The issue of salary increases for council members was a focal point, with detailed debates about making these adjustments budget-neutral. The current salary for council members stands at $7,100 and $7,600 for the council president. A proposed gradual increase to $10,000 over several years was suggested as a more manageable solution. This incremental approach aimed to alleviate budget strain and was considered more feasible than implementing a substantial increase at once. However, concerns persisted on how to accommodate increased salaries within the existing budget framework without necessitating cuts in other areas. The council collectively recognized the importance of fair compensation for future members but acknowledged the challenges of finding the necessary budgetary sources.

Public comments on the salary proposal were divided. Mr. Bud Hackett questioned the assumption that higher pay would attract better candidates, arguing that motivations for public service often stem from a desire for political influence rather than financial gain. He criticized the notion of tying salary increases to childcare expenses, citing his own extensive volunteer work without compensation. Hackett also advocated for any salary adjustments to be contingent on measurable performance outcomes, emphasizing the need for the council to focus on cost-saving measures.

In contrast, a council member highlighted the long-standing stagnation of council salaries, unchanged for 16 years, which could deter qualified candidates. They pointed out that salaries in neighboring communities like Allentown and Easton are higher, creating a disparity that could impact the ability to attract and retain capable individuals. The council member also noted that the role involves significant time commitments and responsibilities, often underappreciated by the public.

The discussion extended to the controller’s and mayor’s salaries, both of which had not seen increases for over a decade. The importance of these roles in maintaining financial health and transparency within the government was underscored. A council member emphasized the need to reevaluate these salaries, particularly as city department heads earn more than the mayor, highlighting a potential imbalance.

Procedural complexities were another aspect of the meeting, particularly regarding the potential for a mayoral veto. It was clarified that if the council moved forward with salary adjustments, they would likely be presented as separate resolutions. This would allow the mayor to veto individual components, adding another layer of complexity to the decision-making process.

Financial implications remained a persistent concern, with uncertainty about available funds to support the proposed increases. A council member likened the situation to a “chicken and egg” dilemma, where decisions on salary increases could be made without solid financial data backing them up. This uncertainty underscored the difficulty in justifying salary increases when it is uncommon for employees to determine their pay rates.

As the meeting concluded, there was a consensus to move the matter to the full council for further discussion. It was agreed that engaging all council members in the conversation would be beneficial, especially if amendments to the proposal were to be considered. A motion to recommend approval of the proposed salary ordinances was made, with discussions on whether to combine the items or address them individually. Ultimately, a motion to combine the proposed ordinances for full council consideration passed unanimously.