Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee delays vote on executive pay scale after extended discussion on equity, charter process and fiscal impacts
Summary
The Finance Committee postponed action on proposed changes to executive pay ranges (R-5324) after extended discussion about title changes, equity between department heads, the charter-mandated salary review commission and the lack of a clear fiscal-impact projection; the item was continued to the committee's next meeting.
The Annapolis City Council Finance Committee voted to postpone consideration of ordinance R-5324, a proposal to change executive pay ranges and job-title conventions, after extended discussion about how the changes would affect department heads, the charter-mandated salary review commission’s role and the absence of multi-year fiscal projections.
Committee members raised concerns about whether the proposed changes would split the assistant city manager role into operation- and administration-focused titles or merely change a working title. Staff told the committee consultants recommended a title change for the assistant city manager but did not recommend creating a second position or changing the job description; the change was characterized as semantic unless the council wanted to create a separate post.
Several members also expressed worry about placing all department directors into a single salary band, arguing that police and fire chiefs operate in distinct labor markets and that very wide pay bands can increase negotiation room in a way that disadvantages some candidates. Staff said the open-range approach reflects comparator jurisdictions and that council retains control over salaries through hiring approvals and the annual budget process.
A central point of debate was the relationship between the council’s action and the charter’s salary review commission. One member said setting the city manager’s pay range before obtaining the commission’s recommendation could violate the charter; staff said the administration intends to provide the commission with consultant materials and engage them as part of the process.
Committee members asked finance staff for scenario projections showing possible fiscal impacts over a multi-year horizon — for example, worst-, typical- and best-case cost paths over five years — tied to plausible assumptions about cost-of-living adjustments and merit adjustments. Finance and HR staff said ranges themselves do not automatically change payroll and that future increases would be constrained by budgetary approvals, but that an open range requires the council and management to define COLA and merit policies through the annual budget process.
After discussion and a list of follow-up requests — including: (1) multi-year fiscal scenarios for potential salary outcomes under different assumptions, (2) an option analysis for sub-bands or differentiated executive scales tied to department budgets, and (3) clearer coordination with the salary review commission — the committee voted to postpone R-5324 to its next meeting.
