Interlaken holds public hearing on ordinance to add $124‑per‑hour town administrator pay line item
Loading...
Summary
The Interlaken Town Council held a July 8 public hearing on an ordinance amending Officers Compensation (Ordinance No. 16) to add a $124 hourly pay line for the town administrator. Council members, staff and residents debated budget figures, past actuals and whether the increase was inflationary or a correction to prior underpayment. No formal vote
Interlaken Town held a public hearing July 8 on an amendment to the Officers Compensation ordinance to add a $124‑per‑hour pay line for the town administrator.
The amendment would modify Ordinance No. 16, which the council passed in an earlier form last month, to explicitly add compensation for the town administrator as an hourly wage. Town Administrator Bart told the council the draft is “basically the same ordinance that was passed last month with the addition of, line item for the town administrator being paid a $124 an hour.”
The hearing drew several residents who questioned the size and transparency of the town’s administration budget and how the change would affect overall town spending. Resident Matt Herman said he researched town budgets and asked the council to review administration expenses over a multiyear period, noting growth in the town’s administrative share of expenses in recent years. “I don’t want to take away from what Bart does for the town. I respect him. He works hard,” Herman said, adding he wanted council members to consider comparables and transparency in the budget documents.
Town Administrator Bart responded that his hourly request reflected a range of duties he performs and years of work for the town, and he described taking on multiple roles — IT, building department duties, drafting legislation, state reporting and emergency notifications. Bart said the council’s amended budget last year reduced the line item from $140,000 to $100,000 and that the current budget shows roughly $105,000 for the position, a 5% increase from the prior budget. He described being “severely underpaid for a number of years” and said the $124 hourly rate drew on comparisons with HOA managers and other administrators who charge hourly rates for similar scopes of work.
Several council members and town officials urged caution about cutting services and emphasized the difficulty of recruiting multiple specialists to perform duties Bart consolidates. Councilmember Jill said council operations would suffer without a qualified administrator and urged the council not to “pinch pennies.” Councilmember Tim and Treasurer Susan (Sue) also spoke in support of the value of a single administrator who handles many functions.
Residents raised specific budget figures during the hearing. Public speakers and staff cited: last year’s actual pay for the administrator at about $83,000; a November 6, 2024 budget amendment that reduced a prior $140,000 line to $100,000; and a proposed budget this year of approximately $105,000. One resident noted those figures show an apparent 17% rise when comparing an $83,000 actual to a $100,000 budgeted figure, while staff and other council members pointed out the budget-to-budget change is closer to 5% (from $100,000 to $105,000).
The discussion also included out‑of‑town comparables cited by speakers: an average Utah town administrator salary referenced at about $105,000 (with benefits and overhead pushing total employer cost higher), a Town of Alta administrator cited in public comment at roughly $163,000 including benefits, and Heber City’s city manager at about $208,000 per year. Bart emphasized that many of those comparisons include office space, vehicles and equipment the town does not provide him.
Council members and staff said the town expects to be under budget for the administrator line this fiscal year due in part to redistributing some duties to staff member Derek Becker, who has taken on “boots on the ground” tasks previously handled by the administrator. Bart estimated it would take months of direct training to prepare a replacement because the current role consolidates many functions now handled by a single person.
No formal motion or council vote on the ordinance amendment was recorded during the hearing. The session was conducted as a public comment period intended to gather community input on the proposed change; council members indicated they would consider the public comments and budget details in subsequent deliberations.
The hearing closed after public comments and brief council discussion; the council did not adopt or reject the amendment at the July 8 meeting.