Work for it.

Is that what you're going to do?

All right, good evening, everybody.

I'm calling the meeting to order.

It is 6 33 p.m.

We are here in uh conference room 3C for the ad hoc committee.

Um, which is to review a resolution for the elected officials compensation that has been uh proposed.

I am Joe Britton.

I am the chairman of the ad hoc committee.

I have um just for the record, all of the committee members are present.

Um councilman McAllister, Councilman Giordano, Councilwoman Wallace Smith, Councilman Coello, and we have the director of finance as well, um Dan Garrick and from the mayor's office, our economic director for economic director Farley Santos and members ex officio, Councilman Hawley, the majority leader Salvatore, Council President, Buseid, Councilman Chinese, and a few members uh from the public as well.

Um the overview of tonight's meeting.

We are going to the charge is pretty simple.

We're reviewing the draft resolution that was attached to your packets.

We are going to go through the language, uh, which is you know, in the simplest of terms, a compensation structure for our three highest elected offices, the mayor, town clerk, and treasurer, treasure, and we'll go through it, talk about it, make any adjustments if we need to.

Um, we'll talk to finance, um, and we don't have corporation council here, but I think I can handle that from the lawyer side of things and go from there.

Any questions on the game plan for tonight from the committee members?

Hearing none, we will get going.

So uh first, I figured it would be smart for us to just start at the charter and just make sure that we are allowed to do this.

Um so I pulled the language.

Um chapter four of the city charter under the category of mayor, section four-one.

It says the mayor shall be the CEO of the city and shall receive such compensation as shall be fixed by the city council.

I read that as we are allowed to do what we have proposed in front of us, which is a resolution to adjust the compensation.

Um dovetailing on that, same for the town clerk, going to section 2-8.

Quote the town clerk's compensation shall be set by the city council.

Um, so that language I think gives us the charge to at least hit those two offices and treasure, although it's not noted in here.

Um it is a line item in the budget, and the city council being the power of the purse, can adjust that as well.

So I think from a legal perspective, we are wired to discuss and propose something like this.

So I figured we will uh just move to the um proposal itself and why we're doing it.

So councilman McAllister and myself had proposed this letter about four months ago, uh, this pro this uh resolution about four months ago.

Um kind of to put the bottom line up front.

The offices uh the office of the mayor, uh, we feel is pretty undercompensated for the growth of the city, um, especially compared to other municipalities of similar size, um, and even compared to municipalities that are not of similar size that compensate their chief elected um a lot higher than we do.

So the entire idea is to fix that, adjust that, and by way of this resolution, we'll do that, and as a second part of the resolution to index it to COLA, which is the cost of living um adjustment, which goes based pretty much based on uh inflation each year, and tying that all together will uh take the politics out of having to come for a raise every year, and the compensation just goes up with inflation every year.

So that's sort of the intent behind why I submitted the letter alongside councilman McAllister.

Um so I guess I'll open the floor to committee members out of the gate.

Thoughts, questions on that so far.

Councilman McAllister.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman and my Steve colleague from fourth ward.

I think it's pretty obvious.

Um the figures pointed out.

The dynamics of the city of Danbury are just absolutely incredible.

Um it requires someone that has a good grasp on good government, is educated, is intelligent, and in order to maintain that type of environment in the mayor's office, we have to have somebody uh who's gonna be well compensated.

Uh the subsections of this proposal regarding uh the town clerk, city treasurer, etc.

being a portion of that final determination is also important.

Uh good government um requires good employees.

Um starts at the top.

If we don't have somebody good at the top, then I would say people think we'll suffer for in the long run.

I uh 100% support this, which is why I co-signed it with our uh esteemed chairman here, and uh hope that uh we'll find it uh the results are positive.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, uh councilman.

Any other committee members at this point before we start getting into the resolution?

Yeah, councilman Jared.

I'm not sure who to address uh it's regarding the chart at the end about the um uh different salaries and uh um the it are you talking, yeah, the list of the other salaries for the other cities.

I I had trouble, you know, corroborating these numbers.

I know they're probably right, and you guys have you know, but that's you know, it just this isn't what comes up when you google it.

So you know I think I just have to trust your uh Yeah, so I'll tell you where I pulled the numbers from.

So I went into the budget books for each municipality and I went to their most recent one, but I actually had to go into each book and scroll to find it.

So if you Google it, you'll probably get um there was an article that came out in 2023 at uh Hearst did it where they went through each municipality, did like a nice write-up of the CEOs, what their salaries are.

Um those are dated compared to what this list is.

This list is the most recent budget book.

So this is what's on the book for the most recent fiscal year for these uh municipalities.

Okay, and then just one follow-up question.

Uh on the um target figure of 165k.

Um was there any consideration about um uh you know population that got sort of factored into that, you know, because I noticed like some of the cities like uh you know uh significantly more, and some are you know a bit less, but uh um did that uh population of the city factor into the 165 at all?

So I can tell you where the 165, my rationale for that was quite literally.

This is how simple I did.

So I took the top ten biggest municipalities, got the average number of the 161, and then factored in another year of inflation into that.

So that's how I got the 165.

So it's 161 of most recent year, and then I did another um assumption for what the cost of living adjustment could be for the following year, and then I got the 165 to get us right at average between our sister cities.

So that's where that number uh came from.

Okay, then any other questions on at this point before we get into the actual language from the case.

No questions, just a comment.

I think this is a it's kind of like a no-brainer because when you look at the other um cities and what their mayors are getting paid.

For example, I know this is not corporate America, but uh public servants should be any should not be any different.

We take a look at salaries all the time, and we always try to get everybody to you know at an even playing field.

Um, like for example, Stanford, that mayor's at 203.

We're well comparable with Stanford from a mayor's standpoint and from a population standpoint.

So, and we're only proposing you know the 161.

So I kind of think this is a no-brainer.

I think um the mayor has proved himself to do a good job.

Um so far since he's been in, and I think he I think he earned it.

So, yes, this is a no-brightener.

I'm all for it.

Councilwoman.

Last call for comments at this point, Councilman Claw.

Sure.

Do any of these city uh do you you've listed these top, you know, the nine out of the ten other than Dammer chart have any town managers?

Um I would say no, because the town manager would be the town manager is usually their chief, I know just as person.

I don't I don't I don't think so for these ten maybe Fairfield and Greenwich might have somebody acting in that position, but I'm not entirely sure because they're the selectmen model, but when you have a strong mayor system, you usually don't have a town manager.

Have to get you confirmation on that.

Okay.

And then is there a reason the uh our legal counsel is not here today?

Court counseling they were noticed on the meeting.

I can't I can't answer that.

Um okay, so before we get into the meat of the actual resolution, ex officio members' comments at this point or questions.

Councilman Holly.

I just comment.

Um, this is for the top three elected officials, those three individuals.

This is not for any other elected officials because the judge of probate, that's through the state, the register of voters, that's also covered covered by the state, and the council, we already have language for that and the charter.

This is only for those three positions, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Any other members ex officio?

Yeah, councilman Chinese.

Okay.

Before this is before we get into the meat of the resolution.

No, I I understand.

So um I'm I kind of agree with councilman Giordano as the reflection of population and salary.

So I did a nice analysis on what it should be convenient the accountant.

But I do agree that the town clerk is grossly undeclended.

And if I went back because I was on the council for many many years when at the point where the town clerk was getting 70 plus a year, and the new administration cut it to like nothing, and every year it kept building up, but it was never got to the point where it needed to be.

And we lost a very good town clerk because of it.

So I do agree that the town clerk definitely needs to be assessed.

The mayor's salary, yes, it is less than what it should be.

But and I'll go over my analysis when you get to that point.

And the town and the treasure, I haven't really gone into that detail because there's not much detail.

I couldn't find as much detail as how much a treasurer should get paid.

So I'm gonna be open to that because I really couldn't do as much analysis of that.

But you agree that salaries definitely need to be.

Thank you.

Any other members exficial?

Majority leader?

Just curious.

Um resolutions can be rescinded at any time versus an ordinance where you have to go in and vote for or vote it out, right?

That is correct.

Why did we choose to do a resolution and not an ordinance?

Um I just felt when I was drafting it that the resolution might be the cleanest route to go about something like this.

Yeah.

Because you know, my my comment overall with this is you know, it's a good way not to play politics, because one of the things doesn't matter who's in the third floor corner office, if something like this is memorialized, they you know, they get the race.

But if they have to give themselves a raise politically, it becomes nightmarish, right?

People, oh, this is self-serving, they're giving themselves a raise.

So, you know, I think that this was a great idea.

I'm just questioning why not an ordinance so it's memorialized in the ordinances, and then you work on changing it rather than have somebody come and say, oh no, let's just get it off the books, it's gone.

Could be something we could look at after afterwards, like when it's already on the books.

But I think for the for the time being, at least getting it on the books in some form was sort of the mission here.

And it's a great idea, because the other thing too is it's not about this mayor, right?

This doesn't start until the beginning of the next elected cycle.

So that's where you know this is this is prudent for that also, too.

Thank you, sir.

So I I have a question.

Um, and and this is a kind of a different aspect of this.

Um I'm assuming, but I don't know, that there are people who might otherwise be interested in running for mayor and who don't run because the salary's not sufficient.

And is is there any evidence that you uncovered regarding that, particularly towards to Danbury, if you're aware of any?

Nothing anecdotal, but I imagine just from a principal perspective, you have to have something that incentivizes folks to want to run for something, right?

And you may otherwise have candidates on either side in any municipality that may not want to run because they're taking a massive pay cut.

Okay.

And and I just following that thought, if if you don't mind, if I couldn't ask a member of the ad hoc committee uh a question, if you don't mind.

You may.

Okay.

All right, and um we'll pick on you, Mr.

Coilo, because you happen to share you have another hat.

You're you're a chairman of a par or one of our local parties.

I used to be.

Okay.

You used to be.

So in that role in that capacity, sure.

Um, are you aware of anybody who might have run for for mayor or public office?

And didn't, because the salary, the salaries weren't enough to support a family to do whatever.

I mean, there's obviously obligations that come with everybody, you know, with regard to the bill that they have to pay it, etc.

But I will tell you, I said I I think when you consider public service, right?

There's this there's an inherent like assumption there as well, right?

You're not in the private sector, right?

Right?

But there's also benefits that come with it too.

You know, this is we're talking about a salary and a bump, but there's also benefits that come with it, you know, pension, health benefits packages that you know I'm in the private sector that we don't get either, right?

To that level.

So there's a balance to it.

But to answer your question, I haven't come across anybody that was discouraged with the salary of the existing salary and the level that it's at right now to not run for mayor, you know.

Or or discourage them from running, you know.

So I don't think it's gonna um I'm not saying that it's gonna encourage people now, what's being proposed right now, but I I just think there's probably a uh a top 10 of factors of why you want to run for that position.

And I don't know that the salaries, you know, we all have like I said, all obligations and responsibilities to ourselves and our families.

I don't know if that's always the one that drives it in that case.

Okay.

Right.

Thank you.

Yep.

I didn't mean to put you on the spot.

Right, no problem.

You did a good job.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

President.

Okay.

Um, so now I think we should go into the meat of the actual resolution.

So uh the majority leader alluded to this um in his question.

Um, just we're just gonna go through, we're just gonna go through language now.

So um, I'm right at the top here.

Um that's gonna be effective December 1, 2027.

So that is the date that the next mayor will assume office.

Um so this would be effective after the next election.

So the voters are gonna have a say in who gets this raise, should it pass.

Um now moving forward, we're in section one, which is the base compensation.

Again, effective December 1, 2027, the bump would go to 165, which um as I um commented on earlier is sort of that average sweet spot of our sister cities um in the top 10 in Connecticut.

And then I define terms.

A lot of this language is um legalese language, so we're defining term increment, cumulative, and the mayor's term of office.

So to kind of just break down what how this would work in practice is December 1st, 2027, the salary will be 165,000.

And then come December 1st, 2029, which is our next election after that.

The uh percentage increase is going to be the sum of COLA for those two years.

So let's just do a very simple hypothetical.

Let's assume that coal is 2.5% in that year one and 2.5% in year two.

The adjustment effective 2029 is going to be five percent.

So the new salary in 29 will be five percent more than one sixty-five thousand, whatever that number is.

And that's kind of gonna be the system on how the raises are calculated.

So the raise would not go into effect each year of that mayor, it will be a set number at the beginning of the term, and then that's the salary for that mayor's term.

And then the following mayor, whoever that is, will get the bump in the following term.

Everybody tracking so far?

Yes.

That makes sense.

Okay.

Um, and then as we get down, it gets super simple in sections two and three for town clerk and treasurer, town clerk is 50% of the mayor.

So whatever the mayor's salary is divided by two, the treasurer's 25%, whatever the mayor's salary is, divided by four.

So that language is pretty clear-cut and again effective one December 27 for town clerk and one December 27 for treasurer, respectively.

So now let's talk language.

What committee members?

Now's your chance to talk language of the actual resolution.

You can start the left.

You can go now since you're the one that you're ready to go.

So uh, with regard to the 50% of the you know, uh town clerk, for instance.

Do we have any historical data from surrounding towns as well?

I think that's something that would be prudent that we pull together.

I don't know, not in a bad way.

I'm not a big fan of tying somebody's salary to somebody else's 50 percent, 25 percent.

I probably understand your rationale behind that, but I think it would be prudent of us to have some backup, you know.

If we're gonna sit there, I'm gonna get I've already gotten calls from constituents to say, hey, what are the surrounding towns?

Like, what are the other town clerks getting?

I'd like to know because at the end of the day, I don't know if the town clerk's position is tied to a big city.

I really don't because the amount of work that somebody has to do in some of these towns that I do work in, probably you know, uh on the you know, regular basis, they do just as much work as some big big cities as well.

They just have more staff that's there.

So I think we should probably just take maybe a deeper dive into that to see who you know to get a comp on that, and the same thing uh for treasurer as well.

Yep.

So I can tell you for town clerk, um, this 50% language um probably are best comparison to assist your city waterbury ties it 50%, and their mayor makes a lot more.

So the mayor there makes about 170 with rounding.

Town clerk is 50 percent there, so the town clerk and waterbury is making probably my mental math is right 85,000 over there, and then uh treasurer, I don't have too much background on.

Over there, and then uh treasurer, I don't have too much background on but I do uh hear your points on that, Councilman.

Um committee members on the actual language of the resolution.

Councilman Drew?

Uh just uh quick question on um uh section one a yeah, the term increment.

Right, gotcha.

I was curious why it wouldn't go up every year.

So I think the rationale behind that is again to the kind of principle, and that's something we can take a look at if we want to make it an annualized increase.

Um, but I think the idea for that is to sort of to the point of insulating from politics where that mayor is elected at that salary, and then the next mayor is elected at that salary.

I think that's um the idea behind that.

But if it but if it's the will of the committee, we could annualize that.

That's just a simple.

I mean, the you know the prices are gonna go up, you know, independent of the term of uh the mayor.

Um so you know his uh um uh expenses and uh you know cost to his family are going up as well.

So that it's just something I would support.

Okay.

And also just to be perfectly on the record, I support the uh overall uh um uh resolution as well.

Thank you, councilman.

Any other questions on language from the committee members hearing none?

I'm gonna now open it up to members ex officio.

Uh councilman Schnees.

I'll start from the top.

Now it's my understanding from state law that the salary needs to be stated before the election.

So if we have a resolution that states how much their salaries can be given to the chair, you could do it annually.

You don't necessarily have to do it every two years or every election cycle.

So as long as we have a system where it can be three percent, three percent every year can go up because it's a fix, it's already in it, so it's no politics involved.

They know exactly what they're gonna go up.

Which is which was the idea for indexing it.

Right.

So therefore you don't have to do every two years, you could do it annualized as it were.

Because I know from the last budget cycle, which was last year, we did put the three percent increase for this budget year and July one budget year.

So July 1 budget year, the mayor's salary is gonna be 141,000 a year or something like that.

He gets 138 now, so it's going to go to 141 approximately on that one, correct.

Um, as far as town clerk, I don't uh I disagree that it should be a percentage of the mayor's salary, only because the town clerk is such an important position, and it's market-driven, be fair.

A lot of town clerks are going from being elected to appointed.

I mean, I sooner or later, I guess this city will would lead towards that model as well.

So it should be what the market's gonna bear.

I think Stanford, I think it was 141,000.

Town clerk gets paid.

Um Waterbury, I think it's um 104,000.

So we're comp we're competing.

I think Wilton is one 90.

Um, so we are competing with other towns with our town clerk.

So our town clerk should be compatible to what Bethel gets, whatever.

So I would think based on my analysis, I think the town clerk should be around 99,000 now.

So we can we can we can fix that because the whole point, the whole point of the whole point is getting the base correct.

So if we're getting the base correct, we can fix that by way of tweaking the percentage and then keeping the index.

Right.

The index, I'm I'm perfectly okay with the index.

I think it should be fair.

I think we should have had it years ago, but it's the base that we have to establish.

The reason why the mayor's base is so low is because the previous mayor always bumped it 3%, 3%, 3%, and there was a couple years he didn't bump it at all.

The chair, the finance, he would know how many years.

Two, three years he didn't bump.

I didn't look up the history, but yeah, but there's a few years I remember said I'm not giving my department heads raises, I'm not taking a raise.

So he which kind of put him behind it.

Then he when he started again, it never caught up.

Never caught up.

Yeah, which is where we are where we are now.

So I think the town clerk should be close to 100,000.

I think that position deserves that.

Because the assistant gets what 89,000?

83.

83.

So 95,000 somewhere, it should be where the that should be the base for the for our town clerk.

You know, and then we can go face.

That's based on what I can see in my analysis compared to other towns.

That's where what Norwich's population is greater than ours, and so is Stanford.

Stanford's 136,000.

Ours is 88,000 on paper.

So we're saying where the 95, 99,000 is a relationship.

So that's where I believe it's 89.

85.

As far as the mayor's salary goes, based on my analysis, I mean we're not different to whatever.

But I think based on a comparison of population and salaries to all the other towns.

The city of Danver for the last couple of cycles, we were flat.

Comparison to what the population increase under mayor.

We we were like one of the flattest around.

But our salary for the mayor is one and a half times population.

Which has been that way for the last four years.

Other towns is one and forget Granitch and that's two and a half times.

But if you took the average of all the top ten as you said it, based on that ratio, we should be at 155,000 people today.

Not a year from now, as of now.

So I would think to 155 in July next time would be a better base than the 165, because there's an analytical piece that you could use to justify the 155.

By taking the average, because I did it two, by taking the average of the top 10 and taking the average over that, you're assuming that the population and the towns are equal and they're not.

So by taking the population, the salary to the population, taking that average, it's about 156,000.

Which is it's you're you're kind of getting in the it's not crazy, 165, 150, but it's a better sell.

Yeah, then go the three percent every year, right?

Not every two years that call it.

And I think you'll eventually get it to the point where you need to.

I think and I I think in the spirit of constructive sort of feed back and forth here.

I think, like, say we were if we're at 55 right now, and by the time of the next election, if you're then adjusting call it to that, you're gonna be darn near 65.

That's 145 now than call it gets it to one.

By 27?

By July, yes.

By 27, okay.

But it but the mayor's gonna get 141 now, so it's not a we're not well for 300 million dollar budget.

That's peanuts to the overall thing.

But that's where it but it's a starting point to figure out how you get to the number.

And treasurer, uh, again, I don't even know.

Yeah, you know, it'd be nice if he was here for for the amount of hours he puts in.

Sure.

Remember, treasure is a part-time position.

I think he does three hours a week.

Dean Dan, how many hours does he do?

It varies.

Can you explain through the chair if you if I may?

Yeah.

Can you explain that?

If you feel comfortable opining and you have the knowledge to to give it.

Based on your knowledge.

What does the what does the treasure do?

Uh so uh on a weekly basis, the treasure comes in two to three times a week, um, reviews all the accounts payable vouchers, signs off on those.

Um, and then there's some more uh annualized uh responsibilities, uh like when we go out to borrow, he's involved with that.

Um little bit on the audit, not dramatically on the audit.

Um but uh those are his his main responsibilities.

Does he get into the chair?

Does he go to any meetings during the day?

Does he not not typically part of the budgeting process?

Does he help you do the budget?

Does he go over budget numbers with you?

Does he do any of that?

Um he reviews them, but he he's not involved with the 10 hours a week.

I I really can't put hours to it because he's typically he comes in after hours on the weekends.

Um and then and then as things come up, we need something for the bank, he'll come over, you know, sign off the paperwork for the bank and um uh contacted for wire transfers and that sort of thing.

So it it it again it varies again very drastically if I may.

The voter registers get about sixty, fifty.

I think it's a bit high about that.

I didn't about sixty.

Didn't look that one up before it came to the case.

No, I think I think it's low 70s.

But it's still but the treasurer half of the south half of the mayor will be making just the most just the same.

But the hours are not there.

Quarter, quarter, quarter, quarter, quarter.

So is it 40,000?

I think I think the numbers.

So the numbers.

And chairman.

That's what I'm trying to rationalize that.

So I don't look at the.

I mean, what we could do, and this is just an idea.

It's an idea too.

I'm hearing the the ones made by uh uh councilman Shanice.

I mean, we could take we can drop treasurer down to 20 percent, right?

20 percent index that to the mayor's salary and then bump town clerk up to 55 percent.

And I think my mental math is right 55 of 55 percent of 165 might get you closer to 90 for a town clerk.

Do the math here.

Yeah, so 55 percent gets you to about 91,000 for town clerk, which is for the system it's more than their assistant, and you're still the numbers balance, like it doesn't change the actual total cost of the resolution by doing that.

So again, through the chair's chair space, once you establish that base, then the call every year will get them to a point, but it there may indeed be a a cap.

Just think about having a cap.

And that's the beauty of a resolution, is they can be easily amended if we had to maybe also reject it.

That is true.

You just don't put in his budget.

That is true.

Uh uh, since we were on the topic of finances, though.

I I do I'm aware we have the economic director.

If you have anything you want to opine on on that component, well you're good.

Thank you, sir.

All right, uh committee members or anybody question, but we're men before I come back to uh councilman Cuello, any other members ex officio on language and only I guess the logic here.

Um are we equating the amount of work that the individual does with the the value that they have?

Because I feel there's a conflation between the number of hours that they're punching in there compared to the value that they bring to the community in that role.

I feel that that just needs to be kind of discerned because like in co in the corporate world, you can be on a meeting like for three hours a day and you're making six figures compared to somebody that's on the phones or something for 40 hours a week and they're making just like uh significantly less, but they have a higher value and a higher risk tolerance within the organization type of thing.

So I feel like that's just needs to be um um addressing this, and also I do support um annualizing this because it makes it easier to plan for.

Understood.

Yeah.

Mr.

President.

I I have a call up question for uh a finance director.

Please.

So currently is everybody's salary, everybody else in Danbury related to a coal increase each year.

Uh well, it's a negotiated increase for the for the union employees.

Yes.

Um, and then the non-union is um again, that that varies as much before there were several years where there's nothing.

Some years where it's um we've had several years where there's nothing, but um it pretty much ties into what the what the unions are getting.

And and the non-union employees are the department heads, um mostly department heads, there's some other supervisory confidential um employees that are that are not union.

Okay.

And they don't necessarily get an increase each year.

Correct.

So thank you.

Nothing, no further questions for members ex officia.

I'll go back around the table one last time for language changes, Councilman Coello.

You had your hand up.

Um it's not a language change as much as it is probably maybe a question to through the chair to Dan.

Sure.

But I think would be helpful for all of us to have on this ad hoc as well as you know, present it when we go back to the council.

If we could get some historical data for the last 25 years for all three positions, 22.

Right, so we know 2000, the year 2000 versus 26 every year.

These three positions sell this, you know, just give us a spreadsheet.

Here's the salary that increases the month.

They give a true appreciation of um I know for some people they're gonna say the bump is considerable, but I understand we also have to take in consideration.

I think what's taken place over the last 25 years as well.

Just a big perspective.

Language questions.

Last call, and then I'm gonna have one question for Dan.

Um kind of big kind of a big one.

If we if we pass this come 2027, we're good on from a budget perspective if we're this were voted to effect.

Yeah, so that'd be a future year's budget, but you know, these amounts.

Yeah, you won't even see the needle on the bill, right?

Okay, that was that was my biggest question.

Because when everything anything is proposed, you always ask how are you gonna pay for it?

So that's comforting to hear.

Umice for the second time.

Thank you.

You mentioned the 2223 salaries, which I have as well.

The town manager from Glastonbury.

Town manager.

190,000 yeah, I think population 35,000.

Yeah, so I I pulled so you can see salaries and town managers, so get it protective.

That's that's all.

Yeah, so I pulled those myself.

And just I think it would just, you know, for everybody, everybody say just to read some of these.

I think we might find them to be a little shocking because I did, but uh, these are sorted by salary, and these are back in 2023.

Um town manager of Glastonbury 190, uh, town manager of Groton 184, town manager Mansfield 181, Windsor 175, Norwich 171, Clinton 171, West Hartford 172, um go down to Shelton 150, Shelton Mayer, 153, our neighbors, um Ridgefield 149.

Um, you know, we have a lot of towns here that are a lot smaller than us that we're paying their chief, uh their their top um top employees um a lot of money.

So I think uh Grammy 166.

So I think uh that kind of adds a little juice as to why the raise is a little bit um overdue, I think um for a city of our size.

And you know, as we saw, like what the mayor does, it's a lot of work.

You have a snowstorm, the mayor's on call, and especially uh God forbid you have a public health emergency like we did several years ago.

Um, you know, your your mayor is in Danbury at least is not only the mayor, but is also the town manager, so you kind of have a duality of roles there as well.

Um so that's sort of my pitch with that.

Um so we talked, let me just make sure I went through all my notes.

We talked big picture, uh ration like intent, rationale.

We talked language, we got the finance brief from our directors how we're gonna pay for it.

Um I went through the legal component.

I think the charter is pretty clear that we can do this if we had to, if we wanted to, or the council wanted to.

Um, we went line by line through the resolution.

We heard from committee members.

Um I just want to just confirm with the committee, just as far as language that what we're gonna change is we're gonna bump up town clerk to 55%, which will get that base in the ballpark that I'm gonna trust our resident accountant in the room is research on the surrounding town clerks, and we're gonna drop treasurer to 20 percent so that way the cost of the resolution stays the same since it'll be indexed, and then I'm okay with it if the rest of the committee is okay with instead of having it kick in at the beginning of the mayor's term, annualizing it so each year you can plan for the um the raise for cola for that year, and that'll just be a language change that we can add and uh give that to the full council.

So three uh it looks like just two change uh three changes.

We're gonna have language change to annualize it.

Um town clerk goes to 55 percent, treasurer drops to 20 percent.

Do I have that right?

Yes, okay.

All right, so um that being said, I think we are in good shape.

Um excuse me, Chairman.

Do you mind if I ask with you?

Yeah, council.

So as corporation council confirmed that you can't tie this uh you know, cost of living increase to an index for city charter.

There's no conflict there with that.

Uh so I reviewed it, um, and it looked good to me.

Um I can get a confirmation from corporation council before it goes to the full council for the next meeting, just so we can cover it.

Point point taken, and we'll we will get that from uh Dan's office.

Uh all right, so I do have a motion.

You're my closest, so I'm gonna have you just make sure I have uh as amended.

Okay.

Okay.

I move that this ad hoc committee recommend to the full city council approval of the proposed resolution as amended, establishing an index compensation structure for the offices of mayor, town clerk, and treasurer.

There is a motion on the floor.

Do I have a second?

Thank you.

Okay, uh, is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I will try your minds.

All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The ayes have it.

And the motion carries uh unanimously.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So move.

Is there a second?

Second.

Um any discussion on the motion to adjourn.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The motion carries.

We are adjourned at 7 13.

Thank you all very much.