Maple Ridge opts for in-house review of council pay before next election

Maple Ridge council has voted to move ahead with an internal review of elected officials’ pay, as it looks to set compensation rates for the next council following the October 2026 election.

At its March 31 meeting, council voted 5–1 in favour of directing staff to conduct a market comparison using existing data – a middle-ground approach between a full third-party review and maintaining the status quo.

Mayor Dan Ruimy predicted a review would show their salaries are lagging about 10 to 15 percent behind comparable communities.

“It’s about finding that right balance,” said Mayor Dan Ruimy.  “We’re not comparing ourselves to the president of BC Ferries. We’re not comparing ourselves to the president of BC Hydro. We’re comparing ourselves to B.C.’s community of other councillors and mayors. That is the only comparison.”

The decision marks a departure from staff’s recommendation, which called for paying a third-party consultant $25,000 to conduct market analysis examining mayoral and councillor pay, acting mayor compensation, and vehicle allowances. 

However, the vast majority of council was uncomfortable spending that money on a study that could be done by city staff. A simpler comparison of measuring Maple Ridge’s pay against similar  municipalities, while avoiding cost and time associated with a formal consultant-led review.

Ruimy said confirming these figures is important to ensure the city is not falling significantly out of step.

Long gap since last full review

The discussion comes amid a growing recognition that Maple Ridge’s current compensation framework has not been formally recalibrated in more than a decade.

The city last completed a comprehensive market review in 2011, which positioned the mayor’s salary at the 65th percentile of comparable municipalities and set councillor compensation at 40 percent of the mayor’s pay.

Currently, the mayoral position rakes in just over $142,000 annually, plus around $7,100 for vehicle allowance; councillors take home nearly 56,900, plus a $2,400 vehicle allowance.

While a 2017 bylaw introduced automatic annual increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), staff noted those adjustments only keep pace with inflation and do not address whether overall compensation remains aligned with the broader market.

Staff warned that without periodic benchmarking, the city risks drifting out of alignment with comparable municipalities, particularly as the scope and complexity of local governance continues to evolve in a growing community.

At the same time, any future changes would require a separate council decision and bylaw, and would not take effect until the next term, keeping with standard governance practices.

Council pushes back on consultant

Despite those concerns, a majority of council members were reluctant to spend public funds on a third-party review.

Coun. Korleen Carreras, who brought forward the motion that ultimately passed, said she supported the idea of reviewing compensation but not the scale of the proposed study.

She added her priority is ensuring candidates heading into the October election have clear, accessible information about compensation, and that outdated policies are cleaned up.

“I’m not interested in spending that, I don’t need it to be comprehensive,” Carreras said. “The bylaw around this is quite out of date… those pieces around compensation and what that looks like should be easily accessible.”

Coun. Judy Dueck echoed those concerns, arguing that sufficient comparator data is already publicly available and that the city appears to be broadly in line with peers.

“It doesn’t take much to study… we’re kind of in good standing overall,” she said, adding that ongoing CPI increases have helped maintain fairness over time.

Dueck also raised technical issues with the current structure, including inconsistencies in acting mayor pay depending on rotation cycles, suggesting policy updates could improve equity.

Coun. Onyeka Dozie was more blunt, calling the consultant proposal unnecessary given current economic conditions.

“I don’t think we’ll spend a whopping $25,000 trying to get a consultant to tell us how much the people that live next door to us are earning,” he said.

Deeper debate over role of elected officials

Beyond the cost question, the discussion exposed a broader philosophical divide over how elected officials should be compensated – and what that means for who can realistically run for office.

Coun. Jenny Tan was the only member to support the independent review, arguing the current framework – largely based on comparisons with other municipalities – is incomplete and lacks a principled foundation.

Tan said compensation should reflect the actual demands of the role, which she described as requiring “20 to 35 hours a week, if not more,” including reading, research, and community engagement outside formal meetings.

She also framed the issue as one of democratic accessibility, warning that inadequate or poorly structured compensation can limit who is able to serve in the role, noting the increased cost of living.

“This is not a matter of any of us arguing for a pay increase: it is a structural issue,” Tan said. “Most of the people that I know cannot volunteer, not because they don’t want to, not because they don’t care about the community, but because it is structurally unavailable to them.”

Tan said that data on councils across Canada shows that representation is consistently skewed, and argued the compensation is about strengthening democratic institutions by enabling a broader cross-section of residents to run for office.

“I see one of the core functions of what we do around this table is reinforcing and strengthening our democratic institution. It is key, just as key as roads and water and sewer.”

Other councillors acknowledged those concerns but emphasized the unique nature of elected office.

Carreras said the role is difficult to define in conventional employment terms, noting that expectations and workloads can vary significantly between individuals.

“Our interview is with the community … and once you get elected, you really make the role what you want to make of it,” she said.

Dueck added that while the role can be time-consuming, it is ultimately rooted in public service.

“A lot of it is out of passion… it’s not just about the money,” she said.

Coun. Sunny Schille, who was the lone vote against studying remuneration, maintained that the current pay scheme remains appropriate and cautioned against over-standardizing a role that varies widely across individuals and communities.

“I just favour the status quo… I think we’re not wildly out of sync,” she said.

Next steps ahead of election

Staff will now conduct an internal market comparison and report back to council with findings and potential options before the start of the next council term.

Any changes to remuneration would still require formal adoption through a bylaw and would only apply to the incoming council, in keeping with the long-standing practice of outgoing councils setting pay for their successors to avoid conflicts of interest.

The study is expected to return to council later this year.