Lake Stevens salary commission reviews 2.44% COLA for mayor, discusses council pay and possible president premium

LAKE STEVENS, Wash. — The Lake Stevens Salary Commission on Oct. 13 reviewed city and regional salary comparisons and discussed recommending a 2.44% cost-of-living adjustment for the mayor and council for 2026, staff said.

The commission’s review was led by city staff who compiled Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) data and a comparable-city spreadsheet. Staff told commissioners the recommended 2.44% increase is the preliminary non-represented employee COLA (90% of CPI-W) shown in the city’s draft budget materials, and that the amount would raise the mayor’s monthly pay by roughly $260 a month under the proposal.

Why it matters: the commission’s annual salary schedule becomes part of the city budget and, if adopted, takes effect on a timetable set in the Lake Stevens code. Commissioners said they want the commission’s recommendations on the record before December, when a public hearing will be held to file the commission’s written salary schedule with the city clerk.

Commissioners and staff discussed three main pay questions: whether to align the mayor’s increase with the non-represented COLA of 2.44%; whether to continue using a flat monthly amount for council pay instead of a percentage; and whether the council president should receive a higher stipend than other council members in recognition of additional duties.

Staff review and comparables City staff presented a spreadsheet of comparable cities based on population, assessed value and sales-tax receipts and noted that two cities — Des Moines and Maple Valley — were added to this year’s comparison set while Monroe dropped out of the calculated threshold. Staff said some spreadsheet cells were mis-sorted in the posted packet and that she would correct and reissue the file before the next meeting.

Staff reported that, excluding two outlier cities with unusually large adjustments, competitors’ average increases from last year were about 3.65%, while Lake Stevens’ approved adjustment last year was about 3.24%. Staff said the city’s proposed non-represented COLA of 2.44% (90% of CPI-W) is slightly lower than the competitors’ average but “pretty on track.” (Staff presentation summarized; packet materials cited MRSC data.)

Council pay structure and council-president premium Commissioners reviewed that the city switched council pay from meeting-based stipends to a flat monthly rate several years ago to reduce administrative burden and improve consistency. Commissioners recalled the flat-rate approach removed paperwork and processing costs related to meeting stipends.

The group discussed whether the council president should receive a higher monthly amount. Commissioners and staff said the council president typically performs additional tasks — running twice-monthly workshop meetings, meeting with staff for agenda planning, and serving as a point of contact for absent council members — and suggested a modest premium could be appropriate. Commissioners asked staff to compile an annotated list of council-president duties and to return options for a premium (one preliminary idea discussed was roughly a 20% bump for the president).

Next steps and scheduling The commission directed staff to correct the comparables spreadsheet, circulate an updated packet, and supply a short list of council-president duties drawn from council rules or clerk-office materials. Commissioners agreed to schedule a public hearing on the commission’s salary schedule for Monday, Dec. 1, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. They scheduled follow-up commission meetings on Oct. 23, 2025 (virtual, 6 p.m.) and a tentative meeting on Nov. 10, 2025 (6:30 p.m.) to finalize recommendations before the public hearing.

Quotes “I would agree with Mike here,” one commissioner said after staff presented the comparison to competitors, signaling broad support for aligning with the non-represented COLA approach discussed by staff. Staff summarized the payroll comparison and noted she would correct a sorting error in the spreadsheet before the next meeting.

Ending The commission did not adopt a final salary schedule at the Oct. 13 meeting. Commissioners asked staff to return corrected comparables and a duties list so the commission can vote after reviewing updated materials and public comment at the Dec. 1 hearing.