Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Salaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pulls salary-resolution item after resident questions proposed city manager raise
Summary
A resident urged council reconsideration of a proposed city manager pay increase from $121,000 to $130,000; the personnel committee defended its comparison to neighboring cities and council removed the resolution from the consent agenda for separate consideration.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Salaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A resident raised concerns at the public‑input portion of the Manchester City Council meeting about a proposed salary resolution that would increase the city manager’s pay from $121,000 to $130,000, a change the resident calculated as roughly a 7.41% raise compared with about 3% for most other city employees.
“Kurt Miner, 702 East Howard Street, said the city manager salary would go from 121,000 per year to 130,000 a year, which is almost a 7.41% raise,” the resident told the council and urged reconsideration ahead of the upcoming election. Miner warned the difference could harm employee morale if most staff receive smaller increases.
Council members explained the personnel committee reviewed comparable salaries and recommended the increase to keep the manager’s pay competitive. Council members said the committee—made up of a council member, Linda and Kai—examined neighboring communities’ city manager rates and concluded the current salary lagged peers.
Rather than vote on the resolution during the consent agenda, councilors voted to remove it so the council can consider the pay item separately at a personnel meeting or a special session. The council did not adopt or reject the salary resolution at the meeting.
The action means the resolution will return for further discussion and a formal vote at a later date; staff said the council could table or amend the item after more detailed review of comparative salaries and any recommended changes to the personnel committee’s proposal.

