A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

After sharp public criticism, council votes to deny proposed raise for mayor and council

March 24, 2026 | Chesapeake City (Independent City), Virginia


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

After sharp public criticism, council votes to deny proposed raise for mayor and council
Council opened a public hearing on an ordinance proposing increased salaries for the mayor and city council effective July 1, 2027, and heard nine registered speakers during a lengthy public-comment period.

Opponents argued the timing was poor amid rising costs for residents. Jennifer Economy said residents are "struggling to make ends meet" and urged council to "put the city's economy and its people first." Brad Moore and others warned the increase would appear tone-deaf following larger state legislative pay changes.

Supporters said higher pay could broaden who can serve. Cliff Randolph, who introduced himself as a Chesapeake resident, told council: "I support your going ahead with raising your compensation for city council members," arguing the role requires significant unpaid time and casework.

After public comments Councilmember Les Smith moved to withdraw the item for later reconsideration; a substitute motion to deny the ordinance was offered and carried by a nine-zero vote. Several council members said they support the principle of reasonable compensation but opposed this particular proposal because of timing and scale. Councilmember Smith said the issue is "about removing a barrier" to service but accepted that the public reaction requires more study and perhaps a more gradual approach.

The denial means no change will take effect; if council pursues any future pay changes they must re-advertise and hold a new public hearing. Council requested staff and members consider studies and phased options that would examine regional comparators and possible conditions (such as voluntary opt-in or campaign finance reforms) before any future ordinance is reintroduced.

What happens next: the item was denied 9-0; councilmembers asked staff to provide comparative data and cost options should the matter be revived at a later date.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee