Minutes of The Special Price City Council Meeting
City Hall: Price, Utah
May 15, 2000, 6:00 p.m.
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
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.