Central to the meeting was the comprehensive examination of the new city manager’s compensation package. The council engaged in a detailed debate over the appropriate starting salary for the role. A proposal for a base salary of $88,000 sparked considerable discussion, with some members advocating for a lower starting figure of $82,000. This lower salary was suggested to allow for a six-month performance review, after which a salary increase could be considered. The conversation revealed differing opinions on the financial implications of the salary, especially when factoring in benefits that adjusted the total compensation to approximately $110,000 to $115,000.

The council also scrutinized the proposed benefits, discussing vacation and sick leave policies. Initially, the new city manager requested four weeks of vacation, but the council leaned towards capping it at three weeks. This decision was compared to the new manager’s current benefits, highlighting a significant reduction from their existing four and a half weeks of vacation and six weeks of sick leave. The council aimed to balance the desire for competitive benefits with fiscal responsibility.

Health insurance and retirement contributions were additional points of contention. A 10% rate for retirement contributions was proposed, aligning with what city employees receive. However, questions arose about the appropriateness of retirement benefits for a contract employee, given that the city manager role is categorized differently from general employees.

Beyond compensation, the council addressed the necessity of updating the city manager’s job description, acknowledging that the existing description was outdated and lacked clarity. The need for a clear and detailed job description was emphasized to ensure that expectations and duties are well-defined.

Attention was also given to the provision of a vehicle or car allowance for the city manager. A debate ensued over whether it was appropriate to provide a city vehicle for personal use, with liability concerns cited as an issue. Although some members argued that a city vehicle was a standard perk for department heads, others questioned the necessity and fairness of extending this benefit to the city manager, especially for a relatively short commute.

Discussions also touched on procedural aspects of the transition to a new city manager. The current city manager is set to depart on February 28th, necessitating a coordinated start date for the new hire. It was suggested that the new manager begin on February 24th to ensure a smooth transition. The council also debated who would oversee the city’s operations during the interim period between the current manager’s departure and the new manager’s start.

In addition to these primary issues, the council made minor adjustments to the contract language, including gender-neutral terminology and clarifications regarding notification procedures. These changes were part of a broader effort to ensure the contract was both clear and inclusive.

As the meeting concluded, the council acknowledged the need for continued discussions to finalize the new city manager’s contract. The resolution of these issues was scheduled for further consideration in the next council meeting on February 18th. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m., with a motion to proceed with the plan for the transition process.