Waukegan aldermen debate pay increase as residents urge caution and recall ordinance talk surfaces

Aldermen and residents clashed over whether elected officials in Waukegan should receive higher pay during a lengthy discussion at the March 2 Finance and Purchasing Committee meeting.

A resident who spoke during the public‑comment period said the city should not raise pay without broader public approval and urged aldermen to pursue a recall ordinance, asking, “I need somebody to help me understand something. For what?” The comment framed public frustration with perceived mayoral authority and pointed to local problems including towing costs, alcohol and homelessness.

Alderman Turner opened the committee’s discussion of automatic compensation, saying aldermen have not received a meaningful increase in many years and describing the role as a near‑full‑time responsibility for many. Turner and others presented comparisons to other Illinois municipalities and argued Waukegan’s stipend is low relative to similar cities.

“Aldermen are the face of city government for many constituents,” Turner said, noting some aldermen serve more than 10,000 residents in their wards and that the current annual stipend had been described in discussion as roughly $22,000. Supporters of a raise said the time commitment and community expectations justify starting a formal review.

But several aldermen urged caution. One speaker noted the city’s long‑term pension obligations, saying the city “owes $270 million in police and fire pensions,” and questioned the optics of raising elected‑official pay amid major liabilities. That speaker also said they would consider declining a raise personally if the increase proceeded.

Alderman Bolton and others said many aldermen hold outside jobs and do not treat the role as full‑time, calling on colleagues to weigh whether automatic compensation adjustments are appropriate. Alderman Martinez said she would remain neutral for now and reconsider future action, saying she supports looking at numbers but is not prepared to vote for a raise immediately.

Committee members also clarified that the clerk’s recent salary increase had already been approved separately; speakers noted the clerk is a full‑time administrator and that staff salaries follow a different process.

No formal motion or vote on alderman compensation was made at the March 2 meeting. Several members said the discussion was intended to begin a conversation; the committee did not adopt an ordinance or formal direction during the session. Next steps were not scheduled during the meeting.

The meeting record shows the committee proceeded afterward with separate agenda items, including unanimous approval of three resolutions on IT purchases and a volume‑cap reallocation.