continued funding for the Ferguson Group, a consultant that helps pursue state and federal grants. Some councilors questioned the value of the consultant; others and staff defended the contract, saying Ferguson has helped the city secure large awards and that grant work is competitive. Several members said they will review performance closely over the coming year.
On municipal revenue policy, councilors discussed a modest property-tax increase option (2.5% was discussed) to replenish capital reserves. Staff provided an estimate: a 2.5% city property-tax increase would raise about $56,890 and average roughly $9.50 per household per year (calculations based on city totals presented at the meeting). The mayor opposed a property-tax increase at the meeting; councilors were divided and agreed more analysis and public-notice steps would be needed before considering truth-in-taxation action.
Council members made several small agreed adjustments that staff will carry to the next meeting: reductions of roughly $5,000 in the general fund and an estimated $4,000 in the drainage fund pending further review. The council did not adopt a final budget on May 20 and scheduled further discussion, including a possible dedicated work session on the code-enforcement proposal.
