Palmer keeps mayor full-time

March 16, 2007

By SHARON G. McBRIDE

Frontiersman

PALMER - The mayor's full time job is safe - for now.

At Tuesday's Palmer City Council meeting, a motion to introduce Ordinance 07-004, which called for a reduction in the mayor's salary, complete removal of health benefits, and a reduction in compensated work hours, failed by a 3-2 vote.

A minimum of four votes is needed to pass a measure.

Council members Jim Wood, Tony Pippel and Brad Hanson voted for the ordinance; council members Kathrine Vanover and Richard Best voted no. Council member Ken Erbey was absent, and Mayor John Combs was excused from the vote because of his conflict of interest.

The ordinance was drafted by Wood and Pippel during an executive session back in January in an effort to curb the city's expenses.

By cutting the mayor's hours and benefits, the city could save up to $50,000, Pippel argued.

The idea came on the heels of the city's rude awakening, learning of its $10 million deficit through the state-mandated public employee retirement system, otherwise known as PERS.

Originally, two ordinances reducing the mayor's hours were set for introduction, but one was postponed indefinitely, essentially killing it.

The other survived a while longer, when the council postponed it until Tuesday night.

That decision came after several meetings worth of public testimony against cutting the mayor's hours.

On Tuesday night, it was more of the same. City Hall was packed with concerned citizens, all looking to weigh in on whether or not to cut the mayor's position back to part time.

All but one person felt the potential savings would not be beneficial to the City of Palmer, but would cost the city more in the long run.

&#8220I have a lot of respect for the mayor's position,” said Mike Maynard, the only person who spoke in favor of the ordinance.

&#8220But the city manager also does an excellent job, and he's full time. In the future, it's uncertain who will become mayor after Mayor Combs. Our next mayor might not have any experience at all. That's why I am an advocate of going back to a part-time position.”

Over 10 testimonies later, no one else shared his opinion.

&#8220I'm here to speak against taking the mayor's job back to part time,” said Bob Woolsey, a 31-year Palmer resident.

&#8220It would definitely be a step backwards. According to my estimations, the city would have a total savings of $14,000. You can't buy a good lobbyist for that.”

Others who stepped forward, echoed the same sentiments.

&#8220Running a city is much like running a business, it can't be done part time,” said Scott Hamilton, a Palmer resident. &#8220As a small business owner, I've learned that if you buy it cheap, you buy it twice.”

Cutting the mayor's position has been a main topic of discussion and a focal point for public opposition since Jan. 23, the original date set for the two ordinances to be introduced.

After listening to hours of public testimony and previous debate on the topic, council members wasted no time on discussion before casting their votes on the issue.

Contact Sharon G. McBride at 352-2250, sharon.mcbride@frontiersman.com.