AMERICAN FORK CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 WORK SESSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 AMERICAN FORK CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 WORK SESSION MINUTES Members Present: James H. Hadfield Kevin Barnes Carlton Bowen Rob Shelton Jeff Shorter Members Absent: Brad Frost Staff Present: David Bunker Camden Bird Wendelin Knobloch Dan Rojas Nestor Gallo Terilyn Lurker Trent Andrus Kyle Maurer Aaron Brems Kasey Wright Colleen Eggett Derric Rykert Darren Falslev Adam Olsen Mayor Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman City Administrator Assistant to the City Administrator Associate Planner Chief Building Official/Interim Public Works Director City Engineer City Recorder Engineer Assistant Finance Director Fire Chief Legal Counsel Library Director Parks and Recreation Director Police Chief Senior Planner Also Present: Barbara Christiansen, Staci Carroll, Kyle Barratt, Ernie John, John Schiess, Jeff Gibbins, and one additional person. WORK SESSION The purpose of City Work Sessions is to prepare the City Council for upcoming agenda items on future City Council Meeting. The Work Session is not an action item meeting. No one attending the meeting should rely on any discussion or any perceived consensus as action or authorization. These come only from the City Council Meeting. The American Fork City Council met in a work session on Tuesday,, in the City Administration Offices, located at 51 East Main Street, commencing at 3:30 p.m. 1 P a g e

2 1. Discussion on Independent Service Organization (ISO) Ratings. (Requested by Terilyn Lurker, Recorder) Councilman Barnes presented information from three different companies underwriter. Most started with 1.0 as being the middle. As the protection class went up, the 1.0 would higher. This was one way for insurance companies to perform ratings. The better the fire department, the better the claims experience. The claims experience had to do with the amount of money paid out by insurance companies and to a certain extent tied into the first responders. More importantly, the lives of the citizens were better off with the lower ISO ratings. David Bunker asked Councilman Barnes how the information he presented would bring actual savings to homeowners. Councilman Barnes responded that the 1.0 and 2.0 ratings weren t really shown due to those being so rare. However, there was a difference of about $15 between 3.0 and 4.0 as well as 5.0 and 6.0. Councilman Bowen stated that the City had a primary fire truck that was new and a relatively new secondary fire truck. He then asked if the ISO rating had changed due to these additional vehicles. Chief Brems stated the Fire Department was hoping to maintain the previous rating with a new fire truck, which was an ISO rating of 2.0. Chief Brems continued that the purpose of the new truck and new stations was to keep the rating as it was. The safety of the residents was more important than the savings of various business owners. Note: Councilman Shelton arrived at approximately 3:05 pm. Councilman Bowen asked if the City would have lost the 2.0 rating if the fire truck purchases had not occurred, to which Chief Brems answered affirmatively. He said if the City had not updated their fleet and added a fire station they would lose the 2.0 rating. He continued that with ISO there were three major components: the City s water system, the fire department s response time, apparatuses, and fire stations, as well as communications, including but not limited to dispatch. Councilman Bowen stated he understood that stations and fleets were important to an ISO rating, but asked if the City s rating would have dropped immediately if the one purchase had not been made. Chief Brems stated that ISO was graded every three years, which was when the rating would have dropped. Councilman Barnes indicated that the City received notification from ISO also confirming that this would have been the case. Councilman Bowen expressed appreciation for the fact that the fire department was at a 2.0 rating. He continued that his interactions with the fire department had been positive. 2. Discussion on the wage compression study. (Requested by Terilyn Lurker, Recorder). Camden Bird explained that the Council was looking at Part II of the compression analysis done in The goals were still the same and were focused on fair pay, competitive pay, and 2 P a g e

3 employee retention. At the end of 2016, staff had put together a recommendation based off of the compression analysis. The analysis was based on two key inputs: the position, and the employee. A company had been hired to conduct a citywide study. All employees were asked to share their job history and an analysis looked at years of experience and wanted to make sure those years were accurate. Again, the first input was the position and the range of the position was not being greater than a superior s, and how the position fit within an organizational structure. TechNet s compensation model was the basis of this first input. The model was based off a job evaluation and the City compared its positions to similar positions in other cities. Councilman Shelton stated every city was structured differently as they had different job duties. He continued that when drawing comparisons it was hard to get a true and fair assessment across the board. Camden Bird agreed that cities may not match positions. He shared that the City had reached out to other organizations to look at what their ranges were. Those ranges were reviewed and a median of ranges was determined. The City s goal was not to be the most or the least, and what was recommended was accurate and justifiable. David Bunker made comment that the City used TechNet s database and used that information to get a tighter view of a position, so as to evaluate the ranges and look at employee placement within those ranges. Through the TechNet service the City could go through and look at what other organizations were paying for specific positions. Camden Bird stated the selected specific cities were used throughout the study. Councilman Bowen remarked that when looking at houses he didn t want to be compared to the richest house or the cheapest house. He thought City classification was important. Camden Bird continued that once the City had the appropriate pay range, they were able to look at each individual in the position. The employees filled out a job history form where they were able to look at experience and education to figure out where they should have been on the salary scale. Councilman Barnes believed it should have been sent to departments first, not at the end. Councilman Bowen stated that he knew there were a few employees significantly under or over paid. He stated part of this study was to address those specific cases. There may have been a few cases where if the supervisor had been intentionally keeping someone low, it would have been best to go to Human Resources first. Camden Bird explained that there was a formula where degrees would equal experience time; it would push employees further up the pay scale. He stated there was credit given without getting a degree. The proposed solution was to look at the job description and minimum qualifications for that job, which would not be counted toward years in that particular position. The second half 3 P a g e

4 was the work history. For example, Camden Bird used as a case study a hypothetical waste management supervisor position. If all the years were counted, regardless of full-time or part-time work, there would be thirty-one years of experiences. What was seen was that in some scenarios, the person would have been given twenty-seven years. Some positions wouldn t be applicable toward the supervisor position. Camden Bird recommended that the time in the current position, as well as the most applicable experience, was what should be taken into consideration. Councilman Shelton asked that if an individual was fifty-one years old, would they be awarded five years of experience in the range. He said he didn t think the formula added up. He asked that if someone was brought in, such as a lieutenant position for the police department, would they add up the years of service. There was subsequent discussion as to what the range would entail and experience that would accumulate into the hypothetical position. Councilman Bowen stated that it was the market that should determine wages and what people were willing to work for to do that job. There were some jobs anyone would be willing to do, and those positions should be paid less, while other jobs with fewer options or where higher skills were needed should be paid more. Camden Bird agreed and suggested that if the City felt they were losing people to other municipalities, then there would be a need to go back to the market and look at the range. Councilman Bowen said the City recently came through a significant economic downturn causing a number of people to willingly work for less. Councilman Shelton wanted to look into details on specific positions to better understand the issue as a whole. Camden Bird continued that using the same compression analysis, out of the original thirty-six positions, nineteen still required analyses. There were fifty-eight people making up those thirtysix positions. Twenty-seven were recommended for an adjustment. Five ranges moved up and sixteen moved down. Collective years of experience for fifty-eight people went from 956 to 618. Estimated cost went from $131,500 to $62,300. However, the goal wasn t to save money or spend more money; rather, the City wanted to be accurate and fair. If the range went down, no one would have their pay reduced. They would simply have to wait for the market to shift. Councilman Bowen asked if the City had already communicated to employees that there would be a certain adjustment. Camden Bird confirmed that was true. The Council approved Part I last year and Part II was conditional upon funding. Once the Council consented that this wage compression was acceptable, administration would meet with the employees so they accurately understood the situation. Councilman Shelton felt the Council did a bait and switch, which he did not think was fair. He said he would be in favor of continuing with what was done beforehand. David Bunker stated he would argue the opposite. He explained that if the City were to credit all experience involved to 4 P a g e

5 employees, individuals would gain experience in a given job position more quickly. Councilman Shelton believed that a possible third option was to execute Part II, in addition to taking current recommendations into consideration. Councilman Shorter stated that he didn t like that suggestion because they would be giving too much money away that shouldn t be given away. Councilman Shelton cited a number of significant cuts that had taken place. He continued that if there were errors in the past, the City could go back and figure out how to correct those errors by capping them. Councilman Shorter stated the Council had been completely informed of the process. He said that when working for the government, employees can t expect to get everything they want. Mayor Hadfield mentioned a situation in which a specific employee was listing all of their experience, and their supervisor wasn t reviewing the experience listed. An employee in Human Resources was adding up those years and putting an equivalent number to it. The City had found that the process should have always entailed having the supervisor review what was appropriate to the job description and title, and signing off on the form accordingly. Camden Bird stated that while it was not his decision, he agreed that it was perceived the City was taking away items given. However, if the City were to sit down with the employee, he hoped they would see that there was no cutting back. Councilman Shelton stated that whenever he made mistakes in business, he ate that cost. Whatever the process was, it was an error and the City made a commitment to the employees; he didn t feel good about changing what had been previously agreed upon. Councilman Shorter asked how that would affect the employee morale, when some employees received all of their experience credit when they possibly didn t deserve it. David Bunker suggested the Council discuss the issue further in a closed session. Councilman Bowen cited having never asked for names in the past. The Council s purpose was to increase morale. However, if the Council was to go back and change what they told employees, he wanted to know who would be impacted. There would have to have a strong case as to why the employee wouldn t get what they were previously promised. 3. Discussion on water policy ordinances. (Requested by Terilyn Lurker, Recorder) It was noted that Jeff Gittens, the City s legal counsel concerning water rights, was present at the meeting. David Bunker stated that one of the reasons the Council needed to take a look at this ordinance was that the City s Code was several years old and did not take into account the changes that the City had gone through, namely the installation of the pressurized irrigation system. He wanted to 5 P a g e

6 review each of the proposed policy changes, and said input was received from several people regarding how to make this ordinance all-inclusive. Councilman Bowen stated that water in Utah was a precious commodity. He said the State had a legal system in place for water rights that included well permits, water shares, etc. He understood there was an economic value to water that could be traded. He was interested to hear as to why some water was worth more. David Bunker stated the City wasn t trying to set pricing with the ordinance. He said all water was not created equal; some water could be used only at certain times. Jeff Gittens explained that the City was only indicating that the developers had to turn over a certain amount of water, not a certain price. Councilman Bowen believed water was water, however, he stated he was not closed minded. He simply wanted to hear why the City should make changes to the ordinance. He also wanted to know if this made the City significantly different from others. Jeff Gittens commented that when someone wanted to develop land, water was required in order to service the development. Echoing Mr. Bunker s previous remark, he stated that not all water was created equal regarding usability by the City. For example, the American Fork irrigation shares could be readily used in the City s secondary system. The goal was to clarify how much water the developer would be required to give. Councilman Barnes brought up a hypothetical situation where Johnny had five acres, but no water shares. This being the case (hypothetically), Councilman Barnes then posed the following question: how would he give water shares if he didn t have any? Councilman Barnes was told Johnny would have to buy the necessary water shares to meet the needs of the development. Ernie John addressed the Council, saying there were two kinds of water: water rights (well water) and slough water (handled by the State). There were also water shares through an irrigation company. The water rights had a cost associated with them and the water shares were not valued equally with different irrigation companies. The developer would be told how many acre feet were necessary for a development and it was up to them to supply that need. David Bunker brought attention to the title of the ordinance. It should have read conveyance of water, not conveyance of water rights. Councilman Shorter brought up water rights associated with the Colorado River and asked what would happen if the river ran slow. He wondered if everyone s rights would then be cut back. He was informed this would be the case. 6 P a g e

7 Jeff Gittens said the proposed changes were meant to clarify the ordinance. He explained that for residential uses, the State typically had an amount needed that the City was required to meet. One question was whether or not the Council wanted to change the amounts necessary for multi-family dwellings so they were more consistent. The goal was to define numbers which best represented what was actually used. Jeff Gittens and David Bunker both recommended that consistent requirements be implemented. Councilman Bowen stated he was hesitant to lower the amount of water required. He explained that Lehi had huge water users come in, thereby causing their City to experience water shortages. As growth occurred, the City could be faced with situations where they might not have enough water if the City doesn t require enough of developers. Jeff Gittens stated there were requirements for commercial users as well. The City could compare what similar stores and businesses used in order to determine the required amounts. He then reviewed a section that was added in order to allow changes in use. If a use changed where more water was needed, the City could require more water rights. Councilman Bowen had a question regarding the difference between ground water versus subsurface sources. Jeff Gittens replied the City was conforming to State terminology on the matter. Councilman Bowen asked for more clarification in regards to specialty warranty deeds versus warranty deeds. It was stated that a warranty deed was the best for the City because the water was guaranteed. There was subsequent discussion on the matter, and Councilman Bowen stated that he didn t want to be restrictive. Councilman Shorter indicated that while he wanted a warranty in place, it didn t necessarily need to be a special warranty. Councilman Shelton stated that the City wanted to make sure they had water; he asked the other Councilmembers why the City wouldn t want to have double coverage. Councilman Bowen said he wanted the Council to be broad. It was said that there was risk involved with quit claim deeds; if the City didn t have the water they would still need to take care of its citizens. Councilman Bowen stated that he didn t want to do a one size fits all with the inherent limitations that came with doing so. Councilman Shelton asked that the Council to question who they were representing: developers or the citizens. He preferred that the City be double insured. Councilman Barnes said he would also prefer to err on the side of caution. Councilman Bowen was hesitant to limit what water rights the City accepted. Ernie John stated that in this way the developer would be doing their due diligence. 7 P a g e

8 Jeff Gittens briefly clarified several technical terms within the ordinance. David Bunker said that in regards to Provo River, the City wanted to be more specific on what they could use. Jeff Gittens indicated that his expertise was water rights not shares; he recommended the City consult with John Schiess concerning water shares. David Bunker stated Pleasant Grove irrigation wouldn t deliver water to American Fork anymore. The City couldn t take any more Pleasant Grove shares as there was no way to use that water. If there was good water, the City didn t want to turn it away. Jeff Gittens said based on the current ordinance, the City wanted the property owner to cap the well, not the City. He then asked the Council if they wanted sole discretion of water rights, or if they wanted this responsibility to be delegated. Councilman Shelton said according to the ordinance the City Council was to have discretion; therefore, they should be able to review water permits. Councilman Bowen wondered how much more restrictive American Fork was being compared to other cities. Jeff Gittens replied that the proposed changes were fairly standard among cities. Ernie John commented that this proposal was less restrictive than Highland. David Bunker continued discussing surface water rights. He explained that the City was expanding their ability to take in other water. However, there were times a cost for conveyance could occur, in which case they would need to work with the applicant in paying the conveyance charge. He then posed the question that if there was a large parcel getting annexed into the City, and there was no indication as to what would happen with the property in question, would the City remove or reduce the fifty acre requirement. Mayor Hadfield cited a case where the City had agreed to defer water rights until development was finished. David Bunker asked if the City should strike the fifty acres and be more flexible. In response to a comment from Mr. Gittens, Mayor Hadfield explained that before an individual could get a building permit the water would be purveyed. Jeff Gittens stated that a section was added regarding the provision of water banking. He explained that water banking happened whether the City liked it or not. The City could not give back water according to the State Constitution, so if a developer gave too much water the City would have to maintain it. David Bunker mentioned that there had been developers approach the City regarding water banking. Jeff Gittens noted that water banking could be transferred and credits could be given to developers throughout the development process. David Bunker stated that the policy would outline water banking rules, the process of which was briefly reviewed. It was noted that Nestor Gallo monitored the water shares. 8 P a g e

9 Councilman Barnes had a question regarding acceptability of water banking between the City and other parties. He wondered if it should be acceptable to both. David Bunker replied it would be acceptable to both parties; otherwise, the other parties would not sign. 4. Discussion on business licensing fees. (Requested by Terilyn Lurker, Recorder) Using the aid of a Power Point presentation, Terilyn Lurker reviewed the business licensing fees and procedures. The points of discussion were as follows: Why do we license businesses? o Safety Through licensing, businesses are inspected to verify they have met all fire and safety requirements o Zoning compliance The Zoning Officer verifies that the business is allowed in the zone. o State and Federal requirements The Business License Official checks to make sure the business has the proper state and federal requirements. (IE: Tax ID, business Name Registration, Federal ID Number) o Building code compliance To verify the building the business is operating out of meets all building code requirements. o City Code Chapter (B) requires that every person engaged in business in the city shall secure a business license. This is not unique to American Fork. All cities require business licenses both commercial and home occupations. o The City is required to issue a certificate of license to each business. This is done when the license is initially granted and again each year. Once a business renewal fee is paid, a certificate of license is given to the business. o City Code Chapter allows for the assessment of fees to cover the costs associated with processing the license. o City Code requires that a business license be displayed in a visible and conspicuous place during business hours. If a City representative enters the business and does not see this license, they are to report to the City that the business failed to obtain a business license. Process to obtain license o Current: Fill out application Zoning clearance at Public Works Building clearance (if required) at Public Works Police Department clearance for home occupations only Fire inspections Turn in application and pay fees at administration; the application is then processed by the Business License Official. 9 P a g e

10 o Proposed: Fill out application online and submit The application is processed internally so the applicant does not have to go to different buildings. The necessary clearances will be obtained and forwarded on to the Business License Official who will process the application and inform the business owner of approval and collect fees. Current and proposed fees o Currently, there are only business license application fees, which include all initial inspections o We are proposing an Annual Processing fee for all businesses, and only business license application fees for commercial businesses and home occupations with impacts to the neighborhood. o Food Trucks are not required to have a business license if they have a license from another city; they will, however, have a processing fee. o Types of fees (current/proposed) Annual Processing Fee for all businesses (commercial, home occupations with impacts, food trucks): NA/$40 Annual Processing Fee Home Occupation (no impact, no certificate) Annual Processing Fee Home Occupation (no impact, certificate): NA/$0- $10 Commercial Business License Application Fee: $200/$160 Food Truck Vendors Business License Application fee (if they need to obtain their initial license with a city): $200/$160 Home occupations o Home occupations have a separate form that needs to be filled out. This form will contain a checklist of items to indicate whether or not the business has impacts to the city. If so, no fee will be assessed unless they request a certificate of license. Comparisons were presented including: Highland, Lindon, Orem, Cedar Hills, Pleasant Grove, Lehi and Saratoga Springs Councilman Barnes asked about commercial business licenses. He stated that some cities did not charge for business licenses if a commercial business was required to hold other types of licenses. One such example was an insurance agent. Mayor Hadfield stated there were inspections for safety reasons, and Councilman Barnes further reiterated his previous point. In response to a question regarding whether or not Councilman Barnes was speaking specifically to insurance agents, or any type of commercial business, Councilman Barnes replied that anyone who was required to hold a State license should not be required to pay an additional fee to the City. David Bunker interjected that there was a fee specific to the City. Councilman Barnes indicated there were several, separate businesses in his building that were required to obtain separate 10 P a g e

11 licenses. There were retail businesses that paid the same amount as he paid; foot traffic was different from business to business. David Bunker stated some cities had different fees based on employee count. It was noted that one business in Salt Lake County paid $5,000 each year because of the number of employees working for them. The City s fees were middle to low compared to other cities, however, the City s food truck fee was highest in comparison to other cities. The biggest complaint received from businesses was not the cost; rather, it was not having a way to pay online. Councilman Barnes posed the question that if he had just one customer visit his home, would he be affected by the guidelines outlined in City Code. He was informed this was the case. Mayor Hadfield commented that if neighbors were to complain, the City would hear about it. Councilman Bowen said would like the signage on the vehicle stricken. Staff explained that if business did not normally take place at a residence, they would still be charged the business licensing fee. After further review of the presentation detailed above, David Bunker stated that the staff wanted to streamline process online. Mayor Hadfield stated that Governor Herbert was in favor of making businesses more inviting. He commented that perhaps the Governor needed to be made aware of what the counties were charging in business licensing fees. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:47 p.m. Terilyn Lurker, City Recorder 11 P a g e