Cities need to manage taxpayer dollars as wisely as possible ‹ especially with the state bracing for a projected $4.1 billion budget deficit. That's why the Orr City Council should reconsider a $600-a-month pay increase it granted City Administrator David Dill last week.

The pay increase was part of a package approved for new State Rep. Dill, who is on a leave of absence from his post as city administrator during the legislative session. State law says that Dill is entitled to an unpaid leave of absence from his job during the session, and allowed to return to work with insurance, vacation and sick leave benefits unaffected by his absence. But those benefits don't include payroll contributions to employee investment funds, which is where Dill's pay increase is currently earmarked.

Dill characterized the pay increase as a way for him to keep pace with the contributions he has been making from his paycheck to the Minnesota Deferred Compensation Fund. He reasoned that since he would not be drawing a paycheck from Orr during the months that he was away from the job, the pay increase would allow him to double his monthly contributions once he returned to work. That may meet the letter of a state law that prevents public officials from being paid while on leaves of absence, but backloading compensation hardly meets the spirit of that law.

It's not as though Dill lacks other options. Instead of asking the city to make up missing payments, he could designate a portion of the $31,140 a year that he'll earn as a state legislator to the same fund he contributes to as city administrator.

Orr councilors suggested that they considered the increase to be payment for work that Dill would do for the city during the legislative session‹ but state law appears to prevent such payment while Dill is serving in the Legislature. Dill himself says he does not consider the pay increase compensation for work that he'll do for the city and downplayed how active a role he'll play in city affairs while the Legislature is in session. If that's the case, the city's pay increase can't be justified as payment for services rendered.

Over the next six months, it's conceivable that councilors may need to consult with Dill. However, a number of pending issues ‹ from the proposed expansion of Highway 53 to obtaining state grants for a baseball park in Orr ‹ would be part of his responsibilities as a state legislator. If the law permits Dill to be paid for work performed exclusively for the city, the city should track his hours and pay him accordingly. Doing so would better satisfy the legal standard set by the state's constitution, which specifies that public money must be spent for a public purpose. Just giving Dill an additional $600 a month to funnel to his own discretionary investment fund without any indication that the city will receive services in return doesn't appear to be a public purpose.

No one is questioning Dill's contributions to Orr, but the city needs to manage its limited dollars carefully. Although the city will realize some savings on insurance and salary during Dill's leave, those savings will be partially offset by the cost of adding part-time personnel to the office and compensating City Clerk Sherry Erickson for additional duties.

Councilors should also be cautious because giving Dill this pay increase could set a dangerous precedent. If the city boosts Dill's salary to enable him to maintain his investment contributions, will it do the same for any other employee who goes on an extended leave?

Meanwhile, Dill should be wary of the impression that he's creating as a fledgling lawmaker. He already received a 1.5 percent pay increase from the city this year and this increase is in addition to that. At $600 a month, the new increase amounts to an 18 percent boost over Dill's current monthly salary. It sends the wrong message at a time when the state and cities need to be accountable for every dollar spent.