Mayor’s salary committee sets parameters and asks HR director to gather comparable pay data

Speaker 1 called the January meeting of the mayor’s salary committee to order and said the committee’s business was to review the mayor’s salary, which is reviewed every four years and receives annual step increases similar to other city employees.

Kelsey Meriwether, the city’s HR director, told the committee the mayor received a 2% increase last fiscal year and another 2% is projected for FY26–27. She said retirement contributions, health, dental and vision follow the same rates as general employees, that the take‑home vehicle is treated as a taxable benefit based on vehicle value, and that there is no separate bonus structure for the mayor.

Committee members discussed whether the committee should propose an additional one‑time increase on top of scheduled annual steps. Speaker 1 noted that the mayor received a 5% increase in 2024 and the committee discussed a projected FY27 base salary figure cited in the meeting as $144,855. Members emphasized that published comparison lists often show base salary only and may not include vehicle or other benefits, so comparisons must be apples‑to‑apples.

The committee agreed on five research parameters to guide a recommendation: (1) select comparable municipalities based on population, growth and cost of living; (2) compile historical mayoral pay and step increases across prior terms (the committee requested records for at least six past terms); (3) identify whether comparable cities include vehicle allowances and how those are taxed; (4) identify phone/technology allowances; and (5) list any miscellaneous allowances or perk line items. Speaker 2 specifically asked staff to drill down on vehicle, phone/tech and miscellaneous line items in the budget so those amounts can be compared separately from base salary.

Kelsey Meriwether agreed to serve as the committee’s professional liaison and gather the requested comparators and historical pay records from personnel files and department records; committee members were asked to do independent research and share findings with Kelsey. Several members suggested candidate comparators to vet, including Johnson City, Hendersonville and Smyrna, and others proposed expanding the radius to regional Southeast cities if necessary.

Speaker 1 made a motion that the committee proceed using the five parameters and appoint Kelsey as the liaison; the transcript records a second but does not identify which member seconded. No roll‑call vote is in the record; the committee proceeded by consensus to task staff and set follow‑up steps. Members discussed council deadlines and timing: because the salary change needs to be resolved prior to the next election, the committee aimed to have council action in March (with a potential second reading in April) and noted that a recommendation might be handled as a resolution.

The committee agreed to meet the week of Feb. 9, tentatively on Monday the 9th at 10 a.m., and Speaker 1 said she would circulate members’ contact information and Kelsey’s compiled materials in advance of the next meeting. The meeting was then adjourned by general motion and second.