Salem committee drops routine school-committee pay review, approves 3% mayor pay increase starting Jan. 1, 2026

The Salem City Council Committee on Administration and Finance recommended removing a mandated biennial review of school-committee compensation and voted to raise the mayor’s salary by 3% effective Jan. 1, 2026.

The committee, co-posted with the Committee of the Whole, voted 5-0 to recommend no action on the scheduled review of school-committee compensation and separately voted 5-0 to recommend deleting the ordinance language that required that review. Later the committee approved a 3% cost-of-living increase for the mayor starting Jan. 1, 2026; that motion carried 3-2.

Why it matters: the school-committee change removes a requirement that the council’s administration committee review school-committee pay on a set biennial schedule. The move stems from an earlier ordinance change that tied school-committee pay to a percentage of the mayor’s salary and converted members’ pay from a stipend to payroll salary starting Jan. 1, 2024. The 3% mayoral increase will raise a base salary that has been at $150,000 since a 2019 adjustment.

Committee members and staff discussed the city’s comparison of mayoral total compensation across neighboring municipalities, data-collection limits and whether small, regular increases are preferable to infrequent larger raises. Lisa Camarata, human resources director, said some municipalities’ compensation information is “not easily attainable,” and described differences such as stipends, vehicle usage and noncash benefits that can make direct comparisons difficult. Anna Friedman, finance director, confirmed last fiscal-year cost-of-living increases for city staff were 3% across nonunion employees and recently settled contracts.

Councilors who supported a modest increase said incremental adjustments are a better long-term approach than leaving the salary untouched for several years. Supporters pointed to an approximate regional average around $150,000–$155,000 and to recruitment concerns for an executive municipal role. Opponents said the city is facing tight budget conditions and that limited funds may be better used to raise wages for lower-paid municipal employees or address staffing shortages. Councilor Cohen said, in part, “I hope that this committee will not vote to change the mayor’s compensation at all” given budget uncertainty; Councilor Stott said routine, predictable increases reduce the need for large future jumps.

Public commenters urged the committee to consider total compensation (fringe benefits, vehicle use, insurance) rather than base salary alone. Resident Steve Kapantis recommended the committee “consider all of the fringe benefits and then see what the market value is” when comparing municipalities; another resident said failing to adjust pay for inflation effectively reduces take-home pay.

Votes at a glance: the committee voted 5-0 to recommend no action on the scheduled school-committee compensation review; 5-0 to recommend removing the ordinance language that required the review; and 3-2 to approve a 3% cost-of-living increase to the mayor’s salary effective Jan. 1, 2026.

What was not decided or not specified: the committee did not set a new recurring review schedule for councilor pay; specific dollar totals for vehicle-use valuation or some municipalities’ full fringe-benefit packages were not specified in the record. Committee members asked staff to supply additional details about vehicle costs and noncash compensation if needed for future comparisons.

The committee adjourned after taking the motions described above.