Council debates whether to retain independent salary commission; transparency and workload cited

Council members revisited whether to rescind Ordinance 21‑40 — the ordinance that established a three‑member salary commission — during the April 26 meeting, with members divided about the commission’s cost, transparency benefits and administrative burden.

Council member Kuipers said she favors preserving the commission as an accountability tool that prevents council members from setting their own salaries. "I think that the salary commission is an important, accountability tool," she said. Council member Munson framed his inquiry as a request for codifying current pay levels for transparency rather than a push to change compensation levels: he said his concern was that salary documentation was not readily visible in code and that codification would reduce the risk if a commission was not active.

Council member Bowman reviewed the commission’s origins and said it removed a politically sensitive decision from council by appointing a citizen board to recommend salary and benefit choices. Bowman also noted the commission was used historically to allow certain benefit options and to compare local government comparables when recommending pay levels.

Staff confirmed the commission typically needs modest staff support — comparables, benefit costs and meeting setup — and that in many recent years meetings have been short because commission members reached agreement quickly. Finance staff agreed to post the current salary schedule online so the information is easier for the public to find.

No motion to rescind the ordinance was made. Council members asked staff to make salary schedules and related commission minutes easier to find online and to come back with any codification options if desired.

Next steps: staff will post current salary schedules and supporting commission materials online and return with options if the council seeks codification or structural change.