Annapolis debate centers on executive pay ranges as R‑53 heads to full council

City Manager Michael Malinoff and human resources officials defended a proposal to adopt open pay ranges for executive leadership (Resolution R‑53‑24) during a March 20 Annapolis City Council work session, while several council members pressed for changes to top pay levels and asked how the ranges would be used when hiring or negotiating offers.

R‑53‑24 would establish open salary ranges for director‑level positions, harmonize pay bands across departments (including police, fire, HR and IT), and reflect recommendations from a recent classification and compensation study. The administration said the proposal is intended to make the city competitive in recruitment while preserving internal equity.

“If I hear what you're saying, if you made it a department, they would be exempt,” Malinoff said in an earlier discussion about organizational classification. On pay ranges he told the council: “It should be based on the position, not the person,” describing the administration’s approach to setting offers based on market comparators and the work required by the role.

Human Resources Manager Tricia Hopkins and other staff explained how the city currently uses step scales for many positions and that the consultant found peers use open ranges for executives. Hopkins said the city typically budgets benefits at roughly 30–35% of pay and described how directors receive merit or anniversary increases per existing rules.

Councilors raised several recurring concerns: that a single band for all directors ignores department size and scope; that the highest proposed salary levels (discussed in the session as reaching roughly $240,000 for some roles) are high relative to comparator counties for some functions; and that council involvement in individual hire offers is limited to the confirmation step after the administration negotiates terms.

Some council members supported the concept of open ranges for flexibility and recruitment. Others proposed possible amendments to reduce the top of the range, tie future increases to an inflation index, or clarify hiring rules so incoming directors are not routinely hired at the maximum of a range. The Rules Committee has prepared a set of suggested amendments the session chair said would be presented to the full council when the resolution is introduced.

No formal vote on R‑53‑24 was taken at the work session; councilors signaled that they expect to resume consideration at the next full council meeting when sponsor and Rules Committee amendments will be available for review.

Key practical points discussed at the work session included how anniversaries and merit increases would apply if the ranges are adopted, whether the Office of Community Services should be elevated to department status and thereby included in the new bands, and the tradeoffs between market competitiveness and internal pay equity. Staff repeatedly emphasized that, in practice, hiring offers consider internal pay equity and the market value of candidates rather than automatically placing new hires at the top of a published range.