It’s time to invest in Durango city governance by paying our City Council members a salary commensurate with the experience, responsibility, expertise and aggravation required of important public service.
This issue should be driven by the public rather than setting up our city councilors and staff for accusations of self-dealing and conflict of interest.
Let citizens decide by public referendum if councilors are paid fairly. Is the current salary of $867 per month – or $10,404 per year – fair compensation for being one of five citizens who oversee government and public services for more than 20,000 locals, and hundreds of thousands of visitors each year?
The city’s health insurance is a valuable benefit for councilors who opt in for coverage, but not all need to because they have pre-existing plans. Do we really want to hold insurance over councilors as a reason for a pittance in compensation?
The quaint notion of city fathers (and mothers) volunteering a few hours a week to guide local government is outdated and impractical for a municipality of our size, and the services provided. The City of Durango is a $165 million-plus organization and the Council serves like a board of directors.
Unlike a number of similar-sized Colorado communities that contract for utilities from metropolitan areas, the City of Durango is self-sufficient in the provision of water, sewer, solid waste disposal (garbage), public transportation and other services for an isolated region of the state.
The city is a partner with La Plata County in the funding of our $50 million-plus regional airport, but the city manages all operations.
It’s been said that city councilors spend about 20 hours a week on the public’s business, but I don’t know any that limit their work to such a minimum. In times of crisis or controversy, the expectations, workload and time commitment are greatly increased.
For example, Durango City Council meets biweekly to conduct business, but it’s hardly a part-time job. Good councilors spend hours every week studying issues and meeting constituents. They serve on committees, conduct joint business with other government and tribal entities, hold office hours for the public, and are ultimately responsible for the work of more than 400 full-time and 700 part-time employees.
Unofficially, city councilors are on call whether at a restaurant, shopping or at a public event where constituents never hesitate to give first-hand advice and criticism.
Would compensation of $20,000 to 25,000 per year be out of the question or prohibitively expensive? Given the current city budget and resources, an increase in councilor pay won’t require an increase in taxes or cuts in service.
Let’s change our tradition that favors electing the wealthy, retirees or folks with lots of free time. It would benefit the public if councilors were paid similar to what a local manager earns for half-time employment. Fair compensation would facilitate candidates and councilors that are representative of our population.
My proposal is for a nonbinding citizen petition to Council, asking for a resolution to be placed on the 2024 election ballot. This way the people can debate and decide whether a proposed compensation increase is a good idea.
A nonbinding petition will allow Council, staff and the public a chance to develop the precise ballot language for proposed compensation. There might also be language to clarify implementation, accountability and eligibility. For example, already-elected Council members would not be eligible for a compensation increase unless they are reelected after an ordinance is approved by voters.
Submitting the question to voters will result in public discussion, persuasion and decision, both pro and con. We ought to be able to get behind that idea.
Jack Turner is a fifth-generation local and former independent candidate for county commissioner.
