Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

Homepage » News

ELECTION 2008: Sierra Vista City Council hopefuls share stances on taxes, fees

League’s event also reveals challenges that each candidate sees

By Laura Ory
Herald/Review
Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 - 05:34:54 am MST

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

SIERRA VISTA — The future of city taxes, solar power usage and other issues were tackled by candidates for City Council during a forum Tuesday at City Hall.

Citizens posed questions to incumbents Carol Dockter, Craig Johnson, Rick Mueller and challenger Scott Thompson.

Dot Greener, another challenger, was unable to attend the forum because of the recent death of her mother, said Barbara Hudgings, the moderator and president of the League of Women Voters, which hosted the forum in the council chambers.

The first question posed asked how solar power could be put to use in the city.

(Use arrows above to view more photos)

All of the candidates said the alternative power source is something they would advocate for the city to use if it was cost-effective. But, many of the candidates said, it probably isn’t affordable for the city to do in the near future.

Thompson said city-sponsored rebates or other incentives could help encourage businesses and residents to use more solar energy.

Mueller said he didn’t believe city government subsidies were the answer to encouraging the use of solar energy.

Impact fees became the basis of many questions. All of the present candidates agreed that impact fees allow development to “pay for itself,” as one question asked.

But Mueller said that since development has slowed in the city, the level of fees collected have not been as high as expected, so some services meant to support added growth to the city need to be held off.

While impact fees do help manage growth, the fees could be a deterrent to potential home buyers and commercial builders, Thompson said.

The incumbents defended the fees for providing funding for additional city services and projects, including additional police.

The current impact fee for a single-family home is $4,819. The fees are expected to come under review within the next year.

The city’s 1 percent tax for renters was a dividing issue among the candidates.

Mueller said the rental tax helps spread the “tax burden” more evenly throughout the city, since city services are offered to renters as well.

“Personally, I don’t like taxes,” he said.

But, he added, it is a necessary tax.

Dockter agreed the tax helps to spread out the city’s “tax base.”

Thompson opposed the tax because it “affects lower and middle citizens the most.” He said they are least able to afford it.

Johnson said he voted against the tax because it reduced affordability for lower income residents. He said he was still not in favor of the tax.

The candidates also discussed the possibility of requiring new homes to use only gray water or rainwater in their yards. All of the candidates supported those ideas and other water-conserving methods, but they were not in favor of creating a citywide mandate to require their use.

Each of the candidates spoke about the most pressing challenges they expect the city to face within the next five years.

Thompson said providing citizens with economic security and making the city’s economy more independent of Fort Huachuca were his goals.

Johnson said the city could face difficult economy, but that a “strong, proactive approach” to city finances, including paying down debt, would help the city weather the challenge.

Mueller said water, growth and Fort Huachuca’s maintenance are among the city’s top concerns that need to be addressed. The loss of state-shared revenues also could become an issue for the city once again, he said.

Dockter had concerns about state-shared revenue cuts and the aquifer deficit. She also was concerned about state cuts to the city’s funding for street repairs and maintenance.

Mueller said the city may need to consider holding off on city staff pay raises or postponing some city projects to save money if some of the city’s state-shared revenues are reduced.

Johnson said reducing spending as needed or looking at how to increase revenues at the local level could be considered.

Dockter said cutting the city’s “less essential” staff also could be an option.

Thompson proposed to reduce spending for Parks & Leisure Services.

The City Council primary election will be Sept. 2. There are three open council seats. Those who received 50 percent of the vote will win a seat.

If there are not enough candidates with more than 50 percent of the total vote in the primary, the top candidates will move on to the Nov. 4 general election.

Biography information and the Sierra Vista City Council candidates’ answers to our questions by going published in the Aug. 3 edition.

http://www.svherald.com/articles/2008/08/03/news/doc4895514d7c7e9823938788.txt

A few of the upcoming local candidate forums that are scheduled.

Bisbee Woman’s Club

• Saturday, 9 to 11 a.m., Bisbee Woman’s Club: Bisbee mayor, Bisbee council, Cochise County supervisor, county treasure, Superior Court judge, county school superintendent and county sheriff candidates

League of Women Voters

• Thursday, 6 p.m., Sierra Vista Public Library, 2600 E. Tacoma St., Mona Bishop Room: Division 4 judge candidates

• Next Tuesday, 6 p.m., Bisbee Senior Center, 300 Collins Road: District 2 County Supervisor candidates

HERALD/REVIEW reporter Laura Ory can be reached at 515-4683.

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.

To Sarcastic Bloger wrote on Aug 27, 2008 8:56 AM:

" Your sarcasism leaves a lot to be desired. No one wants to close all of the parks or recreational areas or keep the kids or old folks at home....or the babes or in-be-tweeners. I think city council members should be sure city residents have the things they need before "under the table deals in the county" are done with city tax payer money. The election is held so city voters can determine who they think will go a good job of keeping city tax money spent in the city. Follow the monmey. "

Simple Choices wrote on Aug 26, 2008 8:12 PM:

" If you believe Mr. Simple....vote for Dockter, Mueller and Johnson. If you don't believe Mr. Simple.....vote for Mr. Scott. Maybe Scott can give us a little moderation of the tax and spend mentality of the past several councils. Examination of this councils tax and spend policies assures us they are all watching and applauding the Democratic Convention tonight. "

City Voter wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:13 PM:

" I don't blame the Kachina people who do not want to be annexed. They can't vote for or against people like Mueller or Dockter who voted for a land swap that violates CC&Rs and now they want to annex that area to the city. "

Simple wrote on Aug 26, 2008 5:10 PM:

" Right -- Like you've all interviewed all the landlords in town and they've shown you their books. I'm just guessing, and you're assuming the worst case. Renters don't pay twice. They pay what everyone else pays, except for property tax. Now they pay a little more than before. I don't like to pay taxes, either, but we all have to. "

Scott is right wrote on Aug 26, 2008 9:08 AM:

" I looked at the newspaper and city page on Monday. If it weren't for Parks, the City wouldn't have anything to put on the city page.

Thompson is right, get rid of park stuff, send the Seniors and kids home, the city won't need a city page or marketing department, and then they could get rid of those nasty rental taxes.

Folks could stay home all day, because the parks and pool will be closed.

At least the Kachina people will quit complaining for 10 minutes..., nawww, that will never happen. "

More taxes wrote on Aug 26, 2008 6:09 AM:

" Whats up with more taxes? Now the city wants to impose a rental tax on the imputed rental value of owner occupied personal residences. Out with the incumbants. We don't need any more new taxes in this city. "

renters pay twice wrote on Aug 26, 2008 12:38 AM:

" Mr. Simple obviously should run for council as his remarks are as moronic as Mueller's or Dockters on the tax. Every landlord I know immediately had to raise rent enough to cover the new tax. Like anything, rentals are a business and you cannot absorb new higher costs, they get passed to the customer, so indeed the renter pays twice. "

Independent wrote on Aug 25, 2008 11:17 PM:

" "Simple". Well named. "

Truth Meter wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:36 PM:

" ACCORDING TO SIMPLE "Owners of rental property are responsible for paying the rental tax, and it's up to them to decide whether to pass any portion to their tenants. TRUE They don't have to. TRUE The fact that they own rental property means they can afford to pay additional tax.FALSE I'm guessing most are splitting the bill in some way. FALSE Rental tax does spread the burden, just like Mueller says. FALSE A little more from the landlord, a little more from the tenant. Sounds good to me." IS THIS GUY FOR REAL? "

pollyanish wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:07 PM:

" Mr. simple is living in la la land. The notion that landlords are SPLITTING the tax with tenants is silly. I don't think I will be using any of Mr. Simples guesses, in that they are likely to be way off the mark. Talk to some landlords and tenants Mr. Simple. Wake up and learn a little truth, rather than reach erroneous conclusions based upon ill-founded logic. "

Simple wrote on Aug 25, 2008 5:39 PM:

" Owners of rental property are responsible for paying the rental tax, and it's up to them to decide whether to pass any portion to their tenants. They don't have to. The fact that they own rental property means they can afford to pay additional tax. Any statistics on how much of the additional tax burden they're actually passing on to their tenants? I'm guessing most are splitting the bill in some way. Rental tax does spread the burden, just like Mueller says. A little more from the landlord, a little more from the tenant. Sounds good to me. "

New Taxes wrote on Aug 25, 2008 4:08 PM:

" A new rental tax on the imputed rental value of Owned Personal Residences. I like it. This new tax would create a level playing field for all occupants of the city. Then Mr. Mueller and other council members could feel the sting of the rental tax upon their own budgets and have a taste of their own medicine. City management would enjoy the new tax as well as they would have lots of extra $ to spend. "

Just a thought wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Nationally, about 1/3 of the population rents, 2/3 own homes (a dramatic increase following WWII). Here in SV it is more like 40% renter, 60% homeowner perhaps due to the relative wealth of SV where so many retirees have three incomes (SS, military retirement and contractor employment). I would also like to see the interest deduction for homeownership removed from the tax code. Unfair treatment to a portion of the citizenry designed to boost the homebuilding industry. "

To Fact Check wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:21 PM:

" The city council and city officials came out to the county because they were too short sighted to plan an entry to Garden Canyon Linear Park in their city. They were too busy approving Castle and Cooke developments. The city spokesperson, Mary Jacobs is quoted in the SV Herald "Annexation on minds of SV officials" as changing the city's southern boundary to Kachina. Since part of the city's boundary is on Kachina, this article shows the city intends to annex the western end of Kachina which is county. We don't want to be annexed. "

incumbents OUT wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:49 AM:

" Regarding the rent tax, the Herald should do a report and inform the public just how much this tax has brought in to the city. It's been in effect for 2 years now. And for you Clueless, you must be a rampant liberal if you can defend this double taxation rental tax. "

To Fact Check wrote on Aug 25, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Mary Jacobs may not be an elected council member. As Assistant City Manager, she attends all council meetings and speaks for the elected council members and recommends policy to the elected council for the linear park, land swap, annexation,etc. The council members vote on these matters knowing that the county home owners can't vote in the city election. The SV Herald article "Annexation on minds of SV Officials" quoted Jacobs,"Katchina Trail would be a likely boundary to the south for the city": Mueller and Dockter helped set this up. County wants to stay county. "

Actually... wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:06 AM:

" The city property tax is only 0.4% of the city budget, about $350,000. If that pays for all of the services you're talking about then we have problems. The city sales taxes fund most of the city's budget, therefore everyone contributes to the community. Everyone deserves to have more of their hard-earned money in their pockets, regardless of their decision to be a homeowner or not. "

Equity wrote on Aug 24, 2008 10:23 PM:

" As a renter, I pay city tax on my electric, gas, water, telephone and cable bills as well as my food and sundrie purchases. Additionally I pay a renters tax which homeowners do not pay. Seems to me I'm paying more than my fair share. Maybe all homeowners should pay a renters tax on the imputed rental value of their home. This new imputed rental tax would create equity in an otherwise inequitable market. Hey,,,how about we just repeal the inequitable renters tax. Sounds good to me. "

Grumpy wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:01 PM:

" To "R U Clueless: Of course renters pay property taxes, Clueless. And of course all residents should share in the cost of services - AND THEY DO. You don't really believe the rental property owner pays the property taxes out of his/her pocket do you? These taxes, like all other expenses, are passed on in the form of monthly rent. And renters don't receive the very generous tax deductions that homeowners receive either. Not all the military live on Base. You must be a senile retired military person. Typical. "

Fact checks wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:31 PM:

" Kachina is in the County. Why do they keep whining about the City election they can't vote in? Mary Jacobs is not a council member, they got that wrong too. Thompson is not Obama, Greener is not Hillary. Mueller and Doctor are not satan. Mueller has the same rights as any of us, no more or no less. If he wanted to be annexed by the city, it shows financial good sense to me. If he's cheap, and he's on Council, I think thats good for all of us. "

R U Clueless wrote on Aug 24, 2008 8:26 PM:

" The rental tax is 1%, if you pay 15 a month, your landlord is lying to you. For that amount of money you can OWN a $225,000 home with ZERO down. Renters should help to pay for the cost of Police, Fire and Ambulance. Homeowners do. Its called being part of the community. Everyone wants something for nothing, and wants homeowners to pay for everything. Young military families? Give me a break, The military housing allowance pays all of that, unless you want more than you can afford, and I should pay for that too? "

Impact fees wrote on Aug 24, 2008 5:02 PM:

" If impact fees allow development to "pay for itself", why wasn't the orginally planned park off of Cherokee built? Why wasn't an entrance left for the linear park? The incumbents defend these fees to "provide funding for additional city services and projects, including additional police". Looks like the incumbents want to give the county residents at the west end of Kachina a helping hand. Or maybe they just want more police available for their linear park when they vote to annex that area. "

new council. wrote on Aug 24, 2008 11:57 AM:

" Not voting for incumbents is a start. But to halt a land swap you think that is illegal for which the city gov't. is sanctioning, you should file for an injunction in court. Sad that a citizen must do that when tax dollars are spent against its citizens. It's possible a new council could vote to do what is right. This is easy to type about, just hope these new candidates get all the non-voters out for a change to vote for them. "

Not Fooled wrote on Aug 24, 2008 6:39 AM:

" Vote Greener and Thompson, and not at all for any incumbent. The incumbents are responsible for the land swap on Kachina, even after being notified verbally and in writing that anything other than residential use was a violation of the CCRs. Now the incumbents want annexation of a land swap that will be a potential for violation, as if somehow annexation makes it all OK. Which it does NOT. "

Just wondering wrote on Aug 23, 2008 8:51 PM:

" Homeownership 2/3 of the U.S. population) is "graced" with tax deductions for interest on their mortgages. That leaves 1/3 of the population (lower income mostly) left to bear the cost of most sales and user taxes. Remove the tax deduction for homeownership which, usually, is advantageous because of appreciation of home value. Why reward the most wealthy at the expense of the least able to pay taxes? "

Happy Pagan wrote on Aug 23, 2008 6:14 PM:

" Remember wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:07 PM: " Remember that Rick Mueller built a new home in one of the Sierra Vista County enclaves. Rick Mueller asked the rest of the city council to annex him so he could keep his job on the council (city council members must live in the city)... thanks for the insight. I thought this demonstrated good sense by the council in that they were finally willing to clean up the enclaves. Should have known the military minds stick together (glue?). Dump Mueller and Dockter. "

Wondering... wrote on Aug 23, 2008 6:08 PM:

" What does anyone know about Greener? I'd like to see Mueller and Dockter replaced for, as Greener said, it's time for new blood. She is, however, a mystery candidate and her appearance at the AARP forum didn't improve my image of her. Anyone got something to say about Greener? Craig Johnson is the only incumbent I'd vote for in any case. "

Held off wrote on Aug 23, 2008 11:13 AM:

" Mr. Mueller perhaps one of the services you could cut, is the building of the gates and maze at the end of Kachina for the linear park. You wouldn't need to annes it then. "

Grumpy wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:32 PM:

" Someone get a net for "I like the rental tax". Fiscally responsible? Many renters are young military who can't yet afford homeownership. What I'd like to see is the tax credit removed for interest payments on owned property. The tax code has been jiggered to benefit the well-off with tax deductions which should be eliminated. Howdalikethat, "Fiscally"? "

Independent wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:28 PM:

" I found Dockter and Mueller's answers devoid of common sense on the renters' tax. "Spreading the tax burdon" is double speak for charging an extra tax on renters who already pay property tax that is passed on by property owners. This is a blatent effort to appease the upper income homeowners at the expense of lower income (including military)households. These two were also dim-witted on development impact fees where new residents pay some, very small, percentage of the costs of new development. These two 8 year veterans of the council should be replaced. "

Vote wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:23 PM:

" Vote for Thompson and Greener for city council. Perhaps they can change the rest of the councils mind set about taxes and annexation. At least it won't be an automatic unanimous vote on all issues brought before the council. "

Too wrote on Aug 22, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Dockter likes taxes. She likes to put spins on land deals in the county too. She (according to council minutes and the SV Herald) moved to have the city accept the last 9+ acres from Castle and Cooke. The council voted to accept this land plus the land swap with the Batts family. Now, Dockter and Mueller will vote to annex the county area at the west end of Kachina. Look at the money that has been spent and will be spent on that illegal violation of CC&Rs. They could come for you next. "

JOHN P wrote on Aug 22, 2008 3:54 PM:

" We do not need more Taxes period. The rental tax costs me as a renter another 15.00 a month.I am single voting for thompson as he could vote to repeal it.And at least I know he would never voter to increase it.Its a sum of all the "little taxes" thats the killer I for one and sick and tried of hearing its only a few bucks a month yea on top of about 15 other "LITTLE" taxes just take a look at your phone as a good example or your electric bill.VOTE THOMPSON FOR COUNCIL "

I like the rental tax wrote on Aug 22, 2008 2:03 PM:

" The higher the rental tax is the better. It puts pressure on people to be fiscally responsible so they can buy a home. If they are irresponsible and can't buy then tax them seems like the best choice. It is a win, win situation. "

Remember wrote on Aug 22, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Remember that Rick Mueller built a new home in one of the Sierra Vista County enclaves. Rick Mueller asked the rest of the city council to annex him so he could keep his job on the council (city council members must live in the city). Mr. Mueller stepped out of the chambers while the rest of the council vote to annex him. We in the county area of Kachina are NOT asking to be annexed. Will Mr. Mueller, Mary Jacobs and the rest of the city council let the county home owners alone? "

Thompson only wrote on Aug 22, 2008 10:43 AM:

" Yet, it is a shame that few run for the council. It's pathetic to think that there is a 75% chance we end up with Dockter and Mueller again. (both voted for that rent tax). Remember, you do NOT have to vote for all 3! "

What a Joke wrote on Aug 22, 2008 7:55 AM:

" Mueller states the rental tax is Neccessary? and further it SPREADS THE TAX. This guy is a joke, right? Real story is the rental tax is just another way of collecting more taxes. The rental tax creates an administrative burden on owners who pass the administrative cost and the taxwnkeb on to tenants. Simple truth. People like Mueller must get elected in your town because no one else runs. Clearly he has no common sense. "

Mommy wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:55 AM:

" Ditto to "renters pay twice". And to "Ron Paul", I welcome anyone with the same views as the real Ron Paul, lower taxes all around and less government works for me! "

renters pay twice wrote on Aug 20, 2008 1:09 PM:

" You sounds spiteful towards the realtors. (I'm not one). They all don't drive SUVs. Renters already pay the property tax for schools you refer to built into rent, then the extra rent tax. Not to mention, it is a bureacratic process filing the tax. Thus, the city or the state incurs costs, limiting the government's "profit." It's just another example of growing government where government shouldn't be. Don't forget SV taxes food too. No shame. "

Concerned... wrote on Aug 20, 2008 5:56 AM:

" The rental tax is a big deal when paired with the utilities taxes, hotel/motel tax, construction contracting tax, use tax, restaurant tax, sales tax, property tax, the bruised economy, and the uneven wage/housing ratios. To answer your questions, it is fair because you bought a house and assumed responsibility and have something to show for your money! And by the way, that extra 5 or 10 bucks per month is a meal or three for some families. "

Realtors are wrong wrote on Aug 19, 2008 2:03 PM:

" Ya, that rental tax is a big deal, the extra 5 bucks a month is a real deal breaker, one less gallon of high test for their $40,000 SUV. Most renters live better and have nicer stuff than homeowners, who pay out the nose. Todays clue, I pay more for Schools in one year, than 30 renters. How fair is that? The only reason realtors are behind it is they are the landlords that collect it and pass it right along to those poor people with their lavish lifestyle. My car is 14 years old, yours? "

is it Thompson wrote on Aug 18, 2008 3:39 PM:

" I haven't forgetten the rent tax either. That was a disgrace. It certainly couldn't even be bringing in the City very much money, but it sure takes enough from the poor. I know the realtors in town were vocal against it 2 years ago. I hope they will find out which candidate will work to repeal the tax and then be vocal to support him. "

C_No_W wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:43 AM:

" The candidates are what they are. Attend the forum like I did and you see lips moving, but no sense being spouted. Too bad you know it alls didn't run instead. The road to heck is paved with good intentions. Council is not to blame, shame on the developer and the business community that supports them blindly. It's what happens next, that counts. "

Ron Paul wrote on Aug 18, 2008 8:20 AM:

" Check out Scott Thompsons website.
Then check out Ron Pauls website.
Anyone find one sentence different?
I can't. "

To Cheese_no_Whine wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:59 AM:

" The words you describe the city include "sucker," "clueless," and "micromanage(s)." In the same breath you mention they are "honorable." Which is it? Do you really want a city council that are suckers, clueless, and micromanagers? "

GAR wrote on Aug 17, 2008 3:25 AM:

" I am going to single vote Thompson. The council needs some fresh ideas and another council member under age 65. Thompson is not going to raise your TAXES for sure.The rent tax needs to be flushed along with those that voted for it dockter/mueller.Thompson will not be taking his marching orders from the city manager as the current council does. "

Cheese_no_ whine wrote on Aug 15, 2008 1:26 PM:

" The one issue Kachina whiners are at it again. You live in the COUNTY, you can't vote in the CITY election. Castle and Cooke dumped the wash on the City, and they were sucker enough to take it, and worse yet, try to do something for the CITY residents that want this mosquito infested piece cleaned up, so it can be used for something. IMO, The candidates are all honorable. Some are just clueless about what it takes to run a city, or micromanage because they have no life. "

Mommy wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:39 AM:

" This is for "To LLSVResident": Why is it an illusion to want to make sure our community thrives whether the Fort is here or not? Why isn't that a valid thing to work towards just in case? "

To No Incumbents wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:13 AM:

" Don't forget that incumbents also voted for the city park in the county, using city tax dollars to do so. "

of will win wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:14 PM:

" to incumbents out: We are going to get stuck with at least 2 incumbents because there are 3 seats for 4 candidates. I like the idea of voting ONLY for the new candidate, Thompson. He couldn't be any worse than the tax raising incumbents. I hope he works to get out the vote. "

Bad news wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:04 PM:

" The more people the more water will be used. Stop the building and use the housing we have now. You are all asking for trouble. The more the people the more the water use. Stop Castle and Cook and also the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is what this world is turning out to be. Also start to charge illegal Mexicans (government Mexicali) for all there medical bills. Not us. We need these problems addressed. "

Hereford wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:56 PM:

" Your right I can't afford the tax hike. My daughter has moved back in the house and is 20 years old and pregnant. No insults Please. DES will not help her because she is not 22 years of age. She can not get a job because of too many people are being prejidice of her being pregnant. I am at poverty level due to the gas prices reflecting everything. I have a full time job cant get a second one due to a.m , or afternoon or pm hours. Dont raise the tax. "

No Incumbents wrote on Aug 13, 2008 7:38 PM:

" Remember, the incumbents all tried to pass item 10 of May 24, 2007 council meeting with parking lot at end of Kachina. Item 10 dealt soley with the land donation from Castle and Cooke to city. The incumbents voted approval for the land swap for private residential, CCR property for city for this parking lot from Kachina. The incumbents were informed many times from the very beginning this was a violation of the CCRs. The fort closed the access gates. The public wanted a natural park that will now cost them over $3 million. "

To LLSVResident wrote on Aug 13, 2008 2:51 PM:

" Smartly the candidates avoided that hornets nest. I didn't like the fact that Thompson is "bent" on some independence from Fort Huachuca illusion and Mueller is for higher taxes and seems to believe the Oxymoronic ideals pattern of "doing more with less". That only works in Mexico and China. Johnson seems to be the most level headed of the four and the one most likely to be supported by a broader spectrum of voters. Thompson is a wildcard but I like his ideas on promoting solar but he should have also mentioned gray water. "

Pesky wrote on Aug 13, 2008 10:23 AM:

" I also would like local law enforcement to be trained to deal with illegal immigration because much of the crime they deem "acceptable" to pursue stems from illegal aliens. It doesn't take more time to ask about legal status when investigating a crime, but what to do with the illegals once identified poses problems. I suggest a tent to held them until BP claims them like in Maricopa County. Businesses are tacit open border advocates. The Chamber of Commerce is always part of suits challenging E-Verify, etc. Businesses dictate what the police are allowed to do here. "

NWH wrote on Aug 13, 2008 10:14 AM:

" We have winds up to 50 miles per hour,coming out of the Southwest,Why can't this Community get behind this source of energy. And what isn't used can be recycled or sold back to the power company. Check out this link.
http://www.skystreamenergy.com/ "

Independent wrote on Aug 13, 2008 10:12 AM:

" I was disappointed in the responses to the development impact fee questions. New residents pose new, additional costs on the community (streets, police, fire, EMS, library, schools, etc.). Impact Fees are designed to have new residents pay some part of the costs they generate. Existing residents pay the larger share of these costs now. It appears, the only ones clearly benefitting from newcomers are businesses (more sales) or the developer. The council's role is to find an "equitable" sharing of these added costs by both new and existing residents. The city doesn't yet do that. "

Independent wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:47 AM:

" Excellent forum with pitiful attendance. Is it the military (transient) influence or the great influx of "newcomers" or just general disinterest that only about 20 people attended this forum? Similar attendance (about 40) at the school district forum to introduce the two superintendent finalists. We don't take time to see and hear candidates or, in most cases, even read about the event which, of necessity, is only a pared down version of actual events. No wonder we get rolled at the polls and only one part of town elects city leaders. "

Incumbents OUT wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Dockter and Mueller both voted for the rent tax. That means they don't get my vote. It may be best to just vote for Thompson, the new person, get rid of the old incumbent dead wood. By voting for one you help eliminate the chance an incumbent wins. "

Life Long SV Resident wrote on Aug 13, 2008 7:02 AM:

" I'd like to know when the city and county will step up and allow officers to go to federal immigration training so that they may inquire about residency status of those stopped in our area. I feel that our close proximity to the border provides a unique opportunity for a second line of defense against these invaders. Or do the incumbents and candidates feel we are a sanctuary city? "