Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves $105,000 salary for city administrator and forms compensation committee
Summary
Bloomfield council voted to raise the city administrator’s salary to $105,000 for the current year and created a compensation committee to set non‑union pay ranges going forward after extended discussion about market comparables, certification-related minimums, and burnout risk.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A majority of the Bloomfield City Council voted to increase the city administrator’s salary to $105,000 for the current fiscal year and to form a compensation committee to review non‑union salary ranges.
The motion, introduced and read aloud during the meeting, directed staff to set the administrator’s 2025 salary at $105,000 and directed the newly formed compensation committee to develop recommendations for non‑union employees going forward. The committee will be composed of council members and will produce proposals for future council consideration.
Council members cited benchmarking data from nearby towns and state guidance in their debate. One council member noted a comparable administrator in a similar-sized town recently reached roughly $112,780 and could reach $120,000 with step increases; staff referenced a review indicating certain Executive Administrative classifications carry a July‑2025 minimum threshold of $60,000 under state guidance. Several members warned that the Bloomfield administrator currently performs finance, utility, grants and other duties that increase recruitment difficulty for a replacement.
Debate included multiple pay scenarios: single‑year increases in the 9–10.5% range, multi‑year step increases (examples cited: 10% then 5% the following year), and proposals to stagger adjustments to avoid budget shocks. Council members also discussed cross‑training, the possibility of hiring an additional staffer if duties are split, and the risk of burnout for a single employee covering many functions.
A council member asked about whether discussion of individual pay required a closed session for performance evaluation; staff advised that performance reviews can be held in closed session but cautioned on the specific procedural requirements for discussing dollar amounts and personnel intent.
The motion passed on a recorded voice roll call in which council members registered assent; the clerk read back the motion and confirmed the formation of the compensation committee to cover all non‑union positions. No formal abstentions or no votes were recorded in the transcript excerpt. The council instructed staff to reflect the approved figure in the administrator’s budget so the administrator could complete the budget documents due in roughly 30 days.
The council’s action changes the administrator’s enacted pay for the year and tasks the compensation committee with developing a formal pay‑range policy for future non‑union adjustments.

