Minutes
of The Special Price City Council Meeting
City Hall: Price, Utah
May 15, 2000, 6:00 p.m.
Present:
Mayor Lou Colosimo
Councilmembers: Joanne Lessar,
City Recorder
Roy A. Nikas Pat Larsen, Finance Director
Betty P. Wheeler Gary Sonntag, PWD/City Engineer
Joe L. Piccolo Keith Wight, Human Resource Director
Stephen L. Denison Aleck Shilaos, Chief of Police
Richard Tatton Ed Shook, Police Lieutenant
Others Present:
Jon Anast Bob Olson
1.
CEDAR HILLS DRIVE, SR55 CDBG - Project Expanded
Gary Sonntag reported on the results of the committee
appointed to review the reconstruction of Cedar Hills Drive. They tried to come up with an equity on that
street regarding the improvements that have been put in and those yet to go in. He was able to identify where the original
pavement existed when it was first installed in 1975. It wasn’t down the center of the road, it was further to the east
than to the west. He is not sure but
assumes that those improvements in 1975 were a Class “C” Road improvement
project. In recent years, the road was
been widened primarily on the east side to include curb, gutter and
sidewalk. The portion between 1st
and 3rd North were installed by the developers of the property. Improvements that have been installed since
then have involved curb, gutter and sidewalk and the majority of that has been
from approximately Sagewood Road south to 250 North. The reason it went to 250 North was because the curb, gutter and
sidewalk in front of the care center were in the wrong location. There was one lot south of the care center
that did not have any curb, gutter or sidewalk. The primary objective in putting in those improvements was to
create a safe passage for pedestrians.
When those improvements were put in, the road was widened over to the
lip of the new curb and gutter. In some
places in was 1' and in other places it was 30". Comparing other projects that have been done, such as the CDBG
projects, curb, gutter and sidewalk have been installed using those funds for
the primary reason of creating a safe passage for pedestrians. This has been done several times in different
areas of the City for that reason without any consideration for the equity or
inequity that it was creating for a property owner, either hadn’t developed his
property or never paid for it in the first place.
Gary stated that the committee looked for ways to
create an equitable solution on Cedar Hills Drive with the improvements
currently taking place. One of the
options discussed was to pave the center of the road, 12' either side from 1st
North to Sagewood Road and tie into whatever existing pavement is already
there. One section already there is in
front of the storage units and the other portion is on a curb just north of
that on the east side of the road. The
3rd North intersection and Sagewood Road would be tied in. Pavement would be replaced in front of those
lots where existing pavement was developed by that property owner. However, where there are lots, either
developed or undeveloped, and where the property owner didn’t pay for
improvements, that pavement would be left out.
The property owners would be contacted and asked to participate in the
project so that the pavement could be completed and there wouldn’t be a patchwork of missing pavement up the
road. The property owners on the west
side, prior to that meeting, had been asked to participate in the project and
pay for the pavement over to where their future curb and gutter would be,
either under the existing developed lot or vacant lot, either way. Again, the consistency of the road was a concern,
whether or not we would end up with just a patchwork, stripping in the center
and patches up and down the side. The
committee came to a conclusion to pave the whole road, including both sides,
all the way up. They realized
inequities had been created and the best thing to do would be to take the
section of road from 1st North to Sagewood Road and pave it from
curb to curb and not charge anybody.
The money to fund this would be Class”C” Road funds. To accomplish this, we would have to add 12.75'
of pavement on the west side from 1st North to Sagewood Road. The additional amount would be approximately
$35,000, which includes excavating and paving.
Councilmember Piccolo stated that the above concept
goes against the Land Development Code.
How do we continue to with our Planning and Zoning efforts when we tell
a future developer that we are not going to pave his street to the gutter? There are only two developers on the eastern
side of the road that haven’t participated in the first place at this
point. He thinks
this is a valid concern. He understands the decision of the committee, but he does not
agree with it. Councilmember Wheeler
stated that she does not go along with this philosophy, if one person pays, it
should be all or none. We haven’t done
this before for others and we shouldn’t start now. Councilmember Denison stated his major concern is that Cedar
Hills Drive is a major artery. He would
hate to see a partial project done with the amount of time and effort that it
is taking. He would hate to see a patch
system, he would like to see a 20 year road when it is done. Gary Sonntag explained what the area would
look like if the whole road wasn’t paved and the gaps that would be
created. Gravel could be placed on
these gaps. Mayor Colosimo stated he
feels its not fair for the City to do everything and no one be charged. It is not fair to not charge now when we
have charged before. Years ago the City
used to go door to door to get residents to pave in front of their
property. The Council discussed
reimbursement to the Basso/Etzel Storage units for the improvements that they
have paid for. It was recommended that
this not be done.
MOTION.
Councilmember Denison moved that the current project be expanded, that
the additional $35,000 be added and that the whole road be paved. Motion seconded by Councilmember Tatton and
carried with the following vote.
Councilmember Nikas - Abstained
Councilmember Wheeler - Aye
Councilmember Piccolo - Naye
Councilmember Denison - Aye
Councilmember Tatton - Aye
The above expansion includes the eastern side of the
gutter to 1' of the western boundary of the gutter from 1st North to
Sagewood Drive.
2.
BUDGET WORKSHOP - FY2000/2001 - Personnel (401K Program)
Pat Larsen presented a comparison of three different
options to operate the 401K Program - the first is to leave it as it is which
provides 4.49% going to each employees 401K account, except Public Safety, for a total of $415,700, the second is all employees with a 3% match,
including Public Safety for a total of $399,200, and a third is a match on what everybody is contributing now up to 3%
including Public Safety for a total of $360,800. The tentative budget includes the last option of $360,800. Retirement rates as mandated by the State
was reviewed for both Public Safety and Public employees. The rate for Public Safety is 19.42 and
10.32 for Public employees. Because of
the high percentage mandated by the State for Public Safety retirement, the
City currently does not provide a 401K program for Public Safety
employees. Public employees currently
receive the 10.32 mandated by the State plus the 4.49% going into 401K. Councilmember Piccolo stated that employees
that work for the City, especially those making $10/hour, are going to be hit
the hardest. Because of the increase in
medical, the large deductible, payment for dental, etc., it will be hard for
them to donate anything to their retirement account because they are only
making $10/hour. Those employees will
go find other work. People that work
for the City work because of the benefits.
Does the City want to head down this road? Councilmember Tatton feels that the retirement program should be
left the way it is in this current year.
If things are going to be changed, do it over a long term instead of
just through the budget session. There
may be ways to motivate, or help keep employees through benefits, etc., the
Council needs some strong input from skilled expert help on what the best
direction is to go. Councilmember Nikas
stated that the only reason we were able to balance the budget was through fund
balance. If we don’t have a growth in
sales taxes or property taxes and we don’t have fund balances any more,
something is going to have to change.
MOTION.
Councilmember Piccolo moved that the 401K program remain the same as
this current year and that a committee be formed to look into this issue. Motion seconded by Councilmember Wheeler and
carried. The funds needed for this
change in the tentative budget, which totals $55,000, will come from reducing
overtime by half and using the refund from the insurance benefits.
MOTION.
Councilmember Nikas moved that the City begin providing a 401K program
for Public Safety employees at an amount to be determined. Motion seconded by Councilmember Denison and
carried. The Council discussed where
the funds would come from for this change which is approximately $25,000. Later in the discussion, the Council felt
that they did not want the budget to be increased and this motion would
increase the budget.
MOTION.
Councilmember Denison moved that the 401K program, which is currently
set at 4.49%, be reduced to 3% or whatever figure works out using the $55,000
to fund a 401K program for all qualified employees, including the Public Safety
Department. Motion seconded by
Councilmember Piccolo. Gary Sonntag
stated that the Public Works Department objects to the motion being made, as
the City employees, other than the Public Safety, are receiving a cut in their
retirement, while the Public Safety is receiving an increase. Councilmember Piccolo agreed and withdrew
his second to the motion. The motion
died for lack of a second.
With respect to Motion #1, the Council recommended
that it be amended to exclude Public Safety Employees.
MOTION.
Councilmember Denison moved that a committee be appointed to look at the
whole retirement program and that Councilmember Tatton be appointed
chairman. Motion seconded by Councilmember
Wheeler and carried.
Meeting adjourned at
8:10 p.m.