Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget Payroll topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council narrowly rejects proposed $7,500 across-the-board raise for full-time employees

Algood City Council · January 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A proposed $7,500 pay increase for full-time employees, bundled into an amendment to the 2024–25 budget (Ordinance 7625), was debated at length — covering actuarial retirement corrections, cost estimates and fairness — and failed to pass on first reading.

Algood City Council debated Ordinance 7625, a proposed amendment to the 2024–25 budget that would have provided a $7,500 pay increase for full-time employees, including taxes and retirement. Staff noted a correction to the city's actuarial retirement rate (from 11% as previously calculated to 14% per the state), which changed earlier estimates.

City staff outlined the estimated half-year fiscal impact: approximately $1,180,181 to the General Fund and about $37,552 to the Utility Fund. The staff presentation described the dollar increase as roughly $3.61 an hour for a 40-hour employee and a different rate for police department pay schedules.

Council members questioned the timing and fairness of a flat-dollar raise. Councilman Williams said the council's annual compensation review normally occurs during budget season and asked, "one of my big questions is why why now" and raised concerns about exceeding an already approved budget. Members debated turnover and vacancy pressures raised by staff, the range of percentage increases across pay bands (approximately 8% to 18% for lower-paid positions and as low as about 7–8% for higher-paid positions), and prior recent adjustments (including a $1-an-hour across-the-board change and staggered scale increases in recent years).

A motion to approve the ordinance on first reading was made and seconded; recorded votes showed some support but not a majority, and the motion failed without passage. Councilors indicated willingness to consider pay adjustments in other forms, such as percentage-based or staggered scale adjustments, and encouraged further review and citizen input before any future action.