Sedona work group to gather city budgets and interviews as it refines council pay options

Sedona — The Council Compensation Work Group on June 15 agreed to a research plan that will combine tax-revenue and budget measures with interviews of former mayors and councilors to refine proposed pay levels and benefits for Sedona’s mayor and council members.

Russ (staff member) opened the meeting and handed the floor to Sean (committee member), who outlined an analytic approach that prioritizes transaction privilege tax (TPT) collections and operating-budget size while allowing blended weightings with population or income. Sean said Sedona collects roughly $44 million in TPT and noted the city "is punching way above our belt in terms of the population," a point he suggested the group should account for when choosing comparable cities.

The work group discussed the Park City example reported in a June 12 article: an 18% increase for council compensation after public debate, with council pay described in the article as rising from 29,000 to over 34 and the mayor from 55 to 66. Members flagged demographic and housing differences — including Sedona’s older median age and local housing pressures — that complicate direct comparisons and urged the committee to select comparators that match Sedona’s fiscal and economic profile.

Sean proposed several candidate metrics for benchmarking: operating budget, TPT collections, income tax (where applicable), and population. He recommended a pragmatic process: (1) identify a ‘‘blue band’’ of cities within ±50% of Sedona’s TPT, (2) collect each city’s most recent budget/ACFR materials to compute a consistent operating-budget figure (total budget less capital), and (3) use a weighted formula (examples discussed include 80% TPT / 20% population) to produce suggested pay bands.

Members emphasized that money alone may not resolve representation gaps. The committee discussed the idea of measuring a ‘‘tipping point’’ — an estimated pay level that would materially improve the ability of working residents to run for office — and capturing job complexity (average weekly hours, committee workload) as part of the recommendation.

Russ proposed building a database of former mayors and council members (ideally from the last 10–12 years) and conducting short interviews to gather lived experience on time commitment, incentives that mattered, and whether benefits such as health coverage influenced candidacy decisions. The group agreed to split assignments: committee members will collect operating-budget and TPT data for roughly a dozen prioritized comparators and help compile contact lists for interviews.

On process, members asked staff to refine draft interview questions to remove leading phrasing and to focus on concrete, comparable prompts. The committee set an internal target to have analysis and interview results available for an October-ready report; members noted any pay changes would likely take effect with the next council following certification of election results. The group tentatively discussed reconvening the work group for a status check around July 17 at 8:30 a.m.

Action taken at the meeting was limited to approval of the May 18 minutes (motion passed unanimously). No compensation changes were proposed or voted on.

The work group tasked members to: compile city budget and TPT figures for selected comparators, revise the interview questionnaire, and begin outreach to former officeholders. Staff will post collected materials and interview notes to the shared drive for consolidation ahead of the next meeting.