Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Council Compensation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Kalispell councilors debate stipend, reimbursement and 'making members whole' for lost wages

3207534 · May 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City councilors and residents discussed whether the city should reimburse or otherwise compensate council members who lose pay or vacation time to attend training and meetings, and asked staff to update salary-comparison numbers for a June follow-up.

Kalispell City Council members and members of the public spent more than an hour Tuesday discussing whether the city should reimburse or otherwise compensate councilors who lose wages or vacation time to attend meetings, trainings or representational duties.

Supporters framed the issue as a barrier to service, saying some prospective candidates and current members cannot afford to lose pay for civic duties and asking the council to “make people whole” when they must take leave from paid work. Opponents and other council members urged caution about setting a compensation policy that could be perceived as self-dealing or that would result in a large automatic increase in pay.

The discussion ranged across several alternatives: an explicit reimbursement for lost pay, indexing council pay to a formula or cost-of-living adjustments tied to comparable cities, a modest stipend increase, or keeping compensation voluntary for those who decline it. Council members repeatedly emphasized not wanting to force any individual to accept payments if they oppose them.

Several participants asked staff to update comparative pay figures and return in June with a clearer baseline for decision-making. One council speaker said the city would provide a “salary dilution” report in June as a starting point for further council action. The council also discussed whether indexing to a formula (for example, periodic cost-of-living adjustments) would be preferable to ad hoc increases.

Council members and public commenters raised three recurring concerns: affordability for working residents who would serve on the council, the optics and propriety of councilors voting on their own pay, and the trade-off between raising compensation and keeping council service accessible and volunteer-driven. Several speakers said the primary goal should be to remove a financial barrier that deters qualified candidates from running.

Council direction: councilmembers asked staff to update numbers and bring back the compensation comparison and recommended options for possible policy changes. No formal motion or vote on a compensation change was recorded in the transcript.

Looking ahead: staff will return with updated compensation comparisons and modeling in June to allow the council to consider whether to pursue a stipend increase, a reimbursement policy for lost wages, a formula-based adjustment, or no change at this time.