Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

Input sought on SV council pay

Published/Last Modified on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 - 06:16:21 am MST

Font Size

Commentary by Gary Bell
Special to the Herald/Review

The Citizens Advisory Commission is made up of local citizens appointed by City Council members. The purpose of the commission is to obtain citizen input and to offer recommendations based on that input.

The commission has, in the past, been tasked to evaluate such things as capital improvement projects, revenue vs. expenditures of the city, building designations, salaries, and name honorariums. The commission takes great pride in maintaining independence of thought and offering recommendations and evaluations which may be contrary to political considerations. The current commission members are Liz York, Chris Campas, Debbie Morris, Jim Moffett, Kathy Klein, Mignonne Hollis and myself.

Resolution 2007-160 is a resolution of the mayor and City Council of the city of Sierra Vista tasking the Citizens Advisory Commission to evaluate and make recommendations regarding the salaries of the mayor and City Council.

The current salary of the mayor of Sierra Vista is $750 per month and the current salary of council members is $500 per month. This salary level was recommended by the Citizens Advisory Commission and approved by City Council in March 2001.

As the commission begins the review and evaluation process, current monthly salaries of mayors and council members, of other Arizona cities of comparable size, were obtained. Some examples follow:

City    Pop.    Mayor    Council             Salary    Salary

Lake Havasu City    54,610    $950    $650

Prescott    42,085    $750    $500

Prescott Valley    35,740    $1,050    $700

Goodyear    49,720    $1,917    $767

Oro Valley    40,215    $1,020    $806

Sierra Vista    44,870    $750    $500

Other examples are available for review and consideration.

The commission would like to offer the Sierra Vista citizens the opportunity to participate in this process. Input by the Sierra Vista residents is important to the Citizens Advisory Commission and the mayor and City Council.

Input can be provided by contacting a member of the commission listed above, by e-mail to mwelch@ci.sierra-vista.az.us, or by mail to City of Sierra Vista, Attn: M. Welch, 1011 N. Coronado Drive, Sierra Vista AZ 85635. It would be helpful if the subject line of an e-mail or mail is “CAC Input.”

GARY BELL is chairman of the Sierra Vista Citizens Advisory Commission.

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

Working in Iraq wrote on Dec 27, 2007 1:28 AM:

" Yes, they deserve a raise, not a flat rate but a percentage like everyone else gets, Social Security, Veterans, Military and etc...., yes a small cost of living increase just like everyone else gets, it's the thought not the amount. "

Average citizen wrote on Dec 22, 2007 8:45 AM:

" I agree, we need to double their pay. IF it means raising taxes then do it! "

Public Service wrote on Dec 20, 2007 8:03 PM:

" NO pay raises for the mayor or council members. The people who deserve consideration are part-time City workers who have NO benefits, not even paid sick leave. When they miss work due to illness, they lose money. Just as there is a limit to how much water is available from the Colorado River, the citizens of Sierra Vista have a limit to how their tax money is MIS-spent. "

Vern wrote on Dec 20, 2007 6:22 PM:

" Mexico can have what is left over that we don't use. Treaty? Where does it say in the treaty that Sierra Vista can not tap into CAP? Please tell me. That is pure nonsense. The treaty doesn't say anything about CAP at all. Sounds like water nazi BS. "

To Gary and Jim wrote on Dec 18, 2007 6:55 AM:

" The water from the Colorado River that is apportioned to California, Mexico, Arizona, and other states is already legally apportioned. You can't just vote to change it. Again, all the water in the Colorado is already spoken for by treaty. There is no "left over" water and there has been and continue to be legal battles over who is not getting their fair share. You can't change this by a show of hands. Metropolitan Water District, Imperial Irrigation District, Mexico, the states of California and Arizona, and others already have legal right to the water. "

Anna wrote on Dec 17, 2007 3:55 PM:

" The council members do an excellent job. I would support a 100% raise for them. It is not a lot of money to begin with. Plus with our town growing, more and more is being asked of them. I think the ones who say there service should be free, are full of it. We should stop paying them their salaries and see how they like it. "

Jim wrote on Dec 17, 2007 2:36 PM:

" Okay a show of hands who cares about Mexico getting our water supply. Okay that is a zero. Just like I thought. Gary you are right. CAP will work for us just like everyone else. "

jack wrote on Dec 16, 2007 10:04 AM:

" I say appoint the top developers to the council, and without pay. The city is going to turn into a giant slum anyway, so wht fight it? "

To Gary wrote on Dec 16, 2007 8:51 AM:

" If you think Sierra Vista will get CAP water, you are uninformed. Colorado River water has been legally proportioned to various states and Mexico for decades. The states and Mexico are still fighting for their shares. There is not enough water currently to give everyone their share of the water. There is no excess water to give to Sierra Vista or anywhere else for that matter, unless you think we can get Mexico to give up their share along with all the farmers in Arizona. Good luck. "

Gary wrote on Dec 16, 2007 8:17 AM:

" Yeah thanks for the tid bit on the southeast. However, I don't live there so I don't care about there problems. We can certainly tap into CAP and become a growing community at a much higher rate. What are you going to do to stop the growth? Tell someone they can't move here? Good luck Chuck. (Smile) There is nothing you can do to stop the growth. I am encouraged by the city council and the process they go through when a new developer wants to build. Keep up the great job guys! "

Numbers dude wrote on Dec 16, 2007 3:06 AM:

" The numbers dude has a point. If the city is using the posts population to support its staffing/budgete levels withhout also considering like services provided by the DOD budget, there is some double counting going on here. All municipalities wind up providing some level of service to individuals not living within their geopolitical boundaries. I don\'t think that is the number dude\'s point. He\'s talking about double counting. "

To Gary wrote on Dec 15, 2007 10:50 AM:

" Laugh out loud! Look at the Colorado River and the water fight going on there...even Lake Mead. The Navaho Nation is also concerned about not getting their fair share of water. The water aquafiers ND-Kansas are lower. Go to Georgia, then ask Alabama, Florida, and the fresh water/ocean bay Oyster Fishemen if there is always a supply of fresh water available. It's just like Gore using all kinds of electricity and then buy carbon units: the polution was still created: money never solved all problems, although it can help to a certain extent. "

numbers wrote on Dec 15, 2007 9:36 AM:

" I'm not saying we don't need a grass-roots council. I'm not saying I'm happy with our city government. *You're* the one who wanted to look at numbers...so look closer; don't be so quick to use them as a way to make your point because it doesn't work. It doesn't go 'both ways,' it only goes one way as far as city services are concerned. People in FH and outlying areas *don't* go to FH or HC, or Hereford to visit parks/libraries/the pool/etc because those things don't exist in those areas. SV folks don't get trash service/sewer/etc elsewhere. "

Gary wrote on Dec 15, 2007 8:42 AM:

" The water can come from CAP. It is an Arizona project that provides water to Tucson and Phoenix. No reason why it can't be extended to Sierra Vista. Nobody ever though Phoenix or Tucson could handle it's population increases either, but both have managed very well. The whole water issue doesn't hold any weight, when there are ways to bring it in. So yes SV will grow. More businesses will come here, and so the economy will grow too. If you don't like it move, or be miserable. "

to RE-think wrote on Dec 15, 2007 5:31 AM:

" Of course there is cross-use. Point is the cross-use works both ways in this town. Problem is the local govmt does not use honest numbers when stating their resources. Check it out yourself, but then you're probably one of them. This is why we need a more grass roots council. One which serves the publics interest, not their own. "

VJ wrote on Dec 14, 2007 5:28 PM:

" Gary is pretty close to the 43,000. The actual number for 2006 was 44,870. The Fort was incorporated into the city in 1971. This means the population on-post is included in the city's numbers. Not statistics, but fact. I agree that Sierra Vista is poised to really grow. It is kind of sad to see people complain. I feel sorry for them. There is nothing they can do but complain I guess. By 2025 some estimates show the population almost doubling. The council members deserve our support! "

Re-think your numbers. wrote on Dec 14, 2007 4:10 PM:

" To corrector of Gary ... you don't think those troops come into the city to use the parks, meeting rooms, library, community center, swimming pool, etc? They do, so they are being served by city employees. Not to mention many people from outside the city limits (Hereford, HC, East SV, South SV, etc come into town to use these services, so probably 43,000 is a low number. Also, doesn't Vista Transit go on post and isn't FH included in the curbside recycling, as is the county? "

To Gary wrote on Dec 14, 2007 3:28 PM:

" Where is the water going to come from that is piped in and who is going to pay for it? "

jGary is correct- partially wrote on Dec 14, 2007 2:25 PM:

" The city of SV website states the cities population at 43000. What the website does not say is that 10,000 of those folks live on Ft. Huachuca where garrison services provide for the 10,000 population. Thus the true population served by city of SV staff and services is much closer to 33,000. Not quite the size of town city staff purports it to be. You can say anything with statistics. "

Ironic wrote on Dec 14, 2007 2:12 PM:

" We now get to read about the pay raise for the city council in two areas here on line. Is the city paying for the long running propaganda piece that is still being printed on the "editorial" page. Until they stop doing what they please and listen to the people, they have not earned a raise. "

To Gary wrote on Dec 14, 2007 2:08 PM:

" Just which deveoper do you work for, or are you a city staffer? Growth can be planned for and not be just an endless row of houses or town homes or apartments. "

Gary wrote on Dec 14, 2007 10:47 AM:

" There are actually about 43,000 people in Sierra Vista according to the city's web site. We pay our government employees because we live in a civilized world. If we didn't pay them we wouldn't get qualified people to fill the positions. The more money we pay them the better work and better council members we are going to get. Doubling what they earn now is appropriate for our town and our growth. Tom is right. Sierra Vista is only going to grow like it or not. Water is in abundance, and we can always pipe in more. "

No more money wrote on Dec 14, 2007 7:03 AM:

" The council does not need more money. I think the previous posts about the council serving without pay is spot on. This should be a community based service, provided because they want to serve the community, not because they want a job. SV is a very small community. About 35,000 tops, not inluding the post. Why do we need a paid political steering committee? "

Stacy wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:49 AM:

" My water well dropped more than 150' and is a total depth of 500'. No more water at the bottom and had to hook up to water co. The developers will develop until there is no water left and the county will let them. "

Tom wrote on Dec 14, 2007 6:34 AM:

" William, actually I love it here and love seeing the growth. It is the American way. no matter what you say or do, SV is going to continue to grow. SV will devlop more housing areas. SV will get more big box stores. My little city is growing up. The problem is you don't like it getting bigger. There is nothing you can do to stop it. "

William wrote on Dec 13, 2007 5:42 PM:

" Tom, sounds as if he is not happy here in Sierra Vista, he sounds as if we are to small for his taste, maybe Tom should be moving to a bigger city since he wants bigger. So if you don't like our little city, yes move by all means don't let the door hit you on the way out. I like our small city, and would prefer it to stay that way, you don't have like my opinion, after all it only counts to me, just like your opinion means nothing to no one else. "

Water Water Well wrote on Dec 13, 2007 5:24 PM:

" If you know someone with a water well that was drilled 15-20 years ago, ask them if their well is deeper now because it was sucking mud instead of water. If you can find someone, their answer will be, "YES, the water table is going down and so is the depth of water wells." "

Tom wrote on Dec 13, 2007 5:16 AM:

" If you look at the city web site, it shows the growth of SV will be over 85,000 by 2025. The 8:04 PM comment about "why doesn't SV allow Ft. Huachuca to build more houses?" is about need. Ft Huachuca doesn't need more houses. Look at any military instillation, and you will see about 1/2 of military families choose to live off-post. It has nothing to do with water. It is not about what I want, it is about what is happening and what will continue to happen. Want smaller, move to Kansas. "

Duh.... wrote on Dec 12, 2007 8:57 PM:

" Just because there is no water ban doesn't mean we alot of water, the fact of the matter is, there has been many articles, and even more concerns over reckless water usage, and anyone who read the Herald, or listens to environmental impact reports knows this, of course that would require some effort. I am concerned over our water table, after it isn't an bottomless well, look at all the sink holes that have appeared due to dwindling water in those areas. Sorry Tom, but try to be informed, not throwing around baseless comments. "

Tom wrote on Dec 12, 2007 8:04 PM:

" Sorry beg to differ with your "view", most people move here for the slower, easy way of life in a smaller town, if you want bigger, move to Phoenix, or Tucson. I think you are disillusioned, if we have so much water, why doesn't SV allow Ft. Huachuca to build more houses? SV are the ones that site, a low water table, that means not enough water to support "10 times it current population" really, Tom, get it together. "

Tom wrote on Dec 12, 2007 7:08 AM:

" Diane what water shortage? When was the last time we had a watering ban? It happens every year up and down the east coast. I have seen it here once in the last ten years. There is not enough building here. This area can easily accommodate 10 times it's current population. As the city continues to grow, our council members job gets tougher, so yes they are due for a hefty raise. "

Diane wrote on Dec 11, 2007 6:01 PM:

" I can see voters side and everyone elses, "HMMM" Raise taxes, that isn't the answer, and it would raise everybodies, not just one person so that sounded stupid, and alot of people think the city is great, I would say good, it's building seems to be getting out of hand, and if there are major cutbacks at post, then we will all be in big trouble,as that is the major income supplier in the county, not a whole lot of thought went into the longterm effects of all the buildings, after all the complaining of water shortages. "

Great Place, Poor Politicians wrote on Dec 11, 2007 3:18 PM:

" Most people think the city itself is a great place. It's the city politicians that are not so great. "

Hmmm wrote on Dec 11, 2007 7:24 AM:

" So voter you are a do nothing type of person, who would rather just complain then do anything about your issues. Why don't you challenge the council members. Start a petition for change. These weren't the only candidates on the ballot, but you refuse to be a part of the process. I want to spend your tax money too. I want to raise your taxes, because the only thing you will do is sit back and complain on the SV Herald web site. "

No Raise wrote on Dec 11, 2007 5:34 AM:

" No, I do not support a raise. So why do you continue to use 44870 population which includes 10000 on post. Real size of SV is 35000. What's the game being played here? "

To Voter wrote on Dec 10, 2007 7:01 AM:

" I want to spend your money for the pay increase. If you think this city is so bad then why do you still live here and whine? What an idiot. (Smile). "

Voter wrote on Dec 9, 2007 4:45 PM:

" Didn't vote for them, would rather put "none", than vote for someone I had no faith in, that's what anybody should do to get it into their heads to do a adequate job, rather than be a floater, who just floats along, instead of doing actual work, keeping our city going? At what, a huge amount of gang violence? Trash laying around? No real standards for the city? Please, like I said, none of them I voted for. "

All is fair wrote on Dec 8, 2007 5:32 AM:

" And the only fair thing to do would be to pay our council members double what they earn now. They work hard to keep our city going. Thank you everyone! "

Budget wrote on Dec 7, 2007 10:06 PM:

" The city politicians can find money to build a parking lot in Garden Canyon Wash (after they vote to annex the swapped property perhaps, maybe, anyway, we the council & Mayor will tell you later) and get their appointed commission to advise a pay raise for themselves. No wonder I do not think they deserve a raise. "

We appreciate you wrote on Dec 7, 2007 7:54 PM:

" "part-time worker" below is really saying everybody wants to be appreciated. The mayor and council members deserve some compensation. The question is: How much? Why can money always be found for pet projects like running paths and such, but part-time workers get taken for granted? Besides money, what other compensation do the mayor and council members receive? Health insurance? Other benefits? Surely the city can give part-time workers pro-rated sick leave and vacation time. These benefits are much less expensive than health insurance. "

Wow wrote on Dec 7, 2007 12:47 PM:

" How many days is this going to be printed? The city PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS do not get the same amount of time in print. For a council that runs things the way that they want and then tries to make it look like a democracy, they do not deserve a raise. "

Donny wrote on Dec 7, 2007 9:57 AM:

" Yes let's give our council representatives a raise. A 100% raise is in order! "

part-time worker wrote on Dec 7, 2007 9:18 AM:

" The city servants who need pay raise consideration are the many part-time workers who get NO benefits. When they call in sick, they lose a day's pay. When they take a vacation, they lose pay. When a part-time worker requests time off in advance they are told to find someone else to cover for them. This is outrageous! This policy encourages workers to lie by calling in sick at the last minute rather than go through the hassle of getting a replacement. Part-time workers deserve pro-rated sick leave and vacation time benefits, and managers should actually manage!! "

Con-Lib wrote on Dec 6, 2007 7:04 AM:

" Pay the councilperson using this pay scale. Republican=$5000.00 Democrat=$50.00 "

Fred M. wrote on Dec 5, 2007 5:45 AM:

" I do not support a raise.I agree with the poster below that the council should be a voluntary position. They should be re-imbursed for out-of-pocket expenses only. It\'s not a matter of what they deserve or how much we like the current councils work. These issues should be decided along more thoughtful lines. "

Mike S. wrote on Dec 4, 2007 5:50 PM:

" I agree with Donny. They deserve a 100% raise. It is a thankless job. Funny how all these people complain, yet they are the voters. They are the ones who voted for their council members. I vote for a 100% raise too. "

Blogger wrote on Dec 4, 2007 3:41 AM:

" Only question about George Washington, the blogger, is..... what kind of blogger would he be...Move-on.org, captains quarters or instapundit, . No,,,the council postion should be unpaid. They should desire to serve the public, not get paid. This is the same group that tried to get "AZ State Retirement Benefits" for the council? "

James wrote on Dec 3, 2007 9:56 PM:

" Donny sounds dilusional, to bad you don't realize that I don't want my tax dollars to pay for people to sit around and talk about how much they should get paid. I can find better things to spend it on. Not a hater, just a realist. "

Wi-Fi on the Patomic wrote on Dec 3, 2007 9:25 PM:

" Yes Paul...Old George would have been a great blogger. ........Dear Donny - The council does a decent job,,,,no they should not get paid,,,,and certainly not a raise. They serve with distinction and should hold their heads high and keep their hands out of our pockets. "

Insulted wrote on Dec 3, 2007 8:09 PM:

" The city planners and council decide what they want. Then they hold fake public input meetings. Then the council unanimously votes for what they already decided. The city council is an insult to the democratic process. "

Donny wrote on Dec 3, 2007 5:18 PM:

" James it sounds like you are just a hater pure and simple. It is obvious that no matter what good they do, you will find fault with them. All of the members have done an outstanding job with moving this town forward. Pay no attention to the feeble minds like James. You should get at least a 100% raise. "

James wrote on Dec 3, 2007 9:38 AM:

" What have they done to deserve double pay now? I haven't seen anything positive that they have done, they haven't done anything but sit around and spend more time on going over what pay the think they are worth rather than focusing on real issues, I don't think any of them deserve a raise until they actually prove themselves about their commitment to better our city instead of talking about their commitment. They are laughable and should be ashamed of themselves, oh wait that would mean that they actually have ethics. "

Paul V. wrote on Dec 2, 2007 9:10 PM:

" To your response If you don't like the fact that they are going to get a 100% raise then you need to do something about it. I think it is funny how you attribute annonymous blogging to your way of protest. Can you imagine George Washington sitting back on a computer and blogging. The lady who responded has departed reality. "

To Paul V.... wrote on Dec 2, 2007 4:11 PM:

" Well Mr. "Paul V" So what color is your kettle. What you call complaining, is the exercise of a most basic right in this country. Free expresion. Something which many of us have given much to protect. You claim anonymity is discredible, yet we don't know your name. Then again, that is your right. No raise. Let them serve the public's interest. If they want money, they can get a job. "

No Raise wrote on Dec 2, 2007 2:44 AM:

" We need a bit more altruistic approach to local government. Take the money away and let serve those who will govern with the peoples interest at heart. A raise is not the way. The amount paid is so low that pay cannot possibly be a motivator, so why pay at all? "

Paul V. wrote on Dec 1, 2007 11:15 PM:

" The city council do a tremendous job in keeping Sierra Vista going and bringing in new ideas. They are extremely community oriented. Just because every persons personal grievances are not delt with, doesn't mean they don't care. They serve the community, and not the individual retards who just complain for the sake of complaining. If you don't like them organize a group to vote them out. IT is called democracy. Voting is your only recourse. Complaining under an annonymous blog really brings discredit to you and your cause. "

To Wilson wrote on Dec 1, 2007 7:50 AM:

" Excuse me, but many people do show up for council meetings and write letters and let the council know their specific grievances with their names attached. However, it makes no difference to an autocratic council who does what THEY want anyway. You talk about the democratic way but the current council is not a democracy. "

Wilson's wrote on Nov 30, 2007 8:54 PM:

" We vote yest for a raise. I like the 100% pay raise idea. Doubling their salary is the right thing to do. They do an outstanding job. Funny, how everyone can criticize the job they do, but no does anything about change. They only sit back in their chair and type away at their keyboard. If you have a problem then show your face at the meetings and let the people know who you are what your specific grievances are. The democratic way is not through annonymous blogging. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously. "

To Yes wrote on Nov 30, 2007 8:10 PM:

" Not only will they vote unanimously to annex it, they will annex it (if the city follows their own development code) with everyone within 500' saying NO to annexation. Gee, do you think they'll suddenly ask everyone outside of the 500' their opinion, so the city can have a few that say YES to annexation? Believe me, they'll change their own code to get away with this. Just you wait and see. "

Yes/No wrote on Nov 30, 2007 5:55 PM:

" Yes, I mostly like our city council. No I don't believe they should be paid at all, much less a raise. If they are truely "public servants" then they should be glad to provide a measured amount of quality service and then move on and let someone elses ideas have a chance. So who came up with the idea of a "Raise". Let him/her pay the bill. "

To Yes for raises wrote on Nov 30, 2007 12:11 PM:

" Now that the city has the land for a parking lot in the county, they will vote unanimously to annex it to the city so the tax payers can pay to build a parking lot which is no longer in the county. You really want to pay people with such devious thinking more money? Your thoughts are as convoluted as theirs: birds of a feather flock together. "

No wrote on Nov 30, 2007 3:34 AM:

" I think not. This town is small enough to have a truely "citizen government". The less we pay the council the less we risk rising to the level of problems we have in DC. Money should not be a motivater to serve on city council. "

Yes for raises wrote on Nov 29, 2007 7:58 PM:

" I vote yes for what ever raise they deem necessary. They have all done an awesome job! "

Attempted wrote on Nov 29, 2007 8:48 AM:

" No. Not a real dictatorship. Just dictatorship wanna be. Since not a real dictatorship, we should take the opportunity to throw the bums out. "

To Zack wrote on Nov 29, 2007 6:32 AM:

" If Castle and Cook aren't the biggest builders in the area, who is? C&C are certainly the largest developer in the area. Tribute, Winter Haven, Cronado Crossing, and many more. Any other developer have bigger developments than C&C. The Mayor and Couoncil have never said no to any developer. I aggree that their salaries should be raised, but only because the curreent Mayor and Council are not elligable to recive it. Only the ones elected or re-elected in the coming years will get it. Maybe more wil seek office knowing that. "

To M wrote on Nov 29, 2007 6:24 AM:

" M, must be nice to be the second perfect human being that ever lived. But then you are not really perfect. You have no compassion or respect for your fellow man. But then the "Elitist Upper Class" never has. It's all about them and thier world. The rest of us are just lazy riff raff in your eyes. You need help. "

Pregnant wrote on Nov 29, 2007 3:31 AM:

" This council is pregnant with new ideas about how to spend our money. No raise. Hey, they just raised our taxes,,,,for what....to give themselves a raise. I say no. "

Rewards wrote on Nov 29, 2007 3:22 AM:

" Raises are a reward for previous actions. Take a poll. Most of the folks I talk to would not give them a raise. SV is a small town. 45k including 10k on post....so about 35,000 residents downtown. Do we really want or even need a paid council in such a small town? "

One Point wrote on Nov 28, 2007 8:33 PM:

" None of the current members of the council or the mayor would get the salary increase. It would only apply to newly elected or re-elected members. So you can throw the ones up for election out and out new ones in at a higher salary. "

Taxed out wrote on Nov 28, 2007 7:05 PM:

" According to "M", we are fools to be laughed at if we object to tax increases. M...you should move to Taxachussets. Teddy and company would like to take your money. As for me..I will stay and fight future tax increases, or maybe just send you my future tax bills. Like you would pay them. M is probably married to one of them. "

Taxed Twice wrote on Nov 28, 2007 6:54 PM:

" TAXES had it right. I too was hit with the rental tax, so I had a house built. Contractor told me the new city "construction tax" cost me an additional $ 1495. Yuk !! If M is so flip about paying more taxes,,,maybe he would like to cut me a check for the $ 1495. And we should reward this group for "tax and spend" behavior. Me thinks M should "get a life" and move to NY where the liberal tax and spend bent is status quo. It's my money, not theirs. "

REaLLy OfF TOpIc wrote on Nov 28, 2007 6:10 PM:

" The M seems to be off topic. The topic is SV council pay. Perhaps the editor should do a better job with weeding out these types and keep the "thoughtful" contributions. This seems to happen when someone doesn't like the way the conversation is going. However, the more blogs, the more this will be in "talked about" stories, and the more people will know about our incompetent council. "

The M wrote on Nov 28, 2007 5:33 PM:

" TAXES you probably need to find a better life. I laugh at you for complaining about money. If you didn't prepare yourself for future increases then you are a fool. Zack is right! Why don't you just buy a house then? If you can't afford to then too bad. It is about your life choices and the mistakes that you have made that you are really angry with. Get some help. "

The M wrote on Nov 28, 2007 5:31 PM:

" Yes doubling their salary is the right thing to do. I support it 200% (Smile) So sad that Explanation thinks he lives in a dictatorship. If he did, and the council told him to stop writing his non-sense and he didn't he would be killed. If he really feels that way, why does he still live here? I guess he like being controlled. "

Explaination wrote on Nov 28, 2007 4:48 PM:

" The 100% voting record can be explained by the word "dictatorship." "

Double wrote on Nov 28, 2007 3:46 PM:

" Sure. Double their pay. But throw the current useless crew out first. "

dan wrote on Nov 28, 2007 9:24 AM:

" I don't know much about your city council, but I have a thought that you have a city manager and city staff that is in control of the city council. That may explin the 100% voting record. "

Double wrote on Nov 28, 2007 8:00 AM:

" I say double there pay too. They do a great job! I see the comments below. Heck I will pay $.25 more a year to get them a better salary. "

Term Limits wrote on Nov 28, 2007 6:35 AM:

" What is the combined length the current council has been in office? It must be decades. The point being that they have controlled Sierra Vista for far too long. We have a two term limit for president for a reason. It's time to kick this bunch out. "

TAXES ??? wrote on Nov 28, 2007 6:31 AM:

" Hey Zack....I guess you're willing to re-imburse me the $ 16.00/month rental tax my landlord now hits me with. Yes? Then hand over the money buddy...... $ .18/year is a bloody joke Zack. What about the increased sales tax...or the new construction tax ....and the new city impact fees I have to pay on my new house. Zack, you're the one livng in Neverland...or is it fantasyland? "

Zack wrote on Nov 27, 2007 8:14 PM:

" TAXES you are just complaining. If you can not afford an extra $.18 a year, then you need to re-evaluate your life. Castle and Cooke aren't even the largest builder here, so why do you keep bring them up? Your personal grievance is noted. If you don't like it so much, why don't you run foe city council. You could also move to a fantasy world where the government always agrees with your opinions. The last ticket to Neverland is still available. I think it goes through Wacko, TX so good luck. "

Voter wrote on Nov 27, 2007 6:21 PM:

" Better yet, let's vote them out in the next election. What do they have to show for their tenures? Bike trails ALL over town. How many people bike? A swimming pool that needs renovation ALREADY. Unbridled development. Participation in San Pedro Partnership with no real water conservation decisions yet. Still no skate park after all these years. Still no Roadrunner Park. Steady increase in taxes and sewer rates (to pay for bike trails). Underfunded and understaffed police department. Good grief, voters, wake up! "

Be nice wrote on Nov 27, 2007 2:28 PM:

" As suggested, use cardboard cut outs. But, use cut outs of our real Council. That way they can stay home becaue Bob Strain will pull the string that lifts their arms when it is time to vote. You don't have to pay them more. Making them work less is just as good. The poor Council members have to lift their own hands to vote for every single agenda item at every meeting. That has to be tough. Let's give 'em a break. "

To Lisa wrote on Nov 27, 2007 2:21 PM:

" There is nothing wrong with agreeing on most things. But this is not the case. Try ALL things ALL the time. This isn't even possible in real Government (when is the last time the US Congress voted 100% unanimous?). The Sierra Vista City Government is not a real Government. The process here is only for show. This doens't mean the Council is bad. In a dictatorship, the dictator isn't necessarily bad. The point is, SV government is obviosuly bogus. This is beyond argument if you really think about it. "

TAXES wrote on Nov 27, 2007 4:30 AM:

" So...Telluride is looking for reasons to not reward the councils actions. How about this.....Huge tax increases in the last 2 years. Building an 8 million dollar swimming pool that needs massive renovations in just 5 years. Constantly giving in to Castle & Cooke. Building an incredibly UGLY bus terminal that is hardly used. Stifling public input. Just to name a few. "

Lisa wrote on Nov 26, 2007 10:53 PM:

" I like our council representatives. So they actually agree on most things. And the harm in that is what again? I think they deserve more money. For about 1.5 cents more per month from the city tax payers, our representatives could be paid much better for the job they do. I know 18 cents a year is a lot of money for some of you nay sayers, but if you run for office and get elected on your values, then I say you deserve it too. Good luck. "

Telluride wrote on Nov 26, 2007 8:53 PM:

" I agree our council members do an excellent job. They keep our town generally safe. Our crime average is below the overall AZ average. I love all the small town feel type events they help get off the ground. They have helped control the growth of our community. I would not mind a small increase in my property taxes to double their pay. What EXACTLY has the council done wrong to the city? I do not know of anything. Perhaps Bob and the reply people have personal greivances with the council, but that is their personal problem, Double the salary! "

Unworthy wrote on Nov 26, 2007 8:48 PM:

" Don't pick on the council because you are not worthy of them. "

Bob wrote on Nov 26, 2007 1:38 PM:

" Have you ever been to a Council meeting. If not, go to one. You will be shocked at how apparently worthless our Council is. They don't ask real questions of the City management. Instead, they ask canned questions to help the City force their agenda. And then they all vote the same. On second thought, don't go to a Council meeting. It is a waste of time. "

Reply to Appleton wrote on Nov 26, 2007 1:35 PM:

" Why should we support the Council Members?? They never listen to public input and have never said "no!" to a developer. Give me one good reason they should get a pay raise? Our tax dollars will pay for that increase and what would the public get in return for thier investment? More housing developments? Tax increases? "

To Appleton wrote on Nov 26, 2007 1:32 PM:

" Get real. A Council that votes 100% unanimous every vote is a joke to say the least. Do some research. Most municipalities have a council that shares different views. Obviously the agenda item cannot be best for Sierra Vista 100% of the time. The Sierra Vista Council voting record alone proves the Council is of no value. You don't need anything else. "

To better idea wrote on Nov 26, 2007 9:47 AM:

" I agree. Cardboard cutouts as Council members would save a lot of money and achieve the same results. We could use cut outs of movie stars. That way SV could brag about its famous Council. "

Angel1 wrote on Nov 25, 2007 5:44 PM:

" Pay by performance. Haven't seen any backbone. "

Vote them OUT wrote on Nov 25, 2007 10:41 AM:

" Voters already ratified the city's general plan in 2003. Now the council is circumventing the plan and proceeding without input to develop a parking lot in the county. The city will pay a consultant how much tax dollars to do this? When the taxpayers have already voted for another plan. We need to get rid of this bunch and soon. "

Appleton wrote on Nov 24, 2007 7:02 PM:

" Our council members need our support. We should double their current pay! "

interested? wrote on Nov 24, 2007 9:02 AM:

" Interested in local politics? see www.anybodybutcall.com "

appearances wrote on Nov 24, 2007 8:35 AM:

" The fact that all council members always vote unanimously for everything up for vote is an indication that everything has been decided beforehand. There is no opportunity for public input and everything is done in secret. The council's unanimous votes give the appearance to the city voters that all is well, there is no discord, and that the council knows so much better about everything than the rest of us. This is the appearance that the council wants to have. "

Shredder wrote on Nov 23, 2007 12:39 PM:

" The negative comments are obviously made by those who have no clue what it is like to serve as a public official. It is easy to hurl cheap shots from the safety of anonymity. "

Larry wrote on Nov 22, 2007 4:10 PM:

" What about pay for performance, attendance, customer satisfaction, etc. Make them committed to the process as opposed to only being involved in the process. "

Better Idea wrote on Nov 21, 2007 12:00 PM:

" The council votes 100 % unanimous 100% of the time for whatever the agenda is that the City puts forth. No amount of reason or logic can effect their vote. Do we really need real live people for that? How about some life sized cardboard cutouts? The right arm could be hinged with a string attached. Bob Strain could just pull the string to raise all the arms when it is time to vote. That would save the taxpayers a lot of money and the result would be identical. "

Vote yes wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:15 PM:

" I think they deserve a raise of probably double what they make now. They do more work than anybody realizes. I think we should also develop more land and bring in some larger corporate businesses. There is no growth in this area to speak of. Our economy would be energized with some big businesses. Sierra Vista's resources could easily accomodate 250,000 people. Hopefully one day Sierra Vista and Tucson will be connected with beautiful developments. "

SV TEEN wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:22 PM:

" Vote for me and I'll do it for free! "

Jay wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:59 PM:

" The Council positions are essentially volunteer; as they should be. Current salaries are probably in excess of what is needed. While the position should not cost a person, there is no need to provide compensation above that which would cover out of pocket expenses not otherwise covered by the City for official business engaged in by elected officials. These are not full time jobs, but rather positons of opportunity for properly motivated persons to serve our community. Keep salaries at current level or reevaluate and reduce as may be indicated. "

Pay them to do what? wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:35 AM:

" Rubber stamp everything? If they want a raise, they need to start listening to the people who vote for them and they need to earn it. In the meantime, let them eat cake indeed! "

Tax Payer wrote on Nov 20, 2007 12:23 AM:

" LET THEM EAT CAKE!! "

Give'em a Raise wrote on Nov 19, 2007 8:29 PM:

" Raise thier salaries and maybe they will get some backbone. Maybe have the courage to say no to Castle and Cook and the rest of the developers. Say no and curb rampant growth before we have to truck water in here. Too much to wish for?? "

They should pay us! wrote on Nov 19, 2007 8:43 AM:

" Considering the fact that the City council only works for the corporate developers, they should pay us, not the other way around! "

Hmmm wrote on Nov 19, 2007 12:39 AM:

" I say the mayor should get 2,500 a month and the council members should get 2,000 a month. Make politics worth fighting for by giving them more money for their time and efforts. "