In tough economic times, it only makes sense to reduce the salaries of everyone working in city government. This includes the unionized employees, the exempt employees, administrators, and especially city council members. While some cities around the South Metro have passed ordinances giving themselves raises in the past, such as when Apple Valley did it in 2008 (for the 2009 tax year) and then proceeded to raise 2009 taxes as well, several such as Burnsville and Rosemount have decided that the City Council do not need a raise.
Rosemount’s City Council directed city staff members to “prepare an ordinance that would reduce the 2010 salaries for the Mayor and Council back to the current 2009 level for the 2010 calendar year.” (more information in the long PDF here beginning on p58)
Now, I’m thrilled that some local city councils are eliminating raises for themselves but I really don’t think it goes anywhere near far enough. With towns like Lakeville and Burnsville who are laying off people to cover their own poor economic planning and budget shortfalls, it’s my opinion that the city councilmembers should work for $0 until the economic situation improves. Why should I be paying 5 people a salary when the cities they run are dropping staff left and right?
“But Bill, it’s not the City Council’s fault that the City Staff made poor economic choices!” Unfortunately, in many cases it is. Look at Kautz, she’s been in power for years and is the main reason that taxes are going to go up in Burnsville for years to come–even though she continues to claim otherwise on her website:
How is it funded? Will it increase the tax burden on citizens? No! There is significant misinformation around this issue. Taxes are not being raised to pay for this.
So, because these long standing city councilmembers have made such poor decisions which impact the lives of the city employees and taxpayers, it’s my opinion that each and every single city council should do more than just stop their pay raises but they should reduce or eliminate them entirely!
What do you think? Do you think it’s right for city councilmembers to receive pay (thousands of dollars a year) while the cities have to layoff workers or give furloughs? Don’t you think that city councilmembers, if they are so interested in their civic duty, should do the right thing and eliminate their pay entirely? Whatever you think about this issue go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say!
Related posts:
Lazy Lightning Store
Month's Top 5 Commenters
BPAC Financials Archive
Dakota Criminal Complaints
Loading ...
November 17th, 2009 at 7:56 am
[...] Lazy Lightning, now a regular stop, today offers a look at City Counsel wages — good MNSpeak fodder for conversation. [...]
November 17th, 2009 at 7:56 am
It would be interesting to see what happens if their pay got eliminated permanently. At least then in the elections you would get people who know damn well they aren’t getting any money. It ought to weed out at least some people from running………………
November 17th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Ben,
The majority of people who run for public office don’t do so because they want the pittance frown to them by the taxpayers or even because they enjoy civic envolvement. Nope, the people who run and then end up on the council are those that are looking for huge kickbacks from
those they provide preferential treatment to.
We have countless examples of Kautz being a sleazy little bitch with a certain law office and Sharon LaComb trying to weasel money out of the AV taxpayers to fund Dakota Future’s unnecessary horseshit. Let’s not even start about Dan Gustafson’s seat on the CTC and how that impacts the decisions he makes on te council.
It should be for the kickbacks alone that those fuckers shouldn’t get a single cent from me.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:22 am
So, the solution to get honest, skilled, average people to do a thankless job that requires much more time than most people realize, is not confined to normal business or meeting hours, and makes you a target of every nut with a tinfoil hat and an internet connection (I kid!), is to NOT PAY THEM FOR THEIR TIME?
And you wonder why it seems like only the independantly wealthy, the crooks, or the folks with axes to grind get involved in local politics.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:49 am
fehler, do you suggest we pay them more to sit through meetings and read the same shit the rest of us read daily (sometimes from 5x as many cities)?
November 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am
I suggest that if you pay them like professionals, you would get professionals doing the job. What you choose to do for a hobby is your own choice, but managing a city is not something that should be taken on during someone’s “free time”.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:20 am
fehler, the city councils manage city managers (and assistant city managers in some cases) who get paid in excess of $100,000/year to manage the rest of the city staff under them.
The piddly little bullshit that the city councils handle is nothing compared to the jobs those professionals do. While, in many cases, I completely disagree with the actions of city managers (like Craig Ebeling from Burnsville) I understand his position and latitude is limited by douchebags who were elected. That and he wants to keep his cushy $100,000+/year job.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
If we had a better taxation system in place this mess wouldn’t exist. With a townhome association, dues are constant regardless of your home’s worth or your personal income. We’re able to budget much more easily as a result. If we need more money for something, we vote on a special assessment to pay for it.
With a taxation system based on percentages of income, property tax values, and various fees, predictability is virtually non-existent for government organizations. If the government’s taxation system were more fixed, their expenses would (theoretically) be more fixed and this whole mess wouldn’t exist.
I know, it’s a stretch to compare a townhome association to a city government, but I think there’s a small degree of fair comparison…
November 17th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Joey, I wish that City Government was more aligned with townhome associations resulting in a vote on an assessment. When 5 Burnsville City Council Members can vote to spend in excess of $25 Million without a referendum or vote by the residents there is an issue with City Government. The $3.5 Million in cash and ongoing debt payments on bonds that we are saddled with in addition to millions in operating debt over the years that could have gone to the core services would have left us in a situation where tax increases would not be necessary at all in Burnsville.