Dade City approves finance director contract, raises salary to $105,000 and caps retirement contribution

The Dade City Commission voted 5–0 April 22 to approve Agreement 2025‑18, the finance director employment contract, that raises the position's base salary to $105,000 and limits the city-paid retirement contribution to 8% not to exceed $8,000.

The vote followed extended discussion about whether the finance director's job could be considered a separate “office” under the dual‑office prohibition in Article II, Section 5(a) of the Florida Constitution. City Attorney Brackens said the charter does not assign sovereign authority to the finance director and that, on the facts presented, "there is no office under article 2 section 5 a of the constitution." The commission asked staff to prepare a formal written request for an Attorney General opinion; staff said that request and supporting transcript would appear on the next agenda for formal approval and submission.

The contract vote was offered by Commissioner Shive; a second was recorded but not named on the record. The roll call was: Commissioner Church — Aye; Mayor Scott Black — Aye; Mayor Pro Tem Tim Woodard — Aye; Commissioner Cosentino — Aye; Commissioner Shive — Aye. City Clerk Angela Guy recorded the 5–0 result.

Commission discussion ranged from praise for the finance director's work to concerns about process and the timing of raises across the organization. Commissioner Church and others said they supported a market comparison and a phased approach but ultimately voted for the contract after hearing assurances it could be phased and that broader salary study work was underway.

Finance Director Peter Altman addressed the commission during the discussion. He said he was committed to catching up the city's financial reporting and audit work and described departmental restructuring plans intended to raise salaries without adding head count. Altman also said he personally was not enrolled in city medical insurance and noted, "I am the only employee who is not taking medical insurances, and that is a $13,000 a year cost to the city," a point he asked commissioners to weigh when assessing total compensation.

City Attorney Brackens explained the legal framework the commission had been debating: the constitutional dual‑office prohibition, the city charter's limited references to a finance officer (sections 4.01[a] and 4.02), and the practical test courts use — whether a position carries sovereign powers (for example, the power to arrest or to issue permits).

Commissioners also added a clerical correction to the contract language (a scrivener's error) that staff said would be fixed before execution. Several commissioners said they wanted a transparent record and recommended the city seek an Attorney General opinion to remove lingering uncertainty; others said Brackens' legal explanation and the contract language were sufficient to proceed while the AG opinion is requested.

Ending

The contract takes effect per the terms in Agreement 2025‑18; staff did not state a different effective date on the public record. Commissioners agreed the Attorney General request and transcript attachment would be presented for formal approval at the next meeting. The approvals on the consent agenda (items E‑1 and E‑2) that evening also carried by roll call vote 5–0.