The city council voted to increase salary for the mayor and council during a special called meeting, approving a motion to raise compensation after extended debate over whether to drop city-paid health, vision and dental coverage and offset that with higher pay.

Council members debated two linked questions: whether to increase base pay for elected officials and whether the city should continue to provide insurance for sitting members. Council discussion made clear the motion before the body was limited to compensation (salary) only; benefits were not before the council for action at this meeting.

Council members described prior direction to staff: the council had asked staff and the city attorney to prepare ordinance language and run required public notices so the options could be formally presented. Council discussion referenced legal review and advertising that the city had already paid for to move the matter forward.

During the discussion, several members said they had run personal and budget numbers. One council member described the pay increase proposal as a way to reduce city costs tied to elected-official insurance. Council members gave the following figures during the meeting: the pay increase measure under consideration would raise elected-official pay by approximately $42,000 annually in total; current city-paid coverage for mayor and council as selected was said to cost roughly $98,000; council members estimated the most likely 2026 savings at about $60,000 (based on current benefit selections) and up to about $138,000 if all seven seats elected city coverage and the change removed that obligation. Those numbers were presented in debate and reflect council statements at the meeting.

Council members also said staff and the city attorney had concluded the city could not implement a plan where the city increased pay and then deducted insurance premiums on behalf of select members — i.e., the city could not selectively purchase insurance and deduct the premium from an increased salary for some members while not doing so for others. That option was described in discussion as not viable for legal/administrative reasons.

Speakers split on how to weigh personal impacts versus citywide budget effects. Some members argued the pay increase would reduce long-term insurance costs for taxpayers and could free funds for infrastructure or public safety; others said losing city-provided insurance would reduce their personal take-home pay and could make service financially difficult for those who rely on that employer-provided coverage.

After discussion, a council member moved to increase mayor and council salaries and another council member seconded the motion. The motion carried; the council approved the salary increase. The meeting record does not include a roll-call tally in the transcript excerpt provided.

The council did not take a separate vote on changing or eliminating city-provided insurance during this meeting. The action recorded at this meeting was the salary increase only; any change to benefits would require separate, explicit action.

What happens next: council debate indicated staff had already prepared ordinance language and legal work, but the transcript shows that benefits remain a separate matter. The council did not adopt any ordinance text on benefits at this meeting and did not record a final ordinance number for benefit removal. Implementation details (for example, exact effective dates or whether further council votes on benefits are required) were not specified in the discussion excerpt.

Ending

The council approved the pay increase after the discussion; council members and staff acknowledged outstanding administrative and legal work and confirmed that further action would be necessary if the council decides later to change benefits. The transcript indicates the salary vote was intended to address fiscal impact on the city budget, but the council left benefit coverage unchanged at this meeting.