Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Salaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed council pay increase draws broad public opposition at Edison meeting
Summary
Council introduced a not‑to‑exceed salary ordinance that would raise council pay to roughly $38,500–$39,500; multiple public commenters called the increase excessive and questioned budget, retroactivity and motives, while council members defended the change as widening civic participation.
A proposed ordinance establishing higher "not‑to‑exceed" salaries for township council members prompted sustained public criticism at the Jan. 28 Edison meeting.
The ordinance (introduced as 2275) would set higher maximum salaries for council positions; public commenters repeatedly framed the measure as a large, immediate pay jump. "I’m absolutely incensed over the proposed ordinance raising council salaries to 38 thou... a full 120%," said Marggo Harris during the public‑comment period. Several other residents described the proposal as tone‑deaf in the wake of local cost pressures and argued it should not be considered without wider public input or delay.
Residents asked how the change would be paid and whether it would be retroactive to Jan. 1. The administration said the temporary budget can accommodate the change for the upcoming year and indicated that, if passed, retroactive pay to Jan. 1 is typical (the clerk indicated a limited retro period could apply). One commenter asked whether the ordinance included a retroactive payment; administration answered "Typically, yes," in response to the question about retroactive pay to Jan. 1.
Supporters on council said the increase was researched against comparable municipalities and intended to broaden access to council service for middle‑class and younger candidates who cannot afford to serve without compensation. "This salary…opens up the door to residents and middle class," said Council President Coyle, noting the historical $1,200 salary in 1966 compared to the proposed figure and arguing the role's responsibilities and time demands have grown.
Council introduced the ordinance for first reading and set a hearing; the measure will return for further discussion. The debate highlighted divergent views: many in the public urged delay or a smaller increase, while council members said the change would professionalize and diversify local service. Council agreed to continue the normal notice and hearing process and to take additional public comments at future meetings.
