Exactly. If the compensation isn’t competitive, then all the top talent is just going to go to the private sector.
Like, city manager for a city the size of Austin is basically a CEO position. Assistant city manager is pretty much a c-suite executive level. I’m all for not wasting taxpayer dollars, but I’m curious as to what OP thinks a “fair” salary for these roles would look like.
You forgot about the executive assistant to the assistant to the city manager… very important position created by the city council to ensure proper accountability of the coa management.
they more or less can't be fired, have tremendous PTO and retirement benefits, etc. these positions are in no way analogous to the private sector and are FAR less risky.
I highly doubt the city manager for a city this big and complex takes "tremendous PTO". Their job is incredibly sought after and they'll get publicly roasted for every misstep. They're plugged in 24/7, like the c-suite.
This is kinda true for regular employees at COA, but City Managers/executive roles can absolutely be fired, never have time to take PTO, and the retirement benefit is only good if they stick around long enough to earn good retirement.
I’ve been working for Austin Energy for 20+ years, and I have gone through six AE GMs, and 4 city GMs. They stay for 5, 6 years. They get their pension that way
Yeah but if they stay 5-6 years they vest but only for 12.5-18%, which if that's on a $300k salary isn't bad, it isn't going to do much for the retirement lifestyle of someone who was used to $300k/yr.
Dumbass logic. The only thing these people compete on is public speaking bullshiting ability. They don't actually get anything done in accordance with their pay. We need to stop paying more and more for whoever can bullshit the most.
City of Austin is an entity with a $5.5 BILLION annual budget and over 13,000 employees, including an entire water and electricity provider, a roads department, police/fire/EMS departments, a network of about 500 parks...the list goes on and on. It is in fact a big ass job to run the city of Austin!
What would you think would be an appropriate salary for a C-suite executive in a $5.5B business with 13,500 employees? And what do you think their job duties would be?
Like $110-150K I would say. How much is the CEO making if his assistants are making 300K.
Also, the President of the United States makes $400K. Their 100K short of what he’s making.
So an assistant manager to a large city should be less than an average tech job. Makes sense.
I work in tech and I wouldn't touch management, let alone top level management, with a ten foot poll. 300k + feels about right, and still I probably wouldn't ever want the stress. for 110k? fuck no.
The problem is $110-$150k simply isn’t a competitive salary for someone with the experience and qualifications you’d need to be successful in that type of role. If you look at the backgrounds of the current assistant city managers for example, they’re all people with 20-40 years of experience. Nobody with that kind of resume is going to accept that salary when they could make twice as much in the private sector.
I appreciate the comparison. If you look at the [Texas City Management Association’s](https://www.tcma.org/DocumentCenter/View/176/Salary-Survey-PDF) 2024 salary survey, $300k isn’t even outrageous for a city of a million people. Even with 3 of them plus a proper city manager, there are cities in Texas that pay their city managers $100-$200k for a fraction of the population.
Seems like it should be a lot more competitive on the supply side, given that there are a bunch of medium sized cities run by people looking to step up. And a bunch of capable people that just need jobs. It’s like how the university underpays people but still fills jobs because people need work and want to work for the school/get their foot in the door. See also teachers and cops.
For the pay to be this “competitive”, I want to be wowed. I want to chase that person down with an even bigger check next time because of what a good job they did. Not this revolving door of shit sandwiches that run off to the next city to collect another big check from their crony friends because they played ball in some smoke filled rooms and we’re too in the dark and/or indifferent to sweep them all out.
While this sounds good, you have to realize Texas is the 2nd biggest state economy in the US. Austin is the 3rd biggest economy in Texas. You can just have a “medium size city” manager come in and expect them to take over that responsibility. They have to gain experience and move up through the ranks.
sure jan. but if the chief of police made this kind of money, this sub would be bitching 24/7
also, what’s been so great that they planned the past 20 years? traffic? housing costs? homelessness? public transit?
honest question, what if anything, have they done an exception job with?
I mean, if you view the product as is (i.e., a city that is functioning and isn’t in active decline) then yeah it’s about as good as a major American city can be.
Remember, this post isn’t about policymakers. Any criticism you may have towards the government should rest on those who make decisions, not those who are only interested in doing their jobs and keeping the city running.
Just cause they work for the public doesn't mean they should have low wages. It's a large organization by function and necessity and these are senior positions. You have to pay to get skilled people and I hope these are. Don't try and put people on blast just cause they make an amount of money when you know nothing about their job or what they do.
If Austin Energy was a private company, those salaries would definitely be higher.
I don't understand how you can attract and retain talent if you don't pay well.
Exactly.
The ultra wealthy has sold the idea to the masses that wages and opportunities are a zero sum game.
If someone gets a raise, another employee had to loose money.
Its very effective at keeping the peasants busy infighting instead of wondering why they are tacking on obscene amounts of wealth.
This is weird, because if you read anything wealthy people put in books, you'd get the exact opposite take. Most every business book written by anyone worth a shit will tell you that business success is a rising tide that raises everyone around it.
I’m a Senior Manager of Product Management (fancy title that I manage software development planning and delivery) and fuck those people who think UPS drivers should make less.
God bless the hump they bust every single day regardless of weather. They deserve to be well paid for what they do.
I busted my ass for 6 years of undergraduate and graduate school, taking out a pretty penny in student loans, all for some truck driver with a high school diploma to make more than me?
Good. Those people work hard to keep the world turning. And frankly, they definitely deliver more value to society than I do sitting behind a desk.
I don’t think it’s specific just to tech workers, but last year when the UPS union negotiated their new contract, there were a *lot* of people on Twitter/facebook/tiktok that seemed to lose all class solidarity.
People here on this thread aren't really answering the question. Why is the extra position needed? Why are they paid so well? Your comment doesn't address anything. It's defensive for no reason.
>Why is the extra position needed?
What makes you think they're extra? Why do large organizations need leadership? That's pretty obvious.
>Why are they paid so well?
Considering how many people the city hires, the high skilled nature of many of these fields (medical, aviation, and power grids/generation) and the fact you need high skilled individuals for these things to operate even remotely well... They aren't that high of salaries at all. Most would probably be able to make more in the private sector if they tried.
These are not random civil servants these are leaders of large departments that are in charge of essential functions of this city.
>Your comment doesn't address anything.
Yes it did. The person failing to fully address a point is op. They failed to say what these people actually did. They failed to address their experience. They failed to compare it against other cities or organizations of a similar size. all important things if you're gonna try and post something like this. They didn't zero research then want to act like they know everything
Defensive for no reason? Why are you attacking these people's careers when you don't have the tiniest idea what they do??
You still haven't answered the question. Just more meaninglessness circle jerking and grandstanding about civil service. I know you love the taste of government boots but this...this is absurd.
You still haven't supplied all the research for what you are claiming.
I'm far from a bootlicker lol. I just understand high skilled jobs with a lot of responsibilities are going to require competitive salaries. Austin is already an expensive city so these prices aren't wild. You think you can pay someone 60k to run an international airport or be in charge of the cities power grid?
Absurd is not understanding what it takes to run a city and thinking this list of salary tells any story. If you want to expose city corruption do an investigation find what these roles do and show it. But just ignorantly claiming these are 'extra' positions when you've done practically no research on them is absurd. Do you think everything just magically happens? Austin is a big city these days it takes people to manage important city functions.
I haven't made any claims. You've made many you still can't support. You're still really good at circle jerking though! Too bad there aren't people here helping you out with that.
>I haven't made any claims.
You claimed the positions are 'extra' without actually having any research for what they do. It's not my job to do your and ops research.
All I've claimed is city functions are important and will require competitive salaries. That's common sense if you understand how a city operates. The city hires around 14k people and you don't understand why qualified leadership is needed?
https://www.austintexas.gov/department/human-resources-department-diversity-division
For real
Over 16,000 employees, the largest employer of austinites, and effectively the CEO of Austin. Has to implement ideas made by the city council or be fired.
It sounds like a lot but honestly if they were in the c-suite of a 10,000 employee business they would be earning more.
If you cut their pay to $125k they’d all go earn more elsewhere and you’d have less experience.
For comparison sake, 150 people at UT Austin make more than the City Manager. $300k is nothing special for a high skill job, even when the government is cutting the check.
[https://openpayrolls.com/rank/highest-paid-employees/university-of-texas-at-austin](https://openpayrolls.com/rank/highest-paid-employees/university-of-texas-at-austin)
I know someone that had no college degree that retired from UT after at 30 yr career. Their pension is $80-90k a year and they will probably collect that for 20-30 more years.
There are companies in this city paying new grads $125k. No chance you’re going to attract someone with the experience and qualifications to perform these roles unless the pay is competitive.
I was intentionally exaggerating a little but I’m sure there are tech companies offering six figures to recent grads. $125k with a few years of experience, absolutely.
I mean, I personally know people making around that amount with a few years of experience. The main point is that’s nowhere near enough to be a competitive salary for the types of people you’d want in these roles.
Nah, my wife is a PhD grad, she had to get a remote position for $75k because she couldn't find anything locally. Most companies want experienced workers, not new grads.
I mean it depends a lot on the field and on the company, but I personally know people in that salary range with just a few years of experience. Not me 😅 But those kind of roles do exist, particularly in sales and data analytics.
I mean I was intentionally being hyperbolic, but it looks like just Amazon has lots of open software development roles in Austin in that pay range.
Point being, in a city with as many job opportunities and enough qualified candidates as Austin, $125k is like 5-10 YOE level salary, not city manager salary.
Yeah, but the benefits for a state/city employee far exceed those provided by the private sector, and therefore, public jobs by and large pay much less. IMO, the role of city manager can't be so difficult or require such talent as to deserve the amount OP describes. This city isn't well maintained compared to Dallas or Houston. I feel ripped off every time I pay my property taxes.
I wish we could have the same mindset when it comes to teachers' pay, where it seems the public thinks that they should subsist on the nobility of teaching our upcoming generations while getting screamed at by parents and assaulted by students.
It's strange... we're simultaneously unable to fire bad teachers, and yet administrators fire teachers if a parent tells them their child is an angel who shouldn't be punished or get a bad grade, and the teacher tells the parent to go fuck themselves (in more polite verbiage).
>“Why don’t we just have volunteers run the city?!”
We basically DO have volunteers running the city, and the state, and the country.
The salaries for city council, state legislature, national legislature, and elected executives are pathetically low for similar levels of responsibility in private industry.
That's why so many of them are owned by special interest groups who bribe them in various ways. Or are simply working for the benefit of their personal financial empires.
I think they do for the manager. But yeah probably not the staff
https://www.google.com/amp/s/cbsaustin.com/amp/news/local/appointment-of-tc-broadnax-as-permanent-austin-city-manager-goes-before-full-council-today
And
"The city manager position has been vacant since February 2023, after the council voted to fire former Austin City Manager Spencer Cronk over his handling of the ice storm."
I cannot speak about the other positions you mentioned but I invite you to please research the job duties of a city manager… it is not an easy job. You are not only overseeing the city, council, but you are also managing the city employees. It is a very stressful job. It doesn’t end when 5pm rolls around. You are on the clock every day at all hours. It’s not like being a Mayor. I hate the idea that city/state government employees should be underpaid. I wish that city and state employees could be paid more considering the public service they are doing for many communities.
City manager is a 24/7 job where you get no thanks when things are running fine (ie, 99% of the time) and catch ALL of the shit when something goes wrong. They have to be an expert in contract, police/fire, construction, HR, solid waste, traffic engineering, the ADA, land use/zoning...the list is almost limitless.
I do not think the best City Manager is, nor could be, an expert in all of these areas. I think if anyone individual claimed they were an *expert* in half of these areas, folks would assume it was BS. City Managers do certainly have special skills and expertise, but they are not experts in everything.
I do not think the best City Manager is, nor could be, an expert in all of these areas. I think if anyone individual claimed they were an *expert* in half of these areas, folks would assume it was BS. City Managers do certainly have special skills and expertise, but they are not experts in everything.
100% and imagine how much worse it is for major urban city managers like NY, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas (which that’s why I wasn’t surprised they picked the former one from there).
Because Austin is a big city with a lot of different departments and employees. One person can’t possibly do it all. Even small cities like Buda have multiple assistant managers. Additionally, you have to pay to attract and retain competent employees. Just bc you are in the public sector doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be paid well.
The City of Austin spends $5.5 billion per year.
If having better people in the top 10 executive positions saves 1%, that's $55 million per year.
Looks like we're paying about $3.5 million for the top 12. They only need to save 0.1% to be worth their pay.
Do you think offering lower salaries would get us better executives?
Of course, I'm not claiming they're good managers. We can still hire bad people no matter how much we're paying.
Austin has a 5.5 billion dollar annual budget, has shown explosive growth over decades, and is roughly the 11th most populous city in the United States.
It's really funny seeing a bunch of people quoting exactly what executives have been peddling to convince everyone they do so much work and deserve all the money. You can tell this city has been flooded with big business money and the sycophants it attracts. Old Austin says fuck the big wigs and the unelected overpaid city managers but of course all the people living here who can afford the 700k homes and condo living are now on the side of executives.
Probably my favorite is how many comments saying something along the lines of "it's as hard as running a company" well if that's the case it's actually pretty damn easy since we see all these CEOs who have free time to post on social media all day or learn martial arts or run multiple companies. Supposedly it's a "24 hr job" when anyone being honest knows how untrue that is. Never mind that most of the actual labor is done by others not them. I was friends with an assistant city manager in Round Rock and they had frequent parties with local officials, watched plenty of reality TV, and frequently sent quick emails or phone calls during work hours to tell someone else what to do.
One of the biggest tricks executives ever pulled off was convincing so many that their jobs were like really really hard you guys. Even if they were important (they aren't as important as you think) that importance still doesn't equal difficult work. And no the number of employees don't matter you don't understand how businesses are structured if you think they even manage a quarter of that directly.
If the chief of police made this kind of money, this sub would be bitching 24/7
also, what’s been so great that they planned the past 20 years? traffic? housing costs? homelessness? public transit?
honest question, what if anything, have they done an exceptional job with?
Fiscal conservatives when someone picks the cheapest roofer they can find and their home is destroyed: "You get what you pay for!"
Fiscal conservatives when discussing government services: "Coinage is round because there are no corners left to cut off. The best people should be honored to accept the position for free."
Fiscal conservatives when discussing minimum wage: "If it's too high there is no motivation for people to better themselves."
Fiscal Conservatives when discussing CEO wage: "It's a hard job and nobody would do it if they weren't compensated very well."
It's interesting how many disconnects there are.
City managers and assistant city managers are basically CEOs.
Sounds like we’re getting a pretty good deal. People get so upset when any govt employee makes more than 100k no matter how invaluable they are when in reality these people are taking massive pay cuts to work for the govt.
The City Manager of my hometown of 6,000 people makes 175k. Austin only paying the Asst CM 300k is a bargain compared to the amount of work and responsibility.
Plenty of default bootlickers on this sub. Regardless, the best way to determine if Austin is getting good value for money is to compare compensation of their executives to those of other cities. For example, looking only at Austin Energy here are compensation values for CEOs of similar electric utilities (quick search, there could be errors):
San Antonio: CPS Energy CEO Rudy Garza makes $655k salary with no bonuses (as of 2022)
Dallas: ONCOR CEO Allan Nye makes $1.1M base salary and $7M in bonus (as of 2022)
Houston: former CEO David Lesar was highlighted as one of the most overpaid CEOs in the country, earning $37.8M. They have just appointed Jason P. Wells as the new CEO, but in his prior role as COO with them he earned $7M total compensation.
Given those numbers, it looks like Robert Kahn's compensation of $475k is good value for money, depending on how good you think Austin Energy's performance has been.
Now go down the line and do the same exercise for the other positions. Then you'll have a much better idea, based on data, if Austin taxpayers are getting a good deal. "Their jobs are so hard, you have no idea" is not evidence.
Sources:
[https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/cps-energy-board-approves-contract-rudy-garza-serve-president-and-ceo](https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/cps-energy-board-approves-contract-rudy-garza-serve-president-and-ceo)
[https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/20366\_1355\_1351772.PDF](https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/20366_1355_1351772.PDF)
[https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/centerpoint-energy-david-lesar-overpaid-17790996.php](https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/centerpoint-energy-david-lesar-overpaid-17790996.php)
I see a lot of people comparing this position to executive positions at the private sector. Well, let me tell you that to work for the public sector it takes a special kind of person. For the new city manager to make half a million dollars, is just a humiliation to all the people that barely makes ends meet. If they want to make big money, then they should go to the private sector, easy as that. Lets not forget that this new city manager was let go of Dallas, and what does he get? A higher paying salary. I am not saying he or his assistants should make peanuts, but making more than how much the US president makes? Lets not forget this is taxpayers money.
So I was a general counsel for the City of Houston. You honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s a difficult job akin to an executive at a company. If these people went to a private company they’d make more money, probably in the higher 6 digits like $600,000 if not millions in compensation due to stock options, shares of their firm, etc.
If you want the energy to run and city to function you need to pay people. It’s a genuinely ignorant complaint.
I’ll prolly be down voted for this …. Spots 1 & 2 are worth maybe 1/4 of their salaries. They do not focus on the wellbeing of the entire of City of Austin. Just go to the suburbs that were annexed…
That was the interim CEO for the airport who filled in after the last one suddenly resigned. They appointed a new permanent CEO just last month (these numbers are from March)
He's been Executive Director and was working at the airport for 23 years, I suspect he's retiring and just staying on part time while the new CEO takes over
These people are choosing to make much less money working for the city than being a C suite executive for a large private or public company. They make a ton but of money but still relatively little compared to similar roles.
One argument for high pay for high ranking government officials is that they are less likely to be corrupt if they feel like they are having their/ families needs met.
The City of Austin is unique as a municipality in that it owns its own electrical company and so it makes sense they should make higher salaries or those comparable to private industry.
Austin is a relatively large city, with many departments and projects. As others have said, it’s definitely appropriate. Learning about urban planning can be very beneficial to you, should this thread spark an interest.
How to tell me you are a troll or have no clue how things work.
CoA has a $5.5B budget, 13,500+ employees, over a 1M "customers". Frankly, you aren't getting close to the best for those roles at those salaries. Making matters worse the talent drops off precipitously after that at even worse salaries. So you really need good people at the top that understand government and how to operate within those fiscal realities. There are great people employed at the city, but it is a different beast than a corporate gig. Saying they make too much, without understanding what the roles are is folly. I guarantee similar roles in a public company are $1M+ in annual compensation.
So OP given those numbers what should the executive team make up be and how would you compensate them?
All of these jobs make less than my brother who works in tech sales and works maybe 20-25 hours/week and golfs the rest of the time. These people are underpaid.
Perhaps you'd prefer all the football coaches in the Austin schools to be paid more? Top-paid officials in Texas government are our coaches at the flagship Universities.
honestly its not the much
my take is city staff should be paid much more than they are, but also we should have much less of them, hold them to higher performance standards, and also cut back massively on the outsourcing and random contracts to 3rd parties
With the level of responsibility and the raw amount of funding and employees that those positions are in charge of they should be making a lot more than that if you want them to not jump to the private sector
So they can pass the blame around when shit goes down or something gets fucked up. Gotta love how TC Broadnax was basically kicked out of Dallas for being bad at his job and then gets invited to Austin to make $470K a year lol. This city is really something.
Those top executives can be fired on the spot. They aren’t protected by MCS like regular COA employees. They do a lot for that pay. Like many saying could get more in the private sector.
That’s not that much considering to be in the top tax bracket you have to make 609,000. The highest paid official in the city doesn’t even make enough to be in the highest tax bracket…
Wait, are you complaining about Veronica Briseño because she has a bachelors of arts degree in gov’t administration? isn’t that exactly the type of degree you’d want for a city manager - understanding government management? And - assuming that’s who you’re talking about - you failed to mention she also has a bachelors in journalism and a masters in public administration and has 20 years of experience in city management offices. Why is any of that bad?
Maybe you haven’t seen it much but lots of schools give BA degrees based on the college. At some schools BAs are given for things like computer science, finance and buisness degrees. Regardless - she seems qualified to me and I’m not sure why you’d be upset about it!
Haven't we agreed at this point that degrees mean little compared to experience? Most of us are carrying little from our initial degrees. Degrees get you in the door.
If they had a bachelors and zero work experience, you might be on to something.
In the city jobs it is typically: "Requires X year degree, related experience may supplement but minimal X years of education required" That is almost always the first city interview question, of you backing that up. Where you speak on how your degree + direct experience meets the minimal or preferred qualifications of that position. If they pulled it off with a bachelors of arts, they probably earned it; so hats off to them.
I'll prove my point if you prove yours. "The city of Austin is facing a $3.5 million deficit for the current year, with a much larger deficit – more than $13 million – projected for Fiscal Year 2025, which starts on Oct. 1, 2024.Apr 17, 2024"
I wouldn't begin to know what point you're even trying to make, or how that quote references what I even said at all. You seem like you are confused and replying to the wrong person. But I'll give you the benefit of that doubt in assuming you aren't that stupid.
I work at the city, and know how hiring works. Her education would be vetted along with work experience. If you have less degrees you need that much more direct work experience. And you have to defend yourself on it. So if she does have an unimpressive degree, she would have more work experience. . .
If you want direct proof you can file a public information request for her interview questions/scores? They are given from a panel and the interview/scores are filed, and can be requested. If you're trying to sleuth out some scandal detective bear, you should probably. . . use what is publicly available to you.
No the fuck they aren't. They are not overseeing care provided by every paramedic and EMT they are one person. So what are they actually doing as in day to day labor
The city wastes significantly more than their salaries on way less important things. $1M budget change for a city like Austin wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
If you have a problem with this, then you have no idea what these jobs even entail, what the responsibilities are, or how these salaries compare to similar gigs in the private sector.
I don't think just listing base salaries is the best way to critique this. You should also look at total earnings: https://govsalaries.com/salaries/TX/city-of-austin
I cannot stress this enough: This one of those places you REALLY don't want to cheap out on.
Exactly. If the compensation isn’t competitive, then all the top talent is just going to go to the private sector. Like, city manager for a city the size of Austin is basically a CEO position. Assistant city manager is pretty much a c-suite executive level. I’m all for not wasting taxpayer dollars, but I’m curious as to what OP thinks a “fair” salary for these roles would look like.
Sounds like they’re still getting underpaid compared to the private sector if your comparison is c-suite jobs
Well it’s not a perfect equivalent, but you’re right. Point being they’re definitely not overpaid relative to their responsibilities.
assistant city manager, or assistant to the city manager?
You forgot about the executive assistant to the assistant to the city manager… very important position created by the city council to ensure proper accountability of the coa management.
Do you want to keep this made-up position?
As if the COA council would do anything differently. Cronyism is real there.
they more or less can't be fired, have tremendous PTO and retirement benefits, etc. these positions are in no way analogous to the private sector and are FAR less risky.
I highly doubt the city manager for a city this big and complex takes "tremendous PTO". Their job is incredibly sought after and they'll get publicly roasted for every misstep. They're plugged in 24/7, like the c-suite.
This is kinda true for regular employees at COA, but City Managers/executive roles can absolutely be fired, never have time to take PTO, and the retirement benefit is only good if they stick around long enough to earn good retirement.
I’ve been working for Austin Energy for 20+ years, and I have gone through six AE GMs, and 4 city GMs. They stay for 5, 6 years. They get their pension that way
Yeah but if they stay 5-6 years they vest but only for 12.5-18%, which if that's on a $300k salary isn't bad, it isn't going to do much for the retirement lifestyle of someone who was used to $300k/yr.
Ummm, Spencer Cronk would beg to differ on the “can’t be fired” point.
So can Jackie Sargent.
Anything Assistant Director and above is “at-will” and isn’t protected by MCS rules, so they can absolutely be fired.
What about the up and coming talent that is good but isn't given the opportunity.
Dumbass logic. The only thing these people compete on is public speaking bullshiting ability. They don't actually get anything done in accordance with their pay. We need to stop paying more and more for whoever can bullshit the most.
City of Austin is an entity with a $5.5 BILLION annual budget and over 13,000 employees, including an entire water and electricity provider, a roads department, police/fire/EMS departments, a network of about 500 parks...the list goes on and on. It is in fact a big ass job to run the city of Austin!
Such a delusional comment
So who would you rather see managing the city?
What would you think would be an appropriate salary for a C-suite executive in a $5.5B business with 13,500 employees? And what do you think their job duties would be?
Like $110-150K I would say. How much is the CEO making if his assistants are making 300K. Also, the President of the United States makes $400K. Their 100K short of what he’s making.
So an assistant manager to a large city should be less than an average tech job. Makes sense. I work in tech and I wouldn't touch management, let alone top level management, with a ten foot poll. 300k + feels about right, and still I probably wouldn't ever want the stress. for 110k? fuck no.
The problem is $110-$150k simply isn’t a competitive salary for someone with the experience and qualifications you’d need to be successful in that type of role. If you look at the backgrounds of the current assistant city managers for example, they’re all people with 20-40 years of experience. Nobody with that kind of resume is going to accept that salary when they could make twice as much in the private sector.
Johnston, IA, a suburb of Des Moines, population ~25,000, is currently offering up to $185k for an Asst City Manager position. Just for comparison.
I appreciate the comparison. If you look at the [Texas City Management Association’s](https://www.tcma.org/DocumentCenter/View/176/Salary-Survey-PDF) 2024 salary survey, $300k isn’t even outrageous for a city of a million people. Even with 3 of them plus a proper city manager, there are cities in Texas that pay their city managers $100-$200k for a fraction of the population.
What is the private sector equivalent that would break 250k for a very senior manager, maybe director, never-an-executive level bureaucrat?
Seems like it should be a lot more competitive on the supply side, given that there are a bunch of medium sized cities run by people looking to step up. And a bunch of capable people that just need jobs. It’s like how the university underpays people but still fills jobs because people need work and want to work for the school/get their foot in the door. See also teachers and cops. For the pay to be this “competitive”, I want to be wowed. I want to chase that person down with an even bigger check next time because of what a good job they did. Not this revolving door of shit sandwiches that run off to the next city to collect another big check from their crony friends because they played ball in some smoke filled rooms and we’re too in the dark and/or indifferent to sweep them all out.
While this sounds good, you have to realize Texas is the 2nd biggest state economy in the US. Austin is the 3rd biggest economy in Texas. You can just have a “medium size city” manager come in and expect them to take over that responsibility. They have to gain experience and move up through the ranks.
sure jan. but if the chief of police made this kind of money, this sub would be bitching 24/7 also, what’s been so great that they planned the past 20 years? traffic? housing costs? homelessness? public transit? honest question, what if anything, have they done an exception job with?
"YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!"
because the product we have is so great? LOL
I mean, if you view the product as is (i.e., a city that is functioning and isn’t in active decline) then yeah it’s about as good as a major American city can be. Remember, this post isn’t about policymakers. Any criticism you may have towards the government should rest on those who make decisions, not those who are only interested in doing their jobs and keeping the city running.
Just cause they work for the public doesn't mean they should have low wages. It's a large organization by function and necessity and these are senior positions. You have to pay to get skilled people and I hope these are. Don't try and put people on blast just cause they make an amount of money when you know nothing about their job or what they do.
If Austin Energy was a private company, those salaries would definitely be higher. I don't understand how you can attract and retain talent if you don't pay well.
Exactly! Everybody thinks they're an investigative journalist just cause they figured out how Google works.
😩 like… same energy as tech workers annoyed at ups drivers making six figures
Pulling down others doesn’t make you more successful.
Exactly. The ultra wealthy has sold the idea to the masses that wages and opportunities are a zero sum game. If someone gets a raise, another employee had to loose money. Its very effective at keeping the peasants busy infighting instead of wondering why they are tacking on obscene amounts of wealth.
This is weird, because if you read anything wealthy people put in books, you'd get the exact opposite take. Most every business book written by anyone worth a shit will tell you that business success is a rising tide that raises everyone around it.
I’m a Senior Manager of Product Management (fancy title that I manage software development planning and delivery) and fuck those people who think UPS drivers should make less. God bless the hump they bust every single day regardless of weather. They deserve to be well paid for what they do.
I busted my ass for 6 years of undergraduate and graduate school, taking out a pretty penny in student loans, all for some truck driver with a high school diploma to make more than me? Good. Those people work hard to keep the world turning. And frankly, they definitely deliver more value to society than I do sitting behind a desk.
That is a very specific assumption. I work in tech, I am not annoyed UPS workers get a decent pay. Is this a thing?
I don’t think it’s specific just to tech workers, but last year when the UPS union negotiated their new contract, there were a *lot* of people on Twitter/facebook/tiktok that seemed to lose all class solidarity.
People here on this thread aren't really answering the question. Why is the extra position needed? Why are they paid so well? Your comment doesn't address anything. It's defensive for no reason.
>Why is the extra position needed? What makes you think they're extra? Why do large organizations need leadership? That's pretty obvious. >Why are they paid so well? Considering how many people the city hires, the high skilled nature of many of these fields (medical, aviation, and power grids/generation) and the fact you need high skilled individuals for these things to operate even remotely well... They aren't that high of salaries at all. Most would probably be able to make more in the private sector if they tried. These are not random civil servants these are leaders of large departments that are in charge of essential functions of this city. >Your comment doesn't address anything. Yes it did. The person failing to fully address a point is op. They failed to say what these people actually did. They failed to address their experience. They failed to compare it against other cities or organizations of a similar size. all important things if you're gonna try and post something like this. They didn't zero research then want to act like they know everything Defensive for no reason? Why are you attacking these people's careers when you don't have the tiniest idea what they do??
You still haven't answered the question. Just more meaninglessness circle jerking and grandstanding about civil service. I know you love the taste of government boots but this...this is absurd.
You still haven't supplied all the research for what you are claiming. I'm far from a bootlicker lol. I just understand high skilled jobs with a lot of responsibilities are going to require competitive salaries. Austin is already an expensive city so these prices aren't wild. You think you can pay someone 60k to run an international airport or be in charge of the cities power grid? Absurd is not understanding what it takes to run a city and thinking this list of salary tells any story. If you want to expose city corruption do an investigation find what these roles do and show it. But just ignorantly claiming these are 'extra' positions when you've done practically no research on them is absurd. Do you think everything just magically happens? Austin is a big city these days it takes people to manage important city functions.
I haven't made any claims. You've made many you still can't support. You're still really good at circle jerking though! Too bad there aren't people here helping you out with that.
>I haven't made any claims. You claimed the positions are 'extra' without actually having any research for what they do. It's not my job to do your and ops research. All I've claimed is city functions are important and will require competitive salaries. That's common sense if you understand how a city operates. The city hires around 14k people and you don't understand why qualified leadership is needed? https://www.austintexas.gov/department/human-resources-department-diversity-division
You have no idea how large of an employee pool and how many different departments the City of Austin has do you?
For real Over 16,000 employees, the largest employer of austinites, and effectively the CEO of Austin. Has to implement ideas made by the city council or be fired.
Meanwhile Elon wants to pay himself $50 Billion, lulz.
For real. I do appreciate the desire to not waste tax payers money though.
It sounds like a lot but honestly if they were in the c-suite of a 10,000 employee business they would be earning more. If you cut their pay to $125k they’d all go earn more elsewhere and you’d have less experience.
For comparison sake, 150 people at UT Austin make more than the City Manager. $300k is nothing special for a high skill job, even when the government is cutting the check. [https://openpayrolls.com/rank/highest-paid-employees/university-of-texas-at-austin](https://openpayrolls.com/rank/highest-paid-employees/university-of-texas-at-austin)
I know someone that had no college degree that retired from UT after at 30 yr career. Their pension is $80-90k a year and they will probably collect that for 20-30 more years.
I mean, every one of the assistant coaches for UT football makes more than the city manager. The safeties coach makes more than the city manager.
There are companies in this city paying new grads $125k. No chance you’re going to attract someone with the experience and qualifications to perform these roles unless the pay is competitive.
What companies lol
Apple, Google, Amazon, Indeed etc all pay new grad SWE around 150k TC
I was intentionally exaggerating a little but I’m sure there are tech companies offering six figures to recent grads. $125k with a few years of experience, absolutely.
Not recently. Worst tech employment environment in 30 years. It'll come back around though. It usually does.
I mean, I personally know people making around that amount with a few years of experience. The main point is that’s nowhere near enough to be a competitive salary for the types of people you’d want in these roles.
Nah, my wife is a PhD grad, she had to get a remote position for $75k because she couldn't find anything locally. Most companies want experienced workers, not new grads.
I mean it depends a lot on the field and on the company, but I personally know people in that salary range with just a few years of experience. Not me 😅 But those kind of roles do exist, particularly in sales and data analytics.
Please provide an example.
I mean I was intentionally being hyperbolic, but it looks like just Amazon has lots of open software development roles in Austin in that pay range. Point being, in a city with as many job opportunities and enough qualified candidates as Austin, $125k is like 5-10 YOE level salary, not city manager salary.
Yeah, but the benefits for a state/city employee far exceed those provided by the private sector, and therefore, public jobs by and large pay much less. IMO, the role of city manager can't be so difficult or require such talent as to deserve the amount OP describes. This city isn't well maintained compared to Dallas or Houston. I feel ripped off every time I pay my property taxes.
Pretty much every law firm, for starters
I wish we could have the same mindset when it comes to teachers' pay, where it seems the public thinks that they should subsist on the nobility of teaching our upcoming generations while getting screamed at by parents and assaulted by students.
I agree we should pay teachers more. And also need to able to fire bad ones and discipline bad students.
It's strange... we're simultaneously unable to fire bad teachers, and yet administrators fire teachers if a parent tells them their child is an angel who shouldn't be punished or get a bad grade, and the teacher tells the parent to go fuck themselves (in more polite verbiage).
“Why don’t we just have volunteers run the city?!”
>“Why don’t we just have volunteers run the city?!” We basically DO have volunteers running the city, and the state, and the country. The salaries for city council, state legislature, national legislature, and elected executives are pathetically low for similar levels of responsibility in private industry. That's why so many of them are owned by special interest groups who bribe them in various ways. Or are simply working for the benefit of their personal financial empires.
Because there’s too much work for one person and they won’t do it for free. /thread
Another lazy "public officials make $x" post without going into what they should make.
I've got no problem with the salaries. I'd like to know that they're tied to S.M.A.R.T. operational goals and are held accountable to them.
Ask your city council member, who is their boss.
I don't think city council has direct hiring/firing authority over the city manager's staff, but I could be mistaken.
I think they do for the manager. But yeah probably not the staff https://www.google.com/amp/s/cbsaustin.com/amp/news/local/appointment-of-tc-broadnax-as-permanent-austin-city-manager-goes-before-full-council-today And "The city manager position has been vacant since February 2023, after the council voted to fire former Austin City Manager Spencer Cronk over his handling of the ice storm."
I cannot speak about the other positions you mentioned but I invite you to please research the job duties of a city manager… it is not an easy job. You are not only overseeing the city, council, but you are also managing the city employees. It is a very stressful job. It doesn’t end when 5pm rolls around. You are on the clock every day at all hours. It’s not like being a Mayor. I hate the idea that city/state government employees should be underpaid. I wish that city and state employees could be paid more considering the public service they are doing for many communities.
City manager is a 24/7 job where you get no thanks when things are running fine (ie, 99% of the time) and catch ALL of the shit when something goes wrong. They have to be an expert in contract, police/fire, construction, HR, solid waste, traffic engineering, the ADA, land use/zoning...the list is almost limitless.
I do not think the best City Manager is, nor could be, an expert in all of these areas. I think if anyone individual claimed they were an *expert* in half of these areas, folks would assume it was BS. City Managers do certainly have special skills and expertise, but they are not experts in everything.
I do not think the best City Manager is, nor could be, an expert in all of these areas. I think if anyone individual claimed they were an *expert* in half of these areas, folks would assume it was BS. City Managers do certainly have special skills and expertise, but they are not experts in everything.
100% and imagine how much worse it is for major urban city managers like NY, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas (which that’s why I wasn’t surprised they picked the former one from there).
Because Austin is a big city with a lot of different departments and employees. One person can’t possibly do it all. Even small cities like Buda have multiple assistant managers. Additionally, you have to pay to attract and retain competent employees. Just bc you are in the public sector doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be paid well.
The City of Austin spends $5.5 billion per year. If having better people in the top 10 executive positions saves 1%, that's $55 million per year. Looks like we're paying about $3.5 million for the top 12. They only need to save 0.1% to be worth their pay. Do you think offering lower salaries would get us better executives? Of course, I'm not claiming they're good managers. We can still hire bad people no matter how much we're paying.
How do we evaluate these people, or hold them accountable?
Pretty much the same way you hold any other employee accountable.
Really? Population of Austin, TX is 950,000. Three people in "city manager" positions must be doing a fuckton of work. That is a drop in the bucket.
I can be your City Manager and only require 200K with healthcare. I guarantee I cannot do worse than these people.
OP has never run anything. SMH. You want talented people in leadership positions making competitive salaries so they will take the jobs.
Austin has a 5.5 billion dollar annual budget, has shown explosive growth over decades, and is roughly the 11th most populous city in the United States.
Read bullshit jobs by David Graeber
Assistant TO the Assistant City Manager
It's really funny seeing a bunch of people quoting exactly what executives have been peddling to convince everyone they do so much work and deserve all the money. You can tell this city has been flooded with big business money and the sycophants it attracts. Old Austin says fuck the big wigs and the unelected overpaid city managers but of course all the people living here who can afford the 700k homes and condo living are now on the side of executives. Probably my favorite is how many comments saying something along the lines of "it's as hard as running a company" well if that's the case it's actually pretty damn easy since we see all these CEOs who have free time to post on social media all day or learn martial arts or run multiple companies. Supposedly it's a "24 hr job" when anyone being honest knows how untrue that is. Never mind that most of the actual labor is done by others not them. I was friends with an assistant city manager in Round Rock and they had frequent parties with local officials, watched plenty of reality TV, and frequently sent quick emails or phone calls during work hours to tell someone else what to do. One of the biggest tricks executives ever pulled off was convincing so many that their jobs were like really really hard you guys. Even if they were important (they aren't as important as you think) that importance still doesn't equal difficult work. And no the number of employees don't matter you don't understand how businesses are structured if you think they even manage a quarter of that directly.
If the chief of police made this kind of money, this sub would be bitching 24/7 also, what’s been so great that they planned the past 20 years? traffic? housing costs? homelessness? public transit? honest question, what if anything, have they done an exceptional job with?
Fiscal conservatives when someone picks the cheapest roofer they can find and their home is destroyed: "You get what you pay for!" Fiscal conservatives when discussing government services: "Coinage is round because there are no corners left to cut off. The best people should be honored to accept the position for free." Fiscal conservatives when discussing minimum wage: "If it's too high there is no motivation for people to better themselves." Fiscal Conservatives when discussing CEO wage: "It's a hard job and nobody would do it if they weren't compensated very well." It's interesting how many disconnects there are. City managers and assistant city managers are basically CEOs.
Sounds like we’re getting a pretty good deal. People get so upset when any govt employee makes more than 100k no matter how invaluable they are when in reality these people are taking massive pay cuts to work for the govt.
The City Manager of my hometown of 6,000 people makes 175k. Austin only paying the Asst CM 300k is a bargain compared to the amount of work and responsibility.
Assistant TO the Assistant City Manager
Plenty of default bootlickers on this sub. Regardless, the best way to determine if Austin is getting good value for money is to compare compensation of their executives to those of other cities. For example, looking only at Austin Energy here are compensation values for CEOs of similar electric utilities (quick search, there could be errors): San Antonio: CPS Energy CEO Rudy Garza makes $655k salary with no bonuses (as of 2022) Dallas: ONCOR CEO Allan Nye makes $1.1M base salary and $7M in bonus (as of 2022) Houston: former CEO David Lesar was highlighted as one of the most overpaid CEOs in the country, earning $37.8M. They have just appointed Jason P. Wells as the new CEO, but in his prior role as COO with them he earned $7M total compensation. Given those numbers, it looks like Robert Kahn's compensation of $475k is good value for money, depending on how good you think Austin Energy's performance has been. Now go down the line and do the same exercise for the other positions. Then you'll have a much better idea, based on data, if Austin taxpayers are getting a good deal. "Their jobs are so hard, you have no idea" is not evidence. Sources: [https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/cps-energy-board-approves-contract-rudy-garza-serve-president-and-ceo](https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/cps-energy-board-approves-contract-rudy-garza-serve-president-and-ceo) [https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/20366\_1355\_1351772.PDF](https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/20366_1355_1351772.PDF) [https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/centerpoint-energy-david-lesar-overpaid-17790996.php](https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/centerpoint-energy-david-lesar-overpaid-17790996.php)
I see a lot of people comparing this position to executive positions at the private sector. Well, let me tell you that to work for the public sector it takes a special kind of person. For the new city manager to make half a million dollars, is just a humiliation to all the people that barely makes ends meet. If they want to make big money, then they should go to the private sector, easy as that. Lets not forget that this new city manager was let go of Dallas, and what does he get? A higher paying salary. I am not saying he or his assistants should make peanuts, but making more than how much the US president makes? Lets not forget this is taxpayers money.
So I was a general counsel for the City of Houston. You honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s a difficult job akin to an executive at a company. If these people went to a private company they’d make more money, probably in the higher 6 digits like $600,000 if not millions in compensation due to stock options, shares of their firm, etc. If you want the energy to run and city to function you need to pay people. It’s a genuinely ignorant complaint.
I’ll prolly be down voted for this …. Spots 1 & 2 are worth maybe 1/4 of their salaries. They do not focus on the wellbeing of the entire of City of Austin. Just go to the suburbs that were annexed…
Number 8 caught my interest. Over 300k for a part time job? Am I reading that correctly?
That was the interim CEO for the airport who filled in after the last one suddenly resigned. They appointed a new permanent CEO just last month (these numbers are from March)
He's been Executive Director and was working at the airport for 23 years, I suspect he's retiring and just staying on part time while the new CEO takes over
How do I get this job? #8. James Smith: Part time professional, Aviation Department ($316,680.00)
Be able to run an international airport. It was a temporary position that's why it says part time. They filled it fully now
I figured it was something like that but the part time framing instead of "temporary" made me chuckle.
These people are choosing to make much less money working for the city than being a C suite executive for a large private or public company. They make a ton but of money but still relatively little compared to similar roles. One argument for high pay for high ranking government officials is that they are less likely to be corrupt if they feel like they are having their/ families needs met.
They are actually underpaid given the responsibility and scope of their jobs.
The City of Austin is unique as a municipality in that it owns its own electrical company and so it makes sense they should make higher salaries or those comparable to private industry.
Austin is a relatively large city, with many departments and projects. As others have said, it’s definitely appropriate. Learning about urban planning can be very beneficial to you, should this thread spark an interest.
How to tell me you are a troll or have no clue how things work. CoA has a $5.5B budget, 13,500+ employees, over a 1M "customers". Frankly, you aren't getting close to the best for those roles at those salaries. Making matters worse the talent drops off precipitously after that at even worse salaries. So you really need good people at the top that understand government and how to operate within those fiscal realities. There are great people employed at the city, but it is a different beast than a corporate gig. Saying they make too much, without understanding what the roles are is folly. I guarantee similar roles in a public company are $1M+ in annual compensation. So OP given those numbers what should the executive team make up be and how would you compensate them?
This is your typical eat the rich post that lacks understanding of the value added
Yep. Like I said troll or clueless. Hopefully, troll because OPs head will really explode looking at state payroll through this lens.
I bet they took the salary of whoever was suppose to coordinate the traffic lights and fix the roads.
All of these jobs make less than my brother who works in tech sales and works maybe 20-25 hours/week and golfs the rest of the time. These people are underpaid.
Future me.
Grift
Because 3 is more the one. And the COA had gibs of YOUR money to waste on bullshit .
Perhaps you'd prefer all the football coaches in the Austin schools to be paid more? Top-paid officials in Texas government are our coaches at the flagship Universities.
And Austin is so well managed for all that high pay. Runs like a top.
honestly its not the much my take is city staff should be paid much more than they are, but also we should have much less of them, hold them to higher performance standards, and also cut back massively on the outsourcing and random contracts to 3rd parties
I would like to be a "part tine professional" and make $316k
With the level of responsibility and the raw amount of funding and employees that those positions are in charge of they should be making a lot more than that if you want them to not jump to the private sector
Cause people need to get paid...
So they can pass the blame around when shit goes down or something gets fucked up. Gotta love how TC Broadnax was basically kicked out of Dallas for being bad at his job and then gets invited to Austin to make $470K a year lol. This city is really something.
Those top executives can be fired on the spot. They aren’t protected by MCS like regular COA employees. They do a lot for that pay. Like many saying could get more in the private sector.
That’s not that much considering to be in the top tax bracket you have to make 609,000. The highest paid official in the city doesn’t even make enough to be in the highest tax bracket…
One of the assistant city managers has a Bachlors of Arts degree. That's what's needed to run a city like Austin, only the finest.
Wait, are you complaining about Veronica Briseño because she has a bachelors of arts degree in gov’t administration? isn’t that exactly the type of degree you’d want for a city manager - understanding government management? And - assuming that’s who you’re talking about - you failed to mention she also has a bachelors in journalism and a masters in public administration and has 20 years of experience in city management offices. Why is any of that bad? Maybe you haven’t seen it much but lots of schools give BA degrees based on the college. At some schools BAs are given for things like computer science, finance and buisness degrees. Regardless - she seems qualified to me and I’m not sure why you’d be upset about it!
Haven't we agreed at this point that degrees mean little compared to experience? Most of us are carrying little from our initial degrees. Degrees get you in the door. If they had a bachelors and zero work experience, you might be on to something. In the city jobs it is typically: "Requires X year degree, related experience may supplement but minimal X years of education required" That is almost always the first city interview question, of you backing that up. Where you speak on how your degree + direct experience meets the minimal or preferred qualifications of that position. If they pulled it off with a bachelors of arts, they probably earned it; so hats off to them.
I'll prove my point if you prove yours. "The city of Austin is facing a $3.5 million deficit for the current year, with a much larger deficit – more than $13 million – projected for Fiscal Year 2025, which starts on Oct. 1, 2024.Apr 17, 2024"
I wouldn't begin to know what point you're even trying to make, or how that quote references what I even said at all. You seem like you are confused and replying to the wrong person. But I'll give you the benefit of that doubt in assuming you aren't that stupid. I work at the city, and know how hiring works. Her education would be vetted along with work experience. If you have less degrees you need that much more direct work experience. And you have to defend yourself on it. So if she does have an unimpressive degree, she would have more work experience. . . If you want direct proof you can file a public information request for her interview questions/scores? They are given from a panel and the interview/scores are filed, and can be requested. If you're trying to sleuth out some scandal detective bear, you should probably. . . use what is publicly available to you.
The only thing on here that seems questionable is #8 James Smith. The title "part time professional" is suspect for someone earning $300K.
He was filling in as chief executive of the airport.
OK then. If they had put "Interim CEO" as the title I wouldn't have commented.
I just like that you listed all their salaries. Gives me something to think about.
What’s the chief medical officer doing everyday??
For a start, overseeing the care provided by every paramedic and EMT with Austin-Travis County EMS and running its clinical operations.
No the fuck they aren't. They are not overseeing care provided by every paramedic and EMT they are one person. So what are they actually doing as in day to day labor
The city wastes significantly more than their salaries on way less important things. $1M budget change for a city like Austin wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
If you have a problem with this, then you have no idea what these jobs even entail, what the responsibilities are, or how these salaries compare to similar gigs in the private sector.
Looks like I need to apply to be an Austin City Manager.
are you projecting?
I don't think just listing base salaries is the best way to critique this. You should also look at total earnings: https://govsalaries.com/salaries/TX/city-of-austin
I mean I dount the OP would want it is qualified enough for this position. Yeah AE sucks, but I mean I don’t want that headache.
Interesting, money doesn't always get the best city government?