Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Salaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and councilors press city on salary increases, special‑education costs and county assessment during Portsmouth budget session
Summary
Public commenters and councilors raised concerns about concentrated double‑digit salary adjustments, the hiring of an assistant director of student services amid reduced paraprofessional supports, and the county tax estimate; staff promised follow‑up line‑item and vacancy reports.
During public comment and a council Q&A at the May 11 work session, residents and councilors voiced sharp concerns about large, concentrated salary increases in the FY27 proposal and about school special‑education spending.
A public commenter identified as Truda Porsmith criticized numerous high precent increases across administrative positions and reclassifications, saying the package included “double‑digit increases, reclassifications, title upgrades, and newly created positions” concentrated in management. Porsmith urged the council to require greater transparency and justification for pay changes that become part of the permanent base budget.
Esther Kennedy, speaking from the public, urged the council to scrutinize specific school cost centers (151, 152 and 153) and questioned the decision to hire additional administrative staff before strengthening paraprofessional supports. Kennedy said management alone would not resolve long‑standing special‑education cost pressures and asked the council to examine whether the district is prioritizing management hires over front‑line support.
Superintendent Zach McLolin responded during the meeting that the newly created assistant director of student services (an administrative hire) is intended to coordinate out‑of‑district placements and reduce long‑term costs, and that the district’s strategy includes early intervention to reduce placements. He said the position was a direct response to rising out‑of‑district costs and had already been filled to provide continuity starting July 1.
Councilors also asked staff to explain the drivers behind workers‑compensation premium changes after staff noted a state‑wide re‑rating by the insurer pool (Primex), and to supply a line‑by‑line explanation showing which items would need to be cut to reach a lower tax‑increase target (a 3.5% guidance number councilors had mentioned earlier). Nathan agreed to produce the requested reports.
No formal votes were taken on compensation adjustments at the May 11 work session; the comments and requests will inform later budget deliberations and the ongoing public hearing.
