When we talk about how we compensate local officials, we aren’t just talking about a line item in a budget. We’re talking about what, and who, we actually value. Why have we historically underpaid the people who show up every day to serve? And why do we keep comparing our local leaders to th ose in other cities making less, instead of asking why we systematically fail to value the role itself? That question sits at the heart of the debate over council compensation, not just in Park City, but in local governments across the country. This isn’t about any one council member being “selfish.” It’s about access: who can afford to serve this community, and who cannot. During my council comments I have spoken at length about workload, state government relationships, budget complexity, and why the ski town comp set being cited simply does not hold up. Our only honest comparison is Summit County, a true peer in structure, budget, and regional complexity. They earn $70,000 and we earn $28,000. But as important as that case is, I keep coming back to something bigger. Why do we chronically undervalue local elected leaders? And why do we continue not to talk about it? This city is complex. Our decisions have major implications for the state, for this community, and for the economy of the entire county. That responsibility rests primarily under the leadership of council members currently earning $28,000 a year. Why has society insisted that only those who can absorb a financial hit, or who choose service over a livable wage, are the ones who get to serve? The people who do show up read hundreds of page reports, attend many meetings, serve as liaisons, emails, meetings with constituents, sit on many boards and commissions, and represent this city at the county, the state, and the region. They’re not doing it for the money. But unfortunately, the money still matters, because it determines who can even consider saying yes to this type of public service commitment. We let this pay gap grow for the last decade. That was a mistake, and it belongs to all of us. But the answer isn’t to keep making it. Park City asks a lot of the people who serve it. At some point, we have to ask whether we’re making it possible for anyone, regardless of their financial situation, to say yes. And the stakes of getting this wrong are getting higher. AI will completely reshape who we are within the next few years. The next era of Park City is coming fast, and the challenges are real: the economy, 2034 Olympics, housing, snowpack and water, climate, and regional growth. So I want to ask our community directly – who do you value enough to lead us into that future? And do you value them enough to pay them? Because right now, council compensation sits at less than a quarter of our area median income I am grateful for this conversation. It has struck a nerve, and it has facilitated a dialogue that needs to happen. We have heard the community and will revisit the amount of the raise. The mayor has asked the team to come back with a number that reflects merit, cost of living, and the incremental raises that we should have been giving ourselves for the last decade. The original number proposed was based on county wages. The council will revisit this conversation on Thursday. Tana Toly is a second term Park City councilor. The post Who can afford to serve? appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less