Ogden mayor seeks two mayor’s‑office positions; staff propose budget‑neutral transfers for remainder of FY25

Mayor Michael Brown and City Administrator Mara Nadolski presented a proposal at the Jan. 14 work session to add two senior positions to the mayor’s office to improve coordination, free up executive time and advance strategic work. Finance staff said the additions could be funded for the remainder of fiscal year 2025 through budget transfers and unspent wage budgets, and councilors asked detailed questions about authority, sustainability and cost.

Brown described the positions as “force multipliers” who would enable him to spend more time on external partnerships while ensuring internal coordination: “Mara needs help,” he said during the presentation. Nadolski framed the roles as operationally flexible and said the office was not tied to a single title: “I just wanna tell you that I'm not married to any title.”

City Finance staff presented figures describing how the request would be budget neutral this fiscal year. Finance staffer Justin explained the approach: the city would cover roughly seven months of wages for both positions in FY25 by reallocating funds from several departments and using a portion of unspent wage budget. Justin told the council the transfers totalled approximately $241,000 for remainder of FY25 and that the ongoing cost in FY26 (if both positions are fully funded at mid‑range pay) would be about $413,000; hiring at the lower end of the proposed ranges and making some operating adjustments could reduce the 2026 impact to roughly $300,000. Justin also noted the general fund is roughly $90 million, and the long‑term cost would represent about 0.4% of the general fund.

Council discussion covered role, authority, hiring and sustainability. Several councilors said they supported giving the mayor more administrative capacity but pressed for clarity on delegation, representation and whether the positions would have authority over department directors. Nadolski and Brown emphasized the positions would not be supervisor‑level over executive directors; the office would “delegate or sit in for me when I couldn't attend,” Nadolski said, and Brown added that any ultimate conflict would be resolved by him as the elected mayor.

Council members also asked where the FY25 neutrality savings came from. Justin said the proposed transfers draw on budgeted but unfilled or recently vacant positions in building services, economic development and other departments (he listed $40,000 from building services, $79,000 from economic development and smaller amounts from other accounts) and some general fund contingency. Several council members flagged the use of vacancy savings as a one‑time source and asked for plans to sustain the positions in FY26; staff said those issues will be part of the FY26 budget process.

Other procedural points: staff said the two mayor’s‑office positions would be posted publicly, would be non‑merit appointments in the mayor’s office and would be graded at grade 190 (staff presented the grade for council adoption). Council members also asked about whether the roles could be eliminated by a future administration; staff confirmed that as non‑merit, at‑will positions, a future mayor could remove or not fund them.

No formal vote was taken at the work session. Staff said the ordinance to reallocate FY25 funds and the staffing‑document amendment to add the two positions will be drafted for formal council consideration; councilors asked staff to provide additional detail on proposed permanent operating reductions and to include the positions in the FY26 budget process for decision.