Park City council reopens considerations on mayor, council salary increases

City Council Meeting, Park City, on March 5, 2026. Photo: TownLift//Randi Sidman-Moore

PARK CITY, Utah — Just weeks after approving substantial pay increases for elected officials, Park City leaders will revisit the decision following community criticism and growing concerns about how the raises were approved.

During a budget discussion this week, Mayor Ryan Dickey asked whether the council would support exploring alternatives that would reduce the size of the recently approved compensation increases while preserving the council’s goal of making elected office more accessible to a broader range of residents.

“I really support what council has done to promote inclusivity of who can run,” Dickey said. “But our deliberation felt a little fast, and the size of that raise was just a little big.”

The discussion marks the first public indication that city leaders may reconsider the compensation increases approved in May, when the council voted 4-1 to increase the mayor’s annual compensation package from $85,484 to $149,397 and councilmembers’ compensation from $55,795 to $88,064.

At the time, supporters argued the increases reflected the growing workload of elected officials and would allow more working residents to consider serving in office. Critics questioned both the size of the raises and the process used to proposed and approve the final numbers.

The mayor argued that compensation had not kept pace over the past decade, creating pressure for a large one-time increase that was difficult for the public to accept.

“We just hadn’t kept up,” Dickey said. “You’re forced to make these big jumps that land pretty hard with the community.”

Several council members signaled support for revisiting the issue.

Councilmember Molly Miller said maintaining accessibility to public office should remain the council’s top priority but agreed that the city could have done a better job communicating the proposal.

“My highest priority is making sure that whatever we land on enables a wider range of Park City residents to be able to run for and participate serving on city council,” Miller said.

Others were more critical of how the compensation proposal reached the council.

Councilmember Ed Parigian described the process as “botched completely,” saying council members had little opportunity to review or discuss alternatives before being asked to vote.

Parigian said elected officials should take more time to review data, discuss alternatives, and engage the public before making further decisions.

Councilmember Bill Ciracao said he would support revisiting the raises but cautioned against steering city staff toward a predetermined outcome.

“I would really love to have staff engage and present us with some options in terms of philosophically, how do we think about what that role, what the council role is, and the mayor role, and what that pay should look like,” Ciracao said.

That prompted a broader discussion about whether city staff or elected officials should take the lead in developing compensation recommendations.

Councilmember Tana Toly defended the rationale behind the raises while acknowledging the public frustration that followed the vote.

“This has been on 99% of my brain for the last two weeks,” Toly said.

Toly argued that many public comparisons overlooked the demands placed on Park City elected officials, including service on regional boards, interactions with state lawmakers, and oversight of a large municipal budget.

“What do we actually value?” Toly asked. “Do we value our local leadership? Do we value the work that we’re putting in, and do we value who can serve here?”

Toly said she had heard from members of the local workforce who told her the increased compensation could make running for office financially realistic for the first time.

At the same time, she acknowledged the criticism directed at the council.

“I’ve heard the public. I’ve heard the anger. I’ve heard the frustration,” Toly said.

Toly suggested the city could consider alternatives such as phasing in compensation increases over several years rather than implementing them all at once.

By the end of the discussion, council members appeared broadly supportive of considering revised options. Staff is expected to bring compensation options back to the council at the Thursday, June 11, council meeting with a public hearing.