Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agenda review committee recommends setting 2027 mayor and council pay, committee cites charter deadline
Summary
The committee recommended fixing mayor and city council compensation that would take effect in 2027 and remain on a set schedule; the transcript records inconsistent percentage figures (both '2%' and '2.5%') in committee discussion and staff cited the charter requirement to set pay by May.
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The agenda review committee on March 3 presented a recommendation to set the incoming mayor’s salary at the current level with a planned annual adjustment beginning in 2027 and to set a new compensation schedule for council members starting the same year, the chair said.
The chair told members the committee compared pay across peer cities and recommended holding the mayor’s starting salary “at what it is now with a 2% increase” and, later in the same discussion, referred to the committee’s suggestion that “the council will get a 2.5% increase per year.” The committee emphasized the change would apply to whoever occupies the offices starting in 2027, not to the current incumbents.
The recommendation included a staff review of comparable municipalities and an instruction that the committee’s paperwork and the proposed schedule be finalized in time to satisfy the city charter’s deadline, which staff noted requires approval of the next council and mayor’s salary by May. “Charter required you to approve the next council and the next mayor’s salary by May,” a staff member said.
Committee members did not vote during the agenda review meeting; the chair said council may still vote the recommendation down on the next scheduled council meeting. The chair framed the recommendation as a procedural step to meet the charter timeline and asked members to consider the committee’s report before the council vote.
The committee’s discussion recorded two differing percentage figures in the transcript (2% and 2.5%) when describing the proposed annual adjustment; the record does not resolve which percentage the committee formally adopted, and staff said specific monetary figures are provided in the committee paperwork in the meeting packet.

