McMinnville council approves city manager agreement, adds 60-day cure window and scaled severance

The McMinnville City Council voted 4-1 to authorize a city manager employment agreement with Adam Garvin and directed legal staff to finalize the document with several changes discussed during a lengthy council review.

City Attorney David Lightenberg walked the council through the key provisions of the draft agreement. He emphasized two notable items: inclusion of the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) code of ethics language to protect the city manager from being asked to violate professional standards, and a clarified definition of "cause" for termination that includes unsatisfactory performance (with a cure period), conviction of a felony, or misconduct likely to cause material harm to the city.

Councilors debated whether to require a fixed term (two years) or maintain an at-will-style contract. Lightenberg explained Oregon law and charter principles make multi-year protections complicated; the draft remains a contract without a fixed term so the city manager serves at the will of council but with negotiated protections in severance and cure provisions.

Key negotiated changes the council directed into the final agreement were:

- Cure window: the council changed the proposed 45-day performance-cure window to 60 days to allow more time to address identified performance concerns. - Severance: council agreed to a base six months of severance payable on execution, increasing by one month for each year of service and capped at 12 months; the council discussed whether to start accrual immediately or after a waiting period, and staff confirmed the consensus language begins at execution given market norms for comparable cities. - Residency: the agreement will use a Yamhill County residency requirement rather than strict city-limits residency or ZIP-code rules to provide flexibility while preserving local ties. - Performance reviews: the agreement requires annual performance evaluations for the first four years, then a biannual cadence thereafter. The council retained the ability to call additional reviews if concerns arise.

Councilors also considered a proposal to require a supermajority to terminate the manager; the city attorney advised that the charter contemplates appointment and renewal by a majority and that creating a supermajority termination standard could conflict with the charter. Council rejected a supermajority requirement based on the attorney's advice and the council's preference to stay within charter guidance.

After further discussion on compensation mechanics and how non-salary benefits and step increases would align with the hire date, the council moved and approved a resolution authorizing the mayor to enter the finalized agreement once the attorney incorporated the agreed revisions. The motion passed 4-1 (Councilor Geary opposed).

The mayor will sign the finalized, wet-signed contract after the attorney completes the edits requested by council; staff said they would present the final contract for signatures and maintain the announced cure, severance, and residency changes in the executed document.