Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public objects to extra pay for city manager; council honors contract CPI and defers additional increase
Summary
Residents spoke against a requested additional pay increase for City Manager Manns; council agreed to honor the CPI-based adjustment in the manager's contract and voted to delay consideration of any extra (requested ~3%) increase until September for further evaluation.
Residents and council members debated a request from City Manager Manns to receive an additional increase to equalize her pay with recent employee increases.
The city manager stated her annual salary is $163,002.94 and asked council to approve an approximately 3% additional adjustment so cumulative increases would align with a 9% adjustment employees received over two years, rather than the 5.9% that the CPI-based contract produced. Several residents urged council not to award any extra raise amid local economic concerns; public commenters argued city services and vulnerable residents should take priority over manager pay.
Council discussion focused on contract language, timing and optics ahead of an election. Several council members argued the council must honor the existing contract provision tying annual adjustments to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). One councilor proposed honoring the CPI-calculated increase now and revisiting any additional discretionary increase in September so the body can review performance and budget context. That proposal was seconded and carried by a majority.
Outcome: Council agreed to apply the CPI contract increase (per the contract language tied to March CPI) and to defer consideration of any additional, non-contractual request until September. The council did not implement a separate immediate market adjustment during this meeting.
What remains: Staff said the March CPI figure (to be released April 10) is the contractual reference and any additional, non-contractual increase would require a future council action; residents who raised objections asked for greater transparency around performance evaluation documents and the timing of such action.
