Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mayoral Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grandview Heights committee keeps mayoral pay unchanged after annual review
Summary
The Planning Administration Committee reviewed mayoral compensation under Ordinance 111.02 on July 13, heard staff comparators and council concerns about cost of living and candidate recruitment, and confirmed a recommendation of no changes for this cycle.
The Grandview Heights Planning Administration Committee met July 13 to conduct its required annual review of mayoral compensation under Ordinance 111.02 and decided to recommend no change to the current pay schedule.
The chair opened the meeting by saying the review was a routine, post-election housekeeping item and that administration had supplied comparator data. ‘‘On our agenda this evening is 1 item of business, a mayoral compensation review under ordinance 111.02,’’ the chair said. Committee members then discussed whether the city’s pay level allows the mayor to live in Grandview Heights and whether the role should be treated as part time or full time when setting compensation.
A staff member presented comparator statistics and was asked to clarify categories of cities used in the table — distinguishing council–manager governments from strong-mayor cities. The staff member reported that, across the whole comparator set, ‘‘the mean of all is $56,000 and the median is $29,000,’’ and said that strong-mayor cities in the sample skew higher, reporting figures in the mid- to high‑$90,000s; another participant summarized the overall average as about 99.2. (Transcript phrasing around some of the comparator figures was garbled; the committee recorded the numbers as reported by staff.)
Council members pressed the committee to consider affordability and recruitment. One member cited Bexley’s mayor, Ben Kessler, as an example in which a mayor balanced two jobs and required higher pay to support a single household. ‘‘This is our chief executive,’’ a council member said, arguing the position functions as a full-time role and the city should set pay to attract qualified candidates. Another member said the current level ‘‘looks pretty reasonable’’ on first inspection but agreed the city should ensure pay allows candidates to live in Grandview Heights.
Members noted the city previously raised compensation substantially in an earlier term (from roughly $50,000 to $75,000) and discussed the historical context for periodic adjustments. After the discussion and with the provided data, committee members confirmed their earlier consensus to recommend no changes at this time and to revisit the topic at the next scheduled review.
The meeting adjourned with no formal roll-call vote recorded on this recommendation; committee members indicated agreement and the chair closed the session.
