Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel And Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Councilors spar over $1M in proposed new positions as 3.95% levy looms
Summary
Councilors and staff debated nine proposed new positions that would add roughly $1 million in salaries and benefits to the FY26 budget. Opponents said the hires are incompatible with a near‑maximum tax increase; supporters said some positions (deputy police chief, code enforcement officer) are urgent for operations and revenue collection.
City staff presented nine proposed new positions in the recommended FY26 budget—four paid from the general fund and several others paid from enterprise funds—during a May 29 budget workshop. The administration said the four general‑fund roles (a deputy police chief, a code enforcement officer, an assistant building inspector and a public‑services laborer) total about $481,000 in salary and benefits; enterprise fund roles include a utility GIS/field specialist, a capital project engineering manager, a superintendent of the parking authority and a deputy harbor master.
The proposal met sharp resistance from some councilors who said the hires clash with a proposed 3.95% levy increase. Council member (speaker 10) said, "I'm not gonna tax to the max, so to speak," framing opposition to raising revenue while adding high‑paying positions. Administration officials responded that the new positions are driven by operational needs, council requests and revenue opportunities—staff noted code enforcement and building‑inspection work can generate fee revenue over time and that the deputy police chief role responds to growing administrative burden.
Councilors asked for additional data on the net revenue impact of the new hires and whether some positions could be staged. Staff said some positions are carryovers or were requested by councilors last year and that existing enterprise funds (utilities, parking, maritime) would cover their respective hires. The workshop concluded with requests for more detailed run‑rate estimates and potential offsetting fee adjustments.
