The minutes from January 8, 2025, for the Administrative Services Committee:
Resolution Authorizing an Updated Employment Agreement for the County Administrator
Pulled for discussion by Mr. Kunkle.
There was no reflection on the county’s work or achievements, but concerns arose about how the salary offer compared to the county’s budget, population, and responsibilities.
Key questions needed answers before moving forward, especially regarding financial alignment and comparable roles.
With limited time for review, additional research was necessary.
A public blogger highlighted a $39,000 salary increase, prompting concerns.
Data on county demographics, budgets, and salaries were provided, focusing on why more money was offered and whether due diligence had been done.
Mr. Austin, with 19.5 years of service, earned less than the Lake and DuPage County Administrators, despite their shorter tenures.
Comparisons to roles like the Crystal Lake City Manager suggested the position was underpaid.
Mr. Austin had not received non-union wage increases in 2022 or 2024 but had adjusted his salary after a previous increase, bringing it to around $245,000.
A proposed 5.3% increase to $250,000 was not in question, but more information was needed before deciding.
If the position remained unchanged, a successor would expect similar compensation.
Salary data from McHenry, Lake, Winnebago, Kane, and DeKalb Counties provided context, but some figures might be outdated.
Fiscal challenges, including rising property taxes and an aging population, made affordability a concern. The discussion focused on a data-driven compensation decision rather than individual performance.
County structures varied, complicating direct comparisons. Some, like Will County, had a County Executive system.
Ensuring accurate comparisons was crucial, as experience and ability also mattered.
The administrator’s role, though hard to quantify, significantly impacted county operations.
With the contract expiring in April, prompt resolution was ideal.
While the percentage increase was small, fiscal responsibility was a priority.
The board was responsible for negotiations while ensuring transparency.
Further discussion emphasized the need for accurate data, considering differences in county structures, employee numbers, and budget constraints.
After extensive discussion, it was agreed that staff would compile and present the necessary data to the full board for an informed decision.
Mover: Collins
Seconder: Kunkle
To approve the Resolution Authorizing an Updated Employment Agreement for the County Administrator.
Aye (3): Gottemoller, Collins, and Thomas
Nay (2): Greeno, and Kunkle
Absent (2): Hendricks, and Althoff
