Resident warns pay-scale change could cut firefighter holiday and overtime pay; council approves overtime-policy amendment

Rhonda Jameson, a reporter for the Excelsior Standard, told the City Council that a recently passed pay-scale adjustment "is going to end up resulting in fire department personnel receiving a pay cut when it comes to holiday pay and overtime." She asked whether the city is "concerned about potentially losing decades of experience to save $50,000 in overtime from a budget of $3,000,000," and said the department brought in "over a million dollars in revenue" last fiscal year.

The council later considered Ordinance 24-10-08, a personnel-policy amendment that staff said changes the formula used to calculate overtime rates for assistant chief positions. Molly (city staff) explained the amendment includes a 5.6–12% increase in base salary for the affected position and alters the annual hours used in the overtime calculation from the prior number reported in the record to a larger figure (the transcript shows the new hours as 29 20; staff cited 29/20 as the standard used by neighboring municipalities).

During discussion, a council member asked whether the change aligns with surrounding communities; Molly and other staff confirmed the calculation method mirrors common practice for 24-hour shift staffing. The council moved and approved Ordinance 24-10-08 by roll call (recorded yes votes; one council member voted no on final adoption). The record does not show the amendment explicitly reversing the pay-scale adjustment referenced by the public comment.

Why it matters: Council actions on personnel policy determine how overtime and holiday pay are computed for many public-safety employees. Public comments raised concerns that the net effect could lower total compensation for some firefighters despite an increase in base-salary percentages.

What the record shows and what it does not: Jameson’s statements in public comment attribute specific dollar figures and revenue to the fire department; those numbers were presented as claims to the council in public comment and were not independently verified in the meeting record. The personnel amendment adopted at the meeting was described in staff remarks and was approved; the meeting record does not contain a later statement from staff explicitly reconciling Jameson’s estimate of $50,000 in overtime savings with the personnel-policy changes.

Next steps: The council moved into closed session at the end of the meeting; the transcript does not record any additional staff analysis or follow-up assigned in open session to reconcile the public comment with the personnel-policy change.