Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates adding more full-time council administrators amid budget concerns; proposal to delay hiring fails
Summary
Councilmembers split over a city manager proposal to expand council office staff from two admins to five. Critics cited a projected deficit and urged a workload analysis; supporters said added staff would improve equity and responsiveness. A motion to delay the decision until the May budget workshop did not pass.
The Aurora City Council spent more than an hour debating a proposal from the city manager to expand council administrative support from the current two assistants and a manager to five administrative positions.
Councilmember Bergin opened the discussion, saying the city faces a projected deficit, that employees face four furlough days this year, and that adding ongoing salary and benefit costs would amount to "north of $300,000." Bergin asked the council to pause hiring and direct staff to prepare a workload analysis and job descriptions before creating ongoing positions.
Several councilmembers agreed that the decision demanded more analysis. Councilmember Hancock and others said they do not use admin support beyond travel and constituent requests and argued the optics of five full-time staff for part-time elected positions were poor in a deficit year. They urged filling two current vacancies first and postponing further hires until the budget workshop.
Councilmembers Horton and Jackson countered that many members hold multiple jobs and that additional staff would improve equity and enable the council to respond to residents. Horton described the positions as a way to make the legislative function work in a growing city; Jackson said other comparable cities offer substantial council staffing and that Aurora should consider similar support.
City Manager Jason (as referenced in the meeting) answered procedural questions from councilmembers and clarified the positions would draw on existing vacancy savings, saying the proposal would not tap the city's reserves.
After extended debate, the presiding officer put a question on delaying the hiring decision until the May budget workshop. The council took a count; the presiding officer announced the tally and stated the proposal "will not move forward." The meeting record shows supporters asked for the delay and opponents requested more study, but no formal motion text or mover/second was recorded in the transcript.
The council then moved the consent calendar along and continued with the agenda.
The council's next procedural step on council-staffing was to obtain the requested job descriptions and a workload analysis at the budget workshop or earlier; no hiring authorization or appropriation was adopted during this meeting.
