Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Salaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council amends Utica cost-of-living ordinance, adds suspension through Dec. 31, 2026
Summary
The council amended a proposed ordinance that would suspend application of section 2.025 of the Utica Code (cost-of-living annual salary adjustments) and added language specifying the suspension run through Dec. 31, 2026; members asked counsel about limits tied to council terms.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Salaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Utica Common Council on March 18 amended proposed language affecting cost-of-living salary adjustments for elected officials by specifying a suspension period ending Dec. 31, 2026.
The ordinance text before the council would suspend Section 2.025 of the Utica Code, which sets a formula tying annual salary increases for elected officials to the consumer price index (CPI) with a 3% trigger and a 6% cap. Council discussion focused on whether the council should limit the suspension to a specific fiscal year or date, given concerns counsel raised about suspending a provision beyond the council’s term.
City counsel advised that an explicit end date would be clearer. A council member proposed amending the ordinance to read “suspended until 12/31/2026.” That amendment was seconded and put to a vote. The meeting record shows the amendment was approved and the ordinance as amended was adopted; the council recorded the vote on adoption as nine ayes in the later roll calls.
Members argued for specificity so the suspension would not be interpreted to bind future councils beyond the stated date; one member noted the council’s term ends in 2026 and recommended 12/31/2026 as a clear cutoff. The ordinance language on the CPI remains unchanged except for the added suspension timeframe: it still ties increases to the all urban consumer price index computed Dec. 31 to Dec. 31 with the 3% trigger and 6% single-year cap described in the text presented to council.
Council members requested clarity from counsel about whether suspending the provision would have unintended consequences for elected officials’ salaries and emphasized that any increase above 6% would not carry forward.
The council adopted the ordinance as amended; members asked staff to ensure the language clearly states the suspension end date.

