Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assembly Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance committee debates raising assembly pay and automatic increases, takes no recommendation
Summary
Committee members debated a proposed amendment modeled on Haines code to raise per‑meeting stipends and add automatic yearly increases (effective 2028). Members split over comparability to Haines, PERS thresholds, and whether a flat stipend would be preferable; the committee deferred action to the full assembly.
The Skagway Municipality Finance Committee spent substantial time Sept. 3 debating a proposed amendment to local compensation for assembly members that would raise per‑meeting pay, impose a cap on reimbursable meetings per month, and schedule automatic $10 annual increases beginning in 2029 with an effective date of Jan. 1, 2028.
Proponents said the amendment — modeled after a recently revised Haines ordinance — would correct long‑standing low compensation and help recruit younger working families who may be priced out of public service. “We’ve been getting paid less than Haines assembly members,” one member said, and supporters argued the change would update compensation that had not kept pace with inflation.
Opponents argued Haines is not an apples‑to‑apples comparison, noting Haines previously tied higher per‑meeting rates to municipal benefits (including health and PERS) that Skagway does not provide. One committee member said the proposed structure could inadvertently introduce PERS‑eligibility concerns and favored a flat stipend for predictability: “A flat stipend recognizes equal responsibility,” the member said, arguing budgeting would be simpler and more transparent.
Members discussed several specifics in the proposed amendment: a per‑meeting amount that would rise to $175 a meeting in the draft; a mayoral stipend that would be increased to match Haines’ current level; and a not‑to‑exceed cap of four meetings per month for stipend calculations. Questions included whether the mayor or assembly members would be required to attend a minimum number of meetings to receive the stipend and whether the phased effective date (2028) improperly delays relief for current members.
After extended discussion and competing views on fairness, optics and budget predictability, the committee decided not to make a recommendation and deferred the matter to the assembly meeting scheduled for the next day.
