[0:02] Okay, let's call to order the Alpine
[0:05] City Council work session for Tuesday,
[0:08] June 30th at 12:00 p.m.
[0:11] We will start with the roll call
[0:13] starting from Councilman Remler and end
[0:16] with Councilman Hannemann.
[0:18] >> Brent Remler, present.
[0:20] >> Jessica Smith, present.
[0:21] >> Sarah Blackwell, present.
[0:23] >> Andrew Young, present.
[0:25] >> Christie Hannemann, present.
[0:27] >> Okay, we'll proceed with the prayer from
[0:31] Brent Remler and a pledge by Jessica
[0:32] Smith.
[0:35] » Father in heaven, we're grateful for
[0:36] this very beautiful day, for the cool
[0:39] weather. We pray that it will help
[0:41] those
[0:42] fighting the fires throughout Utah and
[0:44] other areas nearby.
[0:46] We are grateful for
[0:48] the blessings to live in Alpine and
[0:52] be associated with the our friends and
[0:54] neighbors here in Alpine.
[0:56] We pray for those fighting the fires and
[0:59] those addressing our public safety on a
[1:00] daily basis. We pray for our US
[1:03] military.
[1:04] We are grateful for the freedoms we have
[1:05] in this country. We look forward to
[1:07] celebrating
[1:08] our Independence Day
[1:10] and our 250th anniversary. Please guide
[1:12] us in our role in the City Council and
[1:15] please bless
[1:16] our residents. In the name of Jesus
[1:18] Christ. Amen.
[1:18] >> Amen.
[1:20] >> Stand for the pledge.
[1:24] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[1:28] United States of America. And to the
[1:30] republic for which it stands, one nation
[1:34] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:37] justice for all.
[1:42] » Okay.
[1:44] Let's start with our work session, which
[1:47] is the compensation for our staff for
[1:51] Alpine City.
[1:57] » I don't really have The council asked
[1:59] for this work session and we provided,
[2:03] you know, the information in the last
[2:04] packet. So, I don't really have a
[2:06] presentation or anything. It's really
[2:07] just work session for the council.
[2:12] » Did anyone know
[2:13] Anyone want to start Oh, I did want to
[2:15] address um So, Brent, you talked about
[2:18] that I um misquoted the salary for um
[2:22] Cedar Hills and I did. It but it was
[2:24] based on the um
[2:26] the wage study that we did.
[2:29] And when um Shane looked into it and
[2:31] went into Technet
[2:32] So, Technet is based on
[2:35] whenever and whatever information they
[2:38] load onto
[2:39] this
[2:40] Is it It's statewide, isn't it?
[2:42] >> It's whoever subscribes to it.
[2:44] >> Right. That's in our state. And so, they
[2:47] put that in and they put the number in
[2:49] wrong. So, when the guy did the salary
[2:52] study, I was quoting you what I had just
[2:54] seen in the salary study that this is
[2:56] what it is.
[2:57] Um but since then, I asked the mayor of
[3:01] Cedar Hills to send their latest thing.
[3:04] And that's how it was off. So, it was
[3:05] based off of the hourly salary that they
[3:08] put in for the actual average salary,
[3:12] which is usually their salary. But they
[3:15] had input it wrong.
[3:17] >> And it's
[3:18] cities input the information.
[3:20] >> Yeah, not the guy. He just took the
[3:21] information that the cities put in.
[3:23] >> Right. And it could have and and I don't
[3:25] know, maybe perhaps it included because
[3:27] he gets a vehicle allowance. That's just built into his pay.
[3:32] >> It's not. It was just his straight
[3:34] salary and they did it wrong. And it was
[3:36] weird like they
[3:37] I think it's just an error on their part
[3:39] cuz they didn't put the actual average
[3:41] salary. They did
[3:44] the They did the median salary, but how
[3:46] do you have a median salary? How do you
[3:48] do a median when there's only one? A
[3:50] median is multiple data points. It has
[3:52] the most data points for, you know, the
[3:57] » a clerical error.
[4:00] Cuz it doesn't make or it's or they
[4:02] didn't understand what median was. Maybe
[4:03] they thought that was the average. I
[4:05] don't know.
[4:09] » Would you like me to start?
[4:11] >> Surely.
[4:11] >> gave the prayer.
[4:13] So, I just want to clarify for the
[4:14] public, for the employees, um
[4:17] one of the main reasons I chose to agree
[4:20] with tabling the issue about wages was
[4:23] because
[4:25] in our my first year of service in 2024
[4:29] for the 2025 budget year, we kind of had
[4:31] a very last minute
[4:33] um notice of of a much more significant
[4:36] raise in a couple of positions, the
[4:38] executive positions, than were expected.
[4:41] And so, I thought we had clarified that
[4:43] we were hoping we would like to see in
[4:44] the future that not happen again.
[4:47] And then, with this latest round, we
[4:49] knew that the 5% in the tentative budget
[4:52] was a placeholder because that's what
[4:53] the police and fire got.
[4:55] And we were waiting the Monday before
[4:58] the week of our meeting, so 8 days
[5:00] before our meeting, Chris and I met with
[5:02] Carl and Shane and went over some of the benefit comparisons that
[5:07] they've been working on, Carl has been
[5:08] working on. I really appreciate that.
[5:10] We're just trying to make informed
[5:11] decisions on behalf of the Alpine
[5:13] residents.
[5:14] And um
[5:16] Carl said she still hadn't canvassed all
[5:18] the mayors and didn't have her proposal
[5:20] yet. So, she said she would get it to us
[5:22] as soon as possible.
[5:23] And then on Friday, we got the packet. I
[5:25] was out of town at a family wedding and
[5:27] just didn't have time to look at it. So,
[5:29] I wasn't going to be able to look at it
[5:30] until Monday.
[5:32] Um and that had a proposal of 5% without
[5:35] any
[5:36] analysis about why 5%. And I think just
[5:40] I think the taxpayers and the city
[5:41] council I've looked at I've looked at
[5:43] minutes from other city council meetings
[5:45] in the last couple of days as I've
[5:47] now had the time to look through this
[5:49] more thoroughly like I think I should in
[5:51] my role on the city council. I think I
[5:53] owe that to our residents. That's what I
[5:56] put in my
[5:57] campaign that that's what I would do, do
[5:58] my very best to make the most informed
[6:01] decisions possible.
[6:03] And um so we got the 5% without any
[6:06] justification. So I was calling the
[6:08] other council members cuz we're trying
[6:09] to prepare not just for this issue but
[6:11] all the issues on the agenda and in just
[6:14] a couple of uh two short days for me
[6:16] anyway.
[6:17] And uh we're all kind of feeling the
[6:19] same way in the same boat and we never
[6:21] heard from Carla, the mayor, about
[6:24] the analysis that was done, the the the
[6:27] reason behind the proposal.
[6:29] So just to make perfectly clear as a
[6:31] former I wrote I wore my ex-Fed shirt
[6:33] today.
[6:34] I went did a presentation at River
[6:36] Meadows last night about my career and
[6:38] pulled this out of my drawer.
[6:40] But I fully support paying our
[6:43] employees, our fire police and fire and
[6:45] all of our city employees a very fair
[6:47] wage and providing compe- competitive
[6:50] benefits all those things.
[6:53] So
[6:54] I talked to Chrissy the last because she
[6:56] works and Chrissy and I spoke Monday
[6:58] evening and I said, "Hey, we still
[7:00] haven't gotten any information from the
[7:02] mayor.
[7:03] Maybe
[7:05] if you you were I think Chrissy said she
[7:07] was going to be talking to the mayor so
[7:08] I said you might want to ask her about
[7:09] that. So I think it was
[7:11] I saw the email on Tuesday morning the
[7:13] mayor sent out her email um late Monday
[7:16] night saying that she proposed a 4.2%
[7:21] cost of living increase based on the
[7:24] last 12-month consumer price index
[7:27] and
[7:29] .8%
[7:30] uh for performance-based bonuses based
[7:35] on
[7:35] annual performance reviews, which I
[7:37] really like that idea. I like the idea
[7:39] of setting aside a certain amount of
[7:41] money to
[7:43] for the supervisors to review
[7:47] performance reviews, see the employees
[7:49] who have
[7:50] um
[7:51] kind of kind of go gone above and beyond
[7:53] or performing well and and issue
[7:55] performance incentives or bonuses.
[7:58] So, the main reason I agreed with my
[8:01] fellow council members, three of them
[8:03] anyway, to table it was I just felt like
[8:06] we owed it to the residents to make sure
[8:09] we understood
[8:11] the purpose of the raise. And we've had
[8:12] some back and forth
[8:14] emails and sharing of information over
[8:16] the last several days hopefully to make
[8:18] this more productive.
[8:21] So, again, that's just the the
[8:22] reasoning.
[8:23] And Shane sent me I I messed up and
[8:27] forgot that he'd sent me the last 10
[8:28] years of reviews.
[8:30] But as part of the email he forwarded
[8:32] from last year,
[8:34] he said, "In making recommendations for
[8:36] wage increases, we look at several
[8:37] different sources of data, including the
[8:39] CPI for Western region,
[8:42] URS Cola,
[8:44] data from Technology Net,
[8:46] review of a survey circulated through
[8:47] the city managers in the state, and
[8:49] checking to see what other cities are
[8:51] paying for positions. The mayor has also
[8:53] discussed wage increases with other
[8:55] local mayors, and has shared that info
[8:57] with me." So, that was 2025.
[8:59] Um I think that's a great
[9:01] basis for doing these analyses these
[9:04] analyses to help us make informed
[9:06] decisions. It doesn't look like that was
[9:08] done this year. I asked for
[9:09] clarification yesterday.
[9:12] Um and maybe you're planning to tell me
[9:13] today whether
[9:14] it was more than just the CPI
[9:17] and more than just the review of mayors.
[9:19] But if that that was it, that's fine.
[9:21] That's what we have to look on. So, we
[9:22] all kind of did some independent
[9:24] research, found out that the Utah state
[9:26] uh wage increase for all state employees
[9:28] is 2 and 1/2%.
[9:30] The survey that the mayor provided nine
[9:34] there were nine respondents. I asked
[9:35] yesterday if she'd heard from American
[9:36] Fork.
[9:37] So, that would be the 10th. But, without
[9:39] having American Fork's data,
[9:42] the average of the nine that responded
[9:44] was just over 4.55%.
[9:48] But, what I don't know, does that does
[9:50] that include bonuses? Do they give
[9:51] bonuses in those nine cities?
[9:54] Um cuz I I want to I want to pay our
[9:57] employees a fair wage. I want to retain
[9:59] them. I want to show them our our
[10:01] appreciation.
[10:02] I just feel that we can have a better
[10:04] system. I think we've made improvements.
[10:07] In our my first year, we were told we
[10:08] can't even know
[10:10] the salaries and compensation of our
[10:13] benefits, and that's been re-
[10:15] resolved.
[10:16] And then, um
[10:18] just hope hopefully you can move them
[10:20] forward.
[10:21] We can just have
[10:23] the the pro- proposals ahead of time and
[10:27] a more thorough analysis. I looked at
[10:29] American Fork's
[10:30] budget. I grant that it's a much bigger
[10:31] city with a much bigger staff.
[10:34] And their
[10:35] financial report was very robust. I
[10:38] think Chrissy would be a good thing for
[10:39] you to look at as part of your citizen
[10:41] finance committee.
[10:43] >> So, was it more than just the CPI and
[10:46] the wages of American
[10:47] >> did get a response from American Fork.
[10:50] Their um it was not from Dave. I spoke
[10:54] with Dave and the mayor the previous
[10:56] week, and they kept saying
[10:58] nothing's locked down, nothing's locked
[10:59] down. So, I didn't have data for them. I
[11:02] finally got a hold of one of their city
[11:03] council people, and they said this is
[11:05] how they decided to do it.
[11:08] They do an annual um
[11:10] wage study, and they make adjustments,
[11:13] and then they're doing a 3% increase.
[11:15] So,
[11:16] >> 3% with a potential to do an adjustment
[11:18] later.
[11:19] >> Up to 3%. No, well, no, the adjustment
[11:21] is going to happen. They do the
[11:22] adjustment every year
[11:24] on salaries,
[11:26] and um
[11:27] they were saying that the adjustment
[11:29] could be zero and up to 3%, but no more
[11:32] than 3% and then they do an additional
[11:34] 3%.
[11:36] But she like they don't know exactly
[11:38] what that cuz I'm like well do you have
[11:40] a total percentage? Do you know how
[11:42] that's broken up? And she's like I don't
[11:43] have that.
[11:45] >> Well, it sounds like
[11:47] cities [clears throat] have different
[11:48] ways to do this. So hopefully
[11:51] um our our executive staff can come up
[11:54] with something that's more consistent.
[11:56] Um
[11:56] cuz the first my first two years serving
[11:58] it they were called merit raises.
[12:00] And then this year, at least that's what
[12:02] was on the budget the the final budgets.
[12:05] And then this year it was cola. Can I
[12:07] just
[12:08] I like the idea. I really think
[12:10] again, exped
[12:12] I know Chrissy sometimes is frustrated
[12:13] that I use the example of my ex what the
[12:16] federal government does.
[12:18] But they
[12:19] we can't just base it on cost of living
[12:21] because there is value added for time in
[12:24] service, getting experience, and to
[12:26] doing better in your roles. And that's
[12:28] what the federal government has. It has
[12:29] a grade and step process where if you're
[12:31] in a position, you're at a certain
[12:32] grade, and you get steps. The after the
[12:35] first year
[12:36] you get a step increase. The second and
[12:38] third you get a step increase. Then it's
[12:39] every two years. So it's not every year.
[12:41] As you get more experienced, the steps
[12:42] are fewer. They're they're more spread
[12:44] out. And then your for your years 8, 9,
[12:47] and 10, it's every three years you get a
[12:49] step increase. So on those off years,
[12:52] you just get the cola whatever the
[12:54] president recommends and Congress
[12:56] approves. Which during the 20
[12:59] 10 to 2019 before COVID, it was meager
[13:02] as you saw in my in my
[13:04] and I was capped out.
[13:06] So I just got that cola. All right.
[13:08] Sorry, Chrissy. Are you going to
[13:10] >> Oh, I I can't see anyone. Um but I did
[13:13] want to review the information. I think
[13:15] this was a work session.
[13:17] So I want to make sure that we did cover
[13:18] the information that was provided to us.
[13:21] Especially the the the work um
[13:27] >> So I guess my question was was it was it
[13:28] just it was just those two things you
[13:29] considered? In proposing the 4.2
[13:32] >> can we can we back up and just
[13:33] understand I mean we can get to that but
[13:36] I would like to cover
[13:38] I don't like I feel like that's going to
[13:40] be our final discussion but the um wage
[13:43] study that broke out um Alpine City
[13:46] compared to other peer groups.
[13:50] Um, I I have it up on my computer but I
[13:52] can't screen share.
[13:54] So I'm happy to just talk about it if
[13:57] you're familiar with it.
[13:58] >> Well,
[13:59] my understanding of the work session was
[14:01] that we all now had time to digest all
[14:05] the information that we were given and
[14:07] then go
[14:08] and
[14:10] confirm I mean we just found out that
[14:12] some of the information that was um
[14:14] given about the wage in another city was
[14:17] not accurate so so we do want to include
[14:21] the information that was given to us but
[14:23] that's not all this work session will
[14:25] do.
[14:26] Uh it's a work session and time for
[14:28] council
[14:30] to discuss you know what we have found
[14:33] now that we've had a few days to look at
[14:35] it and understand
[14:37] um the impact you know basically the the
[14:41] items that the motion makes which is um
[14:43] you know
[14:45] what's our compensation philosophy?
[14:46] What's market comparisons? What's
[14:48] internal equity look like?
[14:51] >> Exactly. That's
[14:53] >> so that's uh
[14:54] >> That's I feel like we're overstepping
[14:56] all of those things and getting to the
[14:58] final conclusion. If we could just go
[15:01] back to what the motion was cuz I feel
[15:04] like the wage study has uh the front
[15:06] page of it talks about what's our
[15:08] philosophy
[15:10] and um I think maybe we could at least
[15:14] um
[15:15] say what what
[15:17] uh
[15:19] what our philosophy is and then another
[15:22] thing we wanted to talk about was they
[15:24] did the whole benefits. So, to me
[15:26] there's like two different pieces. One
[15:28] is compensation, and one is benefits,
[15:30] and then we can look at the total
[15:32] compensation, which is what where the
[15:34] discussion is going. And this fixation
[15:37] on a percentage is very limited um cuz
[15:41] we're not talking about everything yet.
[15:44] So, I I guess I just wanted to
[15:46] talk about that in total because
[15:50] it's just one column on that huge
[15:52] spreadsheet of all the impact of
[15:55] compensation.
[15:57] >> And that was the wow?
[16:00] >> Yes, the very first page it if you I
[16:03] have it pulled up in Excel.
[16:06] And it talks about the philosophy, the
[16:07] compensation philosophy.
[16:09] >> And that compensation philosophy was
[16:11] dictated by
[16:14] >> No, it's not dictated.
[16:16] >> Oh.
[16:16] >> No,
[16:17] if let's we could read it together, or
[16:19] if you haven't read it yet, I could
[16:21] summarize it if that'd be helpful.
[16:23] If you haven't read this page
[16:25] specifically cuz I do think it gets to
[16:28] some of why we have some disconnects.
[16:32] Is um
[16:33] I'll just read it while you're looking
[16:34] for it.
[16:35] >> Yeah,
[16:36] well, why don't you read it, Chrissy?
[16:38] That'd be fine.
[16:38] >> Okay.
[16:40] Yeah, I think hold on, I got to shrink
[16:42] it so I can still see what you guys are
[16:43] seeing.
[16:44] >> Is that under the introduction tab?
[16:46] >> I can read it if you want, Chrissy.
[16:49] >> I know I got it. It's fine.
[16:51] So, I'll just summarize it cuz I've read
[16:53] it over a couple times. I said that in
[16:56] the beginning it talks about there's a
[16:57] debate in with the way to compensate
[17:00] people about whether or not it should be
[17:02] market-driven or market-based solely, or
[17:05] you could also have um classifications,
[17:08] which is somewhat what um Brent refers
[17:11] to, and which I have seen in larger
[17:13] organizations,
[17:15] and um where the job is classed in a
[17:17] certain way like based on the skill set
[17:19] that you need. And then based on your
[17:22] experience it there's, um,
[17:24] steps up, however you want to call them.
[17:27] And then they that's to create equity
[17:29] among, um,
[17:32] among the employees. So, you know, if
[17:34] you have more responsibility, more skill
[17:35] set, you're paid appropriately, more
[17:38] experience, that type of thing.
[17:40] And then there's it goes on for a couple
[17:42] paragraphs which, um, I won't go over. I
[17:45] just want to get to the conclusion which
[17:47] it says that, um, that to subscribe to
[17:50] any approach to the total exclusion of
[17:53] the other ultimately results in
[17:55] incongruity, meaning it's not maybe one
[17:58] is not pay paying attention to the
[18:01] market.
[18:02] And so, like when we had with with our,
[18:05] um, public safety, we had fallen behind
[18:07] the market and so we had to do some
[18:09] catch up because people, um, were we
[18:12] weren't able to compete. But then on the
[18:14] other hand, we do appreciate the equity
[18:17] among the employees. So, it's good to
[18:19] have some type of classification system.
[18:22] So, that was kind of the basis for this
[18:23] whole, um, wow thing that was given was
[18:27] to tell us like, here's the market and
[18:30] they tried their best to do a
[18:32] classification system.
[18:34] But because, um, we have such a small
[18:36] staff,
[18:37] we many of our staff wear multiple hats.
[18:40] So, there's not always an equivalent
[18:42] position out there in the marketplace.
[18:44] But they did their best and it was, um,
[18:46] a good effort. So, I don't know if you
[18:49] want to go, uh, if anyone has any more
[18:52] to say about that. Um, I just thought
[18:54] that was a really good introduction to,
[18:57] um, what we're trying to accomplish here
[18:59] is is both market and merit, so to
[19:03] speak.
[19:04] Does anyone
[19:05] >> So,
[19:05] >> I can't see you so I
[19:07] >> So, what I took away from this and and the
[19:11] overall conclusion.
[19:13] um,
[19:14] >> I can see you now.
[19:15] >> Yeah, the overall conclusion aligns that
[19:17] we don't just want to look at one data
[19:19] point. We also need to look at merit.
[19:21] Um which we haven't set up a clear
[19:23] process for.
[19:25] And so um
[19:27] the other
[19:29] I think not misleading, but what this
[19:31] didn't capture in the WOW study is it
[19:34] didn't compare apples to apples. And so
[19:37] I sent out an email right before the
[19:39] meeting
[19:40] that was just an overview of cities of
[19:44] the fourth class. And that's really what
[19:46] we're looking at because cities of the
[19:48] fourth class
[19:49] also have employees that wear multiple
[19:52] hats. So that's not a unique
[19:55] situation that we find ourselves here in Alpine. That's actually fairly common
[20:00] for cities of our size. And so
[20:03] um
[20:05] while the WOW was a great framework, it
[20:08] was way too broad
[20:10] when I was considering it for
[20:13] the city of Alpine.
[20:16] >> So you So if you go to the second page,
[20:17] the responsibility page,
[20:19] like I feel like it's very scientific. I
[20:22] mean, I don't I don't know why Anyway, I
[20:24] thought it was very helpful.
[20:26] So this was just like they tried to come
[20:29] up with some factors that were unique to
[20:32] us. And
[20:34] then job knowledge and like they So I
[20:36] they do hundreds of these. So I have a
[20:39] feeling
[20:40] over time they've you know, perfected
[20:42] it. Not Not that it's perfect. But they
[20:45] do
[20:46] um have a lot of factors in here to come
[20:48] up with like the equity side of it. And
[20:51] then when they If you go over to the um
[20:54] the tab that Let me tell you the title
[20:57] of that tab.
[20:59] Um Oh, keep going. Sorry. I'm not I only have Let's see. I'm going to It's
[21:06] called the Where is it?
[21:09] Uh minimum practices is the first one.
[21:12] So, this is how do we compare to minimum
[21:14] and this is like it's taking a huge
[21:17] database of looking at local
[21:20] um cities and what do they pay for like
[21:23] a public works technician, a planner, a
[21:25] city engineer because those are pretty
[21:28] defined roles, I feel like in a city,
[21:31] and some other things um where where
[21:33] like the city treasurer {slash} office
[21:35] manager {slash} HR {slash} payroll
[21:38] admin, that probably isn't exactly
[21:41] nobody wears exactly those same hats at
[21:43] any other city, but that's all factored
[21:46] in into the job value. So, there was a
[21:48] lot of work that went into that one
[21:50] number of um I don't know if you're on
[21:53] the minimum practices page. So, to me it
[21:55] was very scientific. I'm a numbers
[21:57] person, so I did like enjoy seeing all
[22:00] the numbers and gaining meaning from
[22:02] them. So, anyways, Alpine City's below
[22:05] the survey minimum, the midpoint we're
[22:08] below the um the survey included all the
[22:11] cities except the largest two in the
[22:13] county or
[22:14] a good cross-section of cities in the
[22:16] county.
[22:17] And then um the next one
[22:20] is the maximum practices and we're still
[22:22] below.
[22:23] So, I thought it was insightful to see
[22:26] that if you look at like the market is
[22:30] showing and then if you go to the Alpine
[22:31] City practices
[22:33] tab the green is um that that's the
[22:37] maximum and then midpoint and below. So,
[22:40] there's a a few employees that are
[22:41] getting paid far below that I even our
[22:44] minimum and then a a couple of outliers
[22:47] that are way up high on the um on their
[22:50] experience range, but for the most part
[22:53] like we're we're grouped down between
[22:55] the 5 to 10 years of experience and
[22:58] salary range. It's not um overly
[23:02] worrisome to me
[23:04] any of this. It looks like everybody's
[23:06] in a good range except maybe there's a
[23:08] couple employees that look like they're
[23:10] below. And maybe there's a reason for
[23:12] that. And then the survey range is
[23:14] looking at all the cities, not just
[23:16] Alpine.
[23:17] Um, the survey range comparison, I I can
[23:20] see the people watching the meeting but
[23:22] I I don't know what your screen is, so
[23:24] I hope I'm you're following this.
[23:27] Um, and then it went on with an
[23:28] implementation plan, a pay plan and
[23:30] implementation plan.
[23:32] Down to the dollars, you know, who who
[23:34] would need, um, to have their
[23:37] compensation adjusted to be equitable
[23:41] both among other cities, but also, um,
[23:46] you know, among Alpine. So, I thought
[23:48] the wage I thought the the document was
[23:51] really good and it sort of supported the
[23:54] fact that, um,
[23:56] we're just on par with the other cities
[23:59] and when when the mayor went and
[24:01] collected percentages or, um,
[24:04] when I think we started, uh,
[24:07] you read the email,
[24:09] Brent, from Shane that talked about they
[24:12] look at CPI and Cola and a couple of
[24:14] factors to come up with a percentage. It
[24:17] gave me a lot of confidence that even
[24:19] without
[24:21] all the data points in the past, we we
[24:24] are, um,
[24:26] we've done a good job because we're not
[24:29] too high, we're not too low across the
[24:31] board, we're right where we should be.
[24:33] And so, there is
[24:35] even though we didn't have the data to
[24:37] support it, it was good to see that
[24:39] we're, um, in the median range where we
[24:41] wanted to be, at least with salaries.
[24:44] Now, like I said, there's two parts of
[24:46] the discussion. One is comp salary
[24:48] compensation or wages and salaries, and
[24:51] the other is just the benefits. So,
[24:53] that's my two cents. I felt like this
[24:56] was a validation that our employees are
[24:59] paid fairly and not only just for the
[25:02] market but for the work that they
[25:03] actually do.
[25:05] So, that's my takeaway from looking
[25:07] through all these spreadsheets
[25:09] um all the tabs and going through it
[25:11] very carefully which I had no time to do
[25:14] prior to the our meeting on Tuesday. So,
[25:16] in the interim I have taken the time and
[25:19] so this has been really good and I I
[25:21] asked somebody who's done these type of
[25:23] things before and they said it's good to
[25:25] do this like
[25:27] about for every 3 to 5 years. 5 years
[25:29] would probably be good. After that then
[25:31] they're sort of out of date. So, I I
[25:34] think it was really helpful for me to
[25:35] see this.
[25:37] Um and that those were my comments about
[25:39] the this particular study. And I I found
[25:43] it to be very valuable and
[25:45] a confirmation like I said. That that's
[25:47] my input.
[25:49] >> Yes, so I know um Jessica wants to just
[25:52] do straight salary and she just took um
[25:55] the city administrator it looks like and
[25:56] not everybody else but when you look at
[25:59] that it doesn't have all the other data.
[26:01] Like if you read the study it goes into
[26:04] it and how they are
[26:06] um
[26:07] as Chrissy explained because our jobs
[26:09] are so unique I don't know anybody else
[26:12] on that other list of the nine cities
[26:15] where their city administrator is also
[26:17] holding two other major responsibilities
[26:20] also.
[26:20] >> But those are the points that I really
[26:22] want to hold on to.
[26:23] >> But then when you do that
[26:25] that's what they factor into it and then
[26:28] um
[26:29] it also factors into which I think is
[26:32] one of the most valuable assets is
[26:34] institutional knowledge is the years on
[26:37] the job, right? And it's not just um you
[26:40] know, Shane has additional knowledge as
[26:41] an engineer and he was in the
[26:43] professional world before that. Um you
[26:45] know, and I would think that anybody
[26:47] else like you know, you've got Cayden
[26:49] and if you look at the study he's one of
[26:51] the lowest paid. Well, it's cuz he's
[26:52] brand new. He has
[26:55] He doesn't have the years of experience.
[26:57] If Kayden had come in with 5 years
[26:59] experience, there's no way we'd be able
[27:00] to hire him at the rate that he is at
[27:02] now. So, you have to take all of those
[27:05] factors into consideration.
[27:08] And so, [clears throat] just doing a
[27:08] straight analysis just based on their
[27:11] straight salaries, and then not even
[27:13] looking at what their staff size is or
[27:16] anything else like that. It to me, it's
[27:18] you're not comparing apples to apples.
[27:20] >> Yeah, I don't want to do just a straight
[27:22] salary analysis. I
[27:25] So, that's not accurate. I want to do on
[27:27] performance. I want to look at look look
[27:29] at everything, all the factors going in.
[27:32] So,
[27:33] but what we were given
[27:35] from the wild study
[27:37] started with the salary analysis. And
[27:39] so, I went to it
[27:41] like Chrissy did and reviewed it. And
[27:43] then I wanted to support it from what's
[27:47] in our market. I mean, that kind of
[27:49] overlays into my real estate background.
[27:51] When you do a market analysis, you don't
[27:54] try to find a comp for your house in the
[27:57] entire state of Utah. You actually have
[27:59] a really narrow area that you look at to
[28:03] determine what's the value of a property
[28:05] because there are so many variables
[28:08] going in. So, what I did is I said,
[28:10] "Let's just look at what Cedar Hills is
[28:12] doing." I really want to see what the
[28:15] compensation package looks like. And I
[28:17] was hoping that it supported
[28:20] the wild study because
[28:22] you know, trying to
[28:23] um just make decisions on spending
[28:25] taxpayer dollars and the equity of our
[28:28] employees.
[28:29] And I was
[28:30] fairly surprised that when I laid out
[28:33] again a comparable and I matched up you
[28:36] know, their city manager to our city
[28:37] manager, their public works lead to our
[28:39] public works lead, that I actually found
[28:42] that in the five top paid employees,
[28:45] we'll just call it at the manager or at
[28:47] the administrator level, that the city
[28:50] of Alpine pays $98,000 more than Cedar
[28:54] Hills, our neighbor. And then when I
[28:57] compare
[28:58] >> in the fourth class, you know that,
[28:59] right? They're below 10,000. They're
[29:01] considered rural.
[29:02] Cedar Hills lost that designation in the
[29:05] last um
[29:07] cert- What is it when they not survey
[29:10] >> census
[29:11] >> But if you look at the other data
[29:13] >> just finish this comment. And then when
[29:15] you compare what they're paying their
[29:17] other staff members
[29:19] to what we pay our other staff members,
[29:20] we actually pay them, again, as
[29:22] conclusive of a comparison as possible,
[29:25] $134,000
[29:27] less. So if we're concerned about
[29:29] retention and equity, we need to be
[29:31] looking at our staff at those levels and
[29:35] make those adjustments. An
[29:37] across-the-board
[29:38] isn't what Alpine needs
[29:41] to make and create equity and to serve
[29:43] our public.
[29:45] >> I actually had that same thought,
[29:47] Jessica, because looking at this page
[29:49] where the implementation page, I don't
[29:51] know if you're there, but there were some that need to to be
[29:55] equitable, some need more, and some need
[29:59] less than for the COLA adjustment. Just
[30:02] because to make it equitable, and that's
[30:04] what was showing up there in that Yeah,
[30:06] here it is. Thank you. In this option,
[30:10] um
[30:11] some some are are they they just
[30:13] recommended that some be adjusted to be
[30:17] more equitable, and some are already
[30:19] high enough that um they don't need an
[30:23] adjustment. So rather My thought was
[30:25] kind of like Jessica's, she's basing it
[30:27] on Cedar Hills. So maybe we're getting
[30:29] to the same place in a different way, is
[30:31] that if we just said, "Let's Let's give
[30:34] a 5% compensation increase across the
[30:36] board, and then have the staff decide,
[30:40] you know, basically Shane and um his
[30:43] leadership team decide, okay, who needs
[30:45] to a little bit of a bump and who's good
[30:47] with where they at compared to like cuz
[30:50] they the whole study like cuz some are
[30:53] like I said, there's some are who's are
[30:55] outliers and then take the money that's
[30:57] left after that and spread it evenly
[30:59] across the board. Do you know what I'm
[31:00] saying? Like so that we're we're
[31:02] bringing equity among employees.
[31:04] >> Christie, I I I like all the comments so
[31:06] far and I I really appreciate that we
[31:09] had an extra week to do this cuz I didn't feel like I was
[31:14] we had enough information and had time
[31:15] to digest it all. So, this has been very beneficial.
[31:19] I like the idea of doing
[31:22] maybe calling a partial part of the
[31:25] whatever the percentage is we decide on
[31:28] a cola that's across the board
[31:30] and give our management some discretion
[31:33] for the non-executive employees
[31:36] to try and
[31:37] decide where we need to be more
[31:39] equitable with our with our staff.
[31:42] Um
[31:43] and then I also like the idea of rather
[31:46] than just having what used to be termed
[31:47] a Christmas bonus, now that we're doing
[31:49] performance reviews
[31:50] that we do set aside a percentage or a
[31:53] certain amount .8% that the mayor
[31:57] the .8% that the mayor suggested I think
[32:00] was pretty close. I think that was very
[32:02] reasonable. And what that does is it
[32:05] provides incentive for people to do to
[32:07] step up, to take leadership positions to
[32:10] go above and beyond
[32:12] and
[32:13] I think that's very beneficial to any
[32:16] organization. That's how most of the
[32:17] private sector does it as well.
[32:20] >> So, I
[32:20] >> definitely support that, Brent.
[32:22] >> these ideas. Uh I think we're making a
[32:24] lot of progress in in making the process
[32:27] more standard and and and more
[32:29] transparent. I really like the way Cedar
[32:31] Hills does it with I read through their budget meeting
[32:35] and they talked about fiscal impact and
[32:38] put in the numbers so it was transparent
[32:41] to our public. I think that's helpful. I
[32:42] not not that a lot of our public look at
[32:44] it, but those who do
[32:46] um it'll it'll be helpful. It would be
[32:48] helpful.
[32:49] >> So, why are you why would you be a
[32:51] proponent of an across-the-board COLA
[32:54] when some of our staff members are
[32:56] really at the top of the market?
[32:58] >> No, that's that's a good point. I'm I I
[32:59] think I'm talking in generality in in in the general process. But if you
[33:04] want to
[33:04] >> What I'm saying like
[33:06] >> all all merit-based and and at the
[33:08] discretion.
[33:09] >> Well, and again discretion like I'm not
[33:12] going to mention anything specific, but
[33:14] there's some
[33:15] deficiencies like we're talking $20,000
[33:18] annual. I mean, there there's some
[33:20] larger that isn't just a little bit of
[33:22] an increase to bring them into
[33:24] competitive
[33:26] pay to our neighbors like
[33:28] >> Is that considering time in the position
[33:31] or is it just a
[33:32] >> I think
[33:33] it's comparison of the position and I'm
[33:35] evaluating it just like we do our
[33:37] engineer. These are critical roles that
[33:39] move our city forward.
[33:41] You know, it's just like an engineer is
[33:43] critical
[33:44] >> The thing about this is see how it has
[33:46] time in position in column T is bright
[33:48] yellow.
[33:49] So, I think it factors that in which is
[33:51] important.
[33:52] >> Yeah, I I definitely think it factors
[33:53] that in.
[33:55] >> one piece, but also what you're bringing
[33:57] to the table. Just because you
[33:58] specifically didn't work for a municipal
[34:00] government, but you actually did this
[34:03] exact thing in the private sector.
[34:05] That's time in position.
[34:08] Like just you know, so I think it it
[34:10] misses on that and it's missing on again
[34:14] what how our daily operations are run.
[34:17] Basically keeping the wheels on the bus.
[34:19] >> And I And fortunately we're a small
[34:21] enough organization with 16 full-time
[34:23] employees. This that wouldn't be really
[34:24] feasible in an Orem.
[34:27] But with I don't know, you can maybe
[34:28] give your input Shanon how feasible it
[34:31] is to
[34:32] look at individual positions and their experience both inside their their
[34:38] current position Alpine and prior.
[34:41] I mean we I know the mayor has done
[34:43] comparisons for proposals for increases
[34:47] for our city administrator.
[34:51] But there's more than just the time in
[34:53] the position. He has more time in the
[34:54] city and has that background and the
[34:56] experience of public works director.
[34:58] Whereas we've been told that Chandler
[35:00] only does the city manager, but he's
[35:02] also the planner and
[35:03] >> Well, the city's built out. You know
[35:05] that, right?
[35:05] >> position called EM, which is that
[35:07] engineer manager?
[35:08] >> So they don't
[35:09] >> city engineering manager? I don't know.
[35:11] >> So Cedar Hills isn't built out. That's
[35:13] one of the things that, you know,
[35:14] >> Fine. Yeah.
[35:15] >> I um really I'm jealous of with Mayor
[35:19] Anderson. She's like, yeah, our city's
[35:20] built out. We don't have to worry about
[35:22] new developments. Um they do have a
[35:24] couple of commercial pads, but that's
[35:26] few and far between. They don't have um
[35:30] the commercial development or or the
[35:32] rate of commercial development and the
[35:34] especially lately
[35:35] >> I guess
[35:36] >> and the housing development so
[35:37] >> I guess this is more of more of a
[35:38] discussion for the executive pay that
[35:40] we're going to do at the next meeting.
[35:42] Then we're going to have a closed
[35:42] session and talk about that. Um but
[35:45] >> Well,
[35:45] >> as far as it
[35:47] Maybe maybe today's not the meeting
[35:49] where we're going to finally decide on
[35:50] what
[35:51] standard we're going to have going
[35:53] forward, but I think we're making a good
[35:55] step forward on that. Trying to decide
[35:56] what
[35:57] we envision
[35:59] going forward.
[36:00] >> Well, and I do think when we have a
[36:02] $134,000
[36:04] difference in what a smaller city
[36:07] apparently is paying
[36:09] that we need to make adjustments that
[36:12] are bigger than
[36:14] a couple percentage points.
[36:17] Can Can we look at this number right
[36:18] here, this 23,000 that's on the screen?
[36:21] >> Yeah.
[36:21] >> Cuz our compensation was a different
[36:24] amount. I think it was 65. I can't
[36:26] remember. So anyways, to your point
[36:29] here, when when you're when you do it
[36:31] equitably, like not everybody gets the
[36:34] same percentage increase. So, that's
[36:36] what the point of this whole this page
[36:39] is, the 2026 implementation.
[36:42] So, what I was thinking, um
[36:45] I think our budget with a 5% increase
[36:48] had like a $300,000. But, that's because
[36:50] we haven't yet talked about benefits. Um
[36:53] I I didn't want to overlook the impact
[36:56] of benefits, which are like 30 to 40% of the total compensation.
[37:02] And so, um
[37:03] if we took that number and we said,
[37:06] "Okay, we're going to hire someone
[37:07] that's like off the top. They're not
[37:09] going to get a raise, right?" So, that
[37:11] that's a that but that is an increase to
[37:13] our budget. And then we said, "Okay, now
[37:15] take what's left and like you guys are
[37:18] talking about, you know, make it
[37:19] equitable among the employees." Okay,
[37:22] now we've done that. Maybe it's only
[37:23] this 23,000. Maybe that's all we need. I
[37:26] mean, that's maybe I'm guessing. Um I'm
[37:29] but it could be a good number. And then,
[37:30] what's left, let's give, you know,
[37:32] spread that across everybody and do it.
[37:35] Take what money is left. You know what
[37:36] I'm saying? So, it's more
[37:38] it's a step-by-step process to get the
[37:40] final, you know, I think it was 300,000
[37:44] increase overall for all compensation.
[37:47] So, one of the things that in the
[37:49] spreadsheet that um
[37:52] uh that Shane brought over or sent us
[37:55] and it was talked about the benefits
[37:57] increase. One, the benefits was 12
[38:01] Was it 12.7%?
[38:04] I have it. And another one was and the
[38:07] um dental was less. But, that increase
[38:10] um
[38:11] is included in the full in that 300,000.
[38:14] So, we I was I had I just wanted to
[38:17] share this especially for the public and
[38:20] employees that are there that because I
[38:22] worked so long in the private sector and
[38:24] I've done a ton of payroll in my life,
[38:27] um I'm very familiar with how much
[38:29] employees are taken out of their wage to
[38:32] contribute to their mental their medical
[38:35] and dental. And it's roughly 12% but it
[38:38] can be more, it can be less, but that's
[38:40] a good number
[38:41] or a good average. So, it was
[38:44] interesting in the wage and the benefits
[38:46] study that was done by our staff that
[38:48] showed other cities they they they pay
[38:51] far more than
[38:53] they pay like 90, 95, or 100% of the
[38:56] benefits for medical and dental and
[38:59] other and other factors that were
[39:00] considered, but when you look at the
[39:02] cost of medical it's by far the biggest
[39:04] cost of all the benefits we provide. So,
[39:08] I thought that I had this impression
[39:10] that maybe Alpine was um
[39:14] they were more generous than other
[39:16] municipalities when in reality they're
[39:19] just they're like just like the wage
[39:21] study where they're more in the median
[39:22] of what's happening in the pri in the um
[39:25] compared to other municipalities. So, I
[39:28] just wanted to share that cuz I have
[39:29] said that before and I know our public
[39:32] peop public safety aren't here. We're
[39:34] having the same discussion with public
[39:36] safety and I did have an but maybe an
[39:39] incorrect impression that um maybe we
[39:42] were an outlier, but really Alpine and
[39:44] Lone Peak Safety are not outliers
[39:46] by paying all of the medical and dental.
[39:48] That's that's
[39:50] more typical than I realized. I did just
[39:53] want to talk about benefits for a second
[39:54] if we
[39:55] >> to follow up on that Chrissy. Just to
[39:56] follow up on that Chrissy,
[39:58] um you can't be in the median if you're
[39:59] at 100% that's impossible. So, you're at
[40:01] the you're at the very far end, you're
[40:03] at the top end of the scale. We're
[40:04] close, I mean
[40:05] it's
[40:06] I don't know what the average is.
[40:07] >> No, no, well, I'm saying if you're at 20
[40:09] if the average is 20% and we're at 100
[40:12] you're we're way we're an outlier, but
[40:14] the median of municipalities is not 80%.
[40:17] >> that. Oh, [snorts] absolutely. And just
[40:18] as an example, just as an example, the
[40:20] state um state employees pay 8% of their
[40:23] health insurance
[40:24] premiums. So
[40:25] >> Yeah, which is still like way less than
[40:27] 20%.
[40:28] >> Right. And in the in the federal
[40:29] government, I paid a quarter, so about
[40:32] 25%, much more.
[40:34] So yeah, it's
[40:35] That's why comparing apples to apples is
[40:37] good. It's good to look at these things,
[40:39] to look where we are, so we can make
[40:41] informed decisions. I really appreciate
[40:43] both Lone Peak Public Safety District,
[40:45] uh Aaron Wells and her her crew that
[40:47] help that administer that, and for
[40:50] Carolyn and Shane to make We just wanted
[40:52] to know.
[40:53] And I think we're we're all
[40:55] >> It
[40:55] >> Right.
[40:56] >> Now we Now that we have a pretty good
[40:57] idea
[40:58] >> But the relevancy of the benefits of
[41:00] health care is that it's outpacing
[41:02] inflation. And so the sustainability
[41:04] piece as we look at, do we want to
[41:06] continue to pay at 100% whether another
[41:09] city does it or another city doesn't, we
[41:12] have a really
[41:13] low general fund, and so if we're
[41:15] considering sustainability,
[41:17] um
[41:18] and we we continue with raises and we
[41:20] continue paying 100% for our city,
[41:25] that's not sustainable without
[41:26] significant tax increases because I
[41:29] think there's
[41:30] been um
[41:31] a lot of information given that we don't
[41:33] want to really focus on bringing revenue
[41:36] in through sales tax. And so if we're
[41:38] not going to bring revenue in through
[41:39] sales tax, and we're going to continue
[41:41] to offer this level to our employees,
[41:45] um that's just the natural course of how
[41:47] we would fund it.
[41:49] >> And again,
[41:49] >> I think that's a really good point,
[41:51] Jessica, because um
[41:53] that's how That was always the debate.
[41:56] And so we'd come up with a certain
[41:57] percentage of dollars um when I was on
[42:00] the school district, and we'd say,
[42:01] "Okay,
[42:02] if you want us to continue to pay like,
[42:04] let's say we have just for the
[42:05] conversation, a million dollars that we
[42:08] could
[42:09] uh
[42:09] deal with, or you know, use it for all
[42:12] compensation. If the medical went up and
[42:15] took the big chunk of like 300,000 of
[42:17] it, now we have less to spend on raises.
[42:20] Because that was always a factor in the
[42:23] discussion is if the medical goes up a
[42:25] lot, that means we have to give less
[42:28] raises. Well, that happened over a
[42:30] decade or so till the salaries were so
[42:33] low that like it was hard to compete
[42:36] with other districts because the
[42:38] districts had decided, "Oh, we're going
[42:39] to have employees pitch in on medical."
[42:41] So, anyways, it would I I think we could
[42:43] have an approach where if we if we're
[42:45] going to say, "Let's do a 5%
[42:47] compensation across the board, if
[42:49] medical takes up the first 100,000, now
[42:51] we only have 200,000 left." Do you know
[42:54] what I'm saying? Like, you're right. I
[42:55] agree with you, Jessica. It It is
[42:57] increasing faster than inflation. It's
[42:59] been happening for a long time.
[43:01] It may be that our employees prefer that
[43:04] and they'll take less uh less raises. I
[43:06] don't know, but I do think it needs to
[43:08] be part of the conversation. And right
[43:10] now, we don't really factor that in like
[43:13] oh in the in the whole comp in the whole
[43:16] calculation.
[43:17] >> And we are
[43:17] >> I mean, we do in the spreadsheet, but
[43:18] not in the discussion.
[43:19] >> Well, and we are still kind of the
[43:20] outlier for the Lompoc Public Safety
[43:22] District of the 10
[43:24] city {slash} departments they surveyed,
[43:27] only two provided 100% health and
[43:29] dental.
[43:30] In the one that Carolyn worked on, I
[43:33] can't remember the exact number
[43:34] but it was roughly
[43:36] 20 to 25% cover 100%. What was
[43:40] informative was that those who don't do
[43:43] 100% were roughly between 90 and 95%.
[43:47] Um but that does add up and it should be
[43:49] I think it should be we think it should
[43:51] be
[43:51] considered as we compare
[43:55] these different municipalities. When
[43:56] Carla as a piece of the puzzle when the
[43:58] mayor gets these nine surveys
[44:01] and responses to what those cities are
[44:04] doing. And while Cedar Hills may have
[44:06] just fallen below the 10,000
[44:09] um
[44:11] population,
[44:12] their city is so comparable to ours
[44:16] in in so many ways. And they're And
[44:18] they're so
[44:19] close.
[44:20] Um they do provide 100% and as Chrissy
[44:24] or as Jessica noted, um they're
[44:27] non-
[44:28] supervisory positions are paid much
[44:31] higher than ours are.
[44:33] Um
[44:34] So, I think that is I think that is
[44:36] worth looking at. We're looking at at
[44:38] their
[44:38] >> So, do you guys also want staff to look
[44:41] at um there is a discrepancy in the
[44:44] total number of vacation hours accrued
[44:46] and then
[44:47] >> Yes.
[44:47] >> looking at the
[44:49] >> I think we can monetize all those
[44:50] things.
[44:51] >> And so, or do we want to consider um
[44:55] you know, putting them at average on
[44:57] vacation accrual and the number of paid
[44:59] vacation days or
[45:03] >> We also should consider overtime. Is
[45:05] that reflected in anything?
[45:07] >> Um it's
[45:09] in the budget, but I mean it's every
[45:11] city does it the same way though. We
[45:13] don't do overtime any differently than
[45:15] how we do
[45:15] >> But is it reflected in total pay? As
[45:17] we're making decisions on equity, are we
[45:20] seeing what overtime does to these
[45:23] bottom these numbers?
[45:24] >> Um it's in one of the spreadsheets. I
[45:27] was just talking to Chrissy about that.
[45:29] She had a question about the numbers and
[45:30] I said, "Oh, did you look at overtime
[45:32] and on call?"
[45:33] It's on
[45:36] >> It's the one that's um Shane prepares
[45:38] every year to do his budget.
[45:40] >> and green.
[45:41] >> It's right here.
[45:41] >> Yeah, it is that one.
[45:43] >> of overtime.
[45:43] >> Just a comment on overtime.
[45:47] It's not always welcome, but it's it's I
[45:49] mean, who wants to go miss their kids'
[45:51] birthday party because they have to go
[45:53] repair a water main break? I mean,
[45:56] it's not on call. They can't leave.
[46:01] They're on call. They They can't leave.
[46:03] So,
[46:04] it's not like a a total Oh, they, you
[46:07] know, get all this.
[46:09] There's another side to it from the
[46:11] employee standpoint.
[46:13] >> And that was something new to me coming
[46:14] from um
[46:16] the private sector. I just thought
[46:18] everybody was on salary and that's not
[46:20] the case. I believe it's just Shane and
[46:23] who uh
[46:24] Was it the engineer or is he hourly
[46:26] also?
[46:27] >> Yeah, it's
[46:27] >> Everybody's hourly except Joe.
[46:30] And um in asking that's how it is
[46:32] [clears throat] in lot of cities, which
[46:33] I didn't understand at first.
[46:36] It was a learning curve for sure.
[46:38] >> That's the way it is here at my new job,
[46:40] too. Everybody's Everybody's hourly.
[46:43] >> It's just Well, sorry to This is a
[46:45] little bit off topic, but it's still
[46:47] part of this overall benefits package.
[46:49] I just have a question about the
[46:51] vacation payout. So, I assume we have
[46:54] set vacation times per position and time
[46:56] in ser- time in service.
[46:58] And you have a limited amount limited
[47:00] number of hours you can carry over or
[47:02] days you can carry over
[47:03] to the next fiscal year or calendar
[47:06] year.
[47:06] Is the vacation payout
[47:08] that's listed here, is that for those
[47:11] who can't carry over the amount,
[47:14] but they didn't use it, so they get paid
[47:15] for that?
[47:16] >> No, it's if uh I think it's the first
[47:19] pay period in November, if you have
[47:22] a minimum number of hours of vacation,
[47:24] if you choose to, you can cash out 40
[47:27] hours.
[47:30] » Okay. Is that common?
[47:32] >> Uh it's fairly fairly common. I mean,
[47:34] it's
[47:36] >> It is?
[47:36] >> it's one way to reduce
[47:39] like our like
[47:40] If people are on vacation, they're not
[47:42] here.
[47:42] >> Oh, no, absolutely. So, in the federal
[47:44] government, it's use or lose. If you
[47:45] don't use it and you you you you hit
[47:48] your 240-hour cap, you lose it. And
[47:51] there's limited exceptions where you can
[47:53] carry it over cuz a a major thing
[47:55] happened and you couldn't use it in
[47:56] November and December. But if that's
[47:58] standard practice, that's good enough
[47:59] for
[47:59] >> We're we're 160.
[48:01] >> Okay. So that's that's good enough for
[48:03] me. I just
[48:04] >> I think it's more common that in this
[48:07] other in this local I don't know what
[48:09] else to call local government than
[48:11] federal.
[48:12] >> Yeah, can I can I just ask um the mayor,
[48:16] so you settled on 5% after looking at
[48:19] CPI and the survey of the other mayors. So
[48:23] of the of the nine responses we got the
[48:25] average was 4.55.
[48:27] Why did you why did you decide on going
[48:30] on the highest end of that at 5%?
[48:32] >> Um so when I was looking at I think it
[48:35] was I was heavily influenced by the
[48:37] study. I figured we would need the 5% to
[48:40] equalize some of the pay when you know,
[48:42] you have the implementation strategy and
[48:44] that that was 1.7%
[48:46] and then um I went higher. I didn't
[48:49] think you guys would go for the full 4.2
[48:52] plus the 1.7 cuz that would be on the
[48:54] high end of the survey that I took of
[48:57] the other mayors and so the compromise
[49:00] was 5% that you know, equalize and um
[49:05] you know, and then give raises to our
[49:07] staff that deserve it, you know.
[49:11] » Can we get some uh input from
[49:14] Andrew and Sarah?
[49:15] >> Sure.
[49:16] we're just being
[49:17] >> Thanks. Thanks for your patience.
[49:18] >> [laughter]
[49:19] >> Um I guess thank you so much for all the
[49:21] information. I mean I've I'm learning so
[49:23] much. I guess just from a bird's eye
[49:25] perspective, I like what was outlined
[49:27] here in our work session and what was
[49:29] made in the motion about you know, we
[49:31] talked about compensation philosophy. To
[49:33] me that's something that should be
[49:34] foundational.
[49:35] Um so I appreciate Chrissy bringing that
[49:38] up because to me um
[49:40] we have these processes and procedures
[49:42] that should align with some sort of
[49:44] philosophy or vision and so um kind of
[49:47] walking into this I guess, you know, one
[49:49] of the things they brought up is that we
[49:51] more market-driven or market-based? And
[49:54] I just at some point, I don't know, I
[49:56] think it would be great to have the
[49:57] conversation as what is our compensation
[49:59] philosophy.
[50:00] And I think that would really help me to
[50:03] understand, you know, like how are we
[50:05] going to approach any sort of
[50:07] compensation changes. And then I do
[50:10] understand that um
[50:13] you know uh comparisons, market
[50:15] comparisons to other cities, and then
[50:17] comparisons to other positions are
[50:19] great. But I also think, you know, the
[50:22] internal comparisons, like Jessica had mentioned um looking at some of our
[50:29] um
[50:31] uh governing authorities.
[50:34] Um she sent an email talking about, you
[50:36] know, like
[50:37] how do our what does our Utah State Code
[50:40] say? What does our um Alpine City Code
[50:42] say? What does our developmental
[50:44] municipal and developmental code say in
[50:46] our general plan? So, we can use those
[50:49] also as like um incorporating those into
[50:52] our philosophy.
[50:53] And so, I for me, I just feel a little
[50:55] bit of like a little hazy on
[50:58] you know, at
[51:00] as as we're moving forward with this,
[51:02] you know, like what how do we want to
[51:04] lead out? So, those are maybe some
[51:07] conversations I'd love to have. And then
[51:09] just long-term fiscal impacts, like
[51:12] understanding, you know, if if we
[51:15] opt for a 5%
[51:18] long-term and given the history of, you
[51:20] know, previous years and what we've
[51:22] given as as far as like increases,
[51:24] compensation increase creases, what what
[51:27] does that look like down the road? Is
[51:29] that sustainable? How does that affect,
[51:32] you know, us financially in the future?
[51:35] Um these are just some of the thoughts
[51:37] that I've had.
[51:39] Um
[51:40] uh
[51:42] Yeah, and I I do like the idea of doing
[51:45] some sort of Cola and merit.
[51:48] Um, I'm not entirely familiar with how
[51:52] we do performance reviews. Um, but maybe
[51:55] that's something that I just lack some
[51:57] education on that I need to get more
[51:59] educated on. But I think kind of
[52:02] making going back to philosophy and how
[52:04] we operate our policies and procedures,
[52:06] understanding if there's
[52:09] do we have key performance indicators
[52:10] for each position? How do we
[52:14] I guess just for me policies and
[52:16] procedures with regards to compensation
[52:18] would be very helpful.
[52:20] I do like this wild study.
[52:23] I think it's
[52:24] from an outsider coming in, it's a great
[52:26] way to kind of
[52:28] be educated from the jump. It has lots
[52:30] of information.
[52:32] Um,
[52:33] and
[52:36] yeah, and then I like that um, this was
[52:38] already I like a lot of the comments
[52:39] that were said, but you know, keeping
[52:43] um, benefits in the conversation and
[52:46] understanding what it means if if
[52:47] medical benefits go up 7.7%
[52:51] how do we adjust for that?
[52:53] And yeah, those are those are my overall
[52:56] overarching thoughts.
[52:58] Um, I'll let Andrew I'm sure we'll get
[53:00] into some more specifics, but just
[53:02] bird's eye view, I appreciate what has
[53:05] been said and the research that's been
[53:06] done thus far and I'm still learning
[53:09] along the way, so
[53:12] I'll let Andrew have
[53:13] >> That was really nice. Uh, yeah, I got
[53:16] uh,
[53:18] it's been really valuable to
[53:20] hear from your experience. You all have
[53:21] done this a lot, so thank you. Um,
[53:24] I really love that our uh,
[53:27] the employees of Alpine are here, the
[53:29] staff
[53:30] and that they're also Alpine residents.
[53:33] That's a big deal.
[53:34] And that means a lot to me.
[53:36] And I know that this is about people.
[53:38] We're talking money.
[53:40] And I also appreciate 30 years of
[53:42] experience and new people coming in. But
[53:45] this is about people and I know how
[53:46] expensive and hard things are right now.
[53:49] I feel it. Everyone else is feeling it.
[53:50] It's a tough time.
[53:53] People aren't talking about it much, but
[53:54] things are so expensive that even people
[53:57] making these salaries have a tough time.
[53:59] That's not to diminish everything you
[54:00] guys have said. I agree with it and I
[54:02] think you're doing
[54:04] an exemplar job for us in your years.
[54:07] Um anyways, let me go through Is it okay
[54:09] if I go through the things I wrote down
[54:10] and then see if anything help?
[54:12] Uh they are centered around one goal
[54:15] though.
[54:16] And that is
[54:17] um
[54:19] that we uh
[54:22] bring together the divide that is
[54:24] currently between staff and council
[54:28] and
[54:29] meet the needs of the residents in a
[54:31] timely manner. That that's it. That's
[54:33] like what I'm after.
[54:35] Um
[54:36] previously being a resident and now on
[54:38] the council as a resident
[54:40] um I don't feel like the city ever had
[54:43] my best interest or had my back or that
[54:46] I could depend on them or that I could
[54:48] trust in the city.
[54:50] It was always the thing causing or
[54:53] bringing a problem.
[54:55] Which is why I'm here.
[54:56] Um if we can reverse that where the
[54:59] people feel like the city is their ally
[55:02] and their help
[55:04] and we uh council and staff
[55:09] are united that would be the dream. But
[55:11] I dream a lot, so we'll see.
[55:13] Um so let's see.
[55:15] Um so we're talking about a lot of
[55:16] money.
[55:17] I I'm sorry. We're not
[55:19] uh talking about a lot of money right
[55:20] now. So this is good. It's not It's not
[55:22] a lot of money.
[55:23] This isn't massive amounts of money to
[55:25] give raises to very important people.
[55:28] But we do this every year, so it becomes
[55:30] a lot of money. So if we do this every
[55:32] year for 10 years straight, it does
[55:34] become a lot of money.
[55:35] Um so that's just a thought.
[55:38] Uh, Brent sent out what Lehi and AF are
[55:41] going through and I read through their
[55:42] meetings. I was amazed
[55:45] at what they are going through. I don't
[55:46] know if you read them.
[55:48] Lehi had to postpone their meeting. The
[55:50] news was covering it big, big brawl.
[55:52] Made us look like, uh,
[55:54] peace and
[55:55] very peaceful here. So, I we're not the
[55:58] only ones going through this.
[56:00] Um,
[56:00] so yeah, Brent and Jessica, Chrissy,
[56:02] very valuable in your experience. Also,
[56:05] I'm noticing there's some residents here
[56:06] with 17, 14, 11, and 13 years
[56:09] experience.
[56:10] I don't know how I don't know who those
[56:11] people are. Who has 17 years here
[56:15] as a parks technician?
[56:17] Who is that?
[56:18] >> He He doesn't live in Alpine, but
[56:20] >> But, but, doesn't he an employee here?
[56:22] >> Yeah.
[56:22] >> Well, still.
[56:24] Yeah. But, even if he's not in Alpine
[56:26] >> for all the council to be able to know
[56:27] all the employees. It'd be awesome.
[56:29] >> Well, yeah. So, so, um, 17 17 years is
[56:33] very commendable. And I want to thank
[56:35] whoever that is. And 14 years is very
[56:37] commendable. 13 years is very
[56:39] commendable. 11 years, 10 years is very
[56:42] commendable. Um, and I did not know that
[56:44] and that really is opening my eyes. Um,
[56:48] okay. So, um,
[56:51] uh,
[56:52] one good thing to just consider for the
[56:54] staff is that all of us combined, the mayor and the city council make less
[57:00] than the lowest employee. So, just
[57:02] remember that. We're not trying to be
[57:03] mean. We combined make less than the
[57:06] lowest employee. And this has has turned
[57:09] into like a full-time job, even though
[57:12] we make less. All of us combined as the
[57:14] lowest paid employee. So, we're we're
[57:17] not trying to cause problems. We're not
[57:21] here to, uh, take away money or be mean.
[57:24] Um, we're here for Alpine and service
[57:27] and, um, we don't really I don't get
[57:29] much or anything out of this, but I get
[57:31] a lot of negatives out of this.
[57:33] Socially, financially, and uh
[57:36] stress and sleep wise.
[57:38] Um so so we're that just so know, we're
[57:40] not your enemy.
[57:41] We're on your team and on your team uh
[57:44] and on Alpine's team. Okay. I don't
[57:45] understand why we compare against other
[57:47] cities. We're not like other cities, but
[57:48] anyways. Um so who does the staff work
[57:51] for?
[57:52] Um these are just These are just
[57:53] thoughts I had that the staff and the
[57:55] council, this is our favorite my
[57:57] favorite image.
[57:58] We all work for
[58:00] the the resident on the top. So that's that's who we're all at the end
[58:04] of the day working for.
[58:05] Um
[58:06] Does the staff like the council?
[58:09] I think we could do better
[58:11] at
[58:12] bridging that. Does the staff like the
[58:14] residents of Alpine?
[58:17] Some
[58:18] times.
[58:20] Uh so I would we need to connect that
[58:22] and overlap that. Anyways, here are my
[58:24] questions and then
[58:26] a couple proposals I've got.
[58:28] My questions is can this happen at any
[58:29] time? Can we
[58:31] give this raise in 6 months or 2 months
[58:33] or does it have to happen now?
[58:35] The The reason I have that question is
[58:36] cuz it will determine if we can base it
[58:38] on anything.
[58:39] Uh do Can Can it happen in 2 months? Can the raise start or does it have to
[58:44] happen right now with the budget?
[58:46] >> Well,
[58:46] usually I mean you city council can
[58:48] technically decide to do whatever, but
[58:51] every other city pretty much is starting
[58:54] raises with the fiscal year. If you
[58:56] think about it with you know, with any
[58:58] company that you worked at, depending on
[59:00] which
[59:01] um budget cycle they go on, everybody
[59:03] knows that they're getting raises at
[59:05] that time. Whether it's it is.
[59:10] So to prolong it to me, there's a lot of
[59:13] um I think unintended consequences.
[59:15] >> I agree. Uh you'll see why I asked that.
[59:17] It's because
[59:18] if if there was Yeah, you'll see. Um but
[59:21] having understood fully why it's
[59:24] better for a company or a city to do it
[59:26] at a designated time. So, I just want to
[59:28] make sure I understand everything that's
[59:29] on the table.
[59:31] It's Shannon, Cadence raise. Sorry to
[59:33] point you out. Shannon's Cadence raise.
[59:36] Um the entire city staffs yearly raise,
[59:39] a new hire, and then we determine how
[59:42] much. Is that everything that's that
[59:43] we're deciding right now? Or is there
[59:44] anything else that I'm missing?
[59:45] >> It was all listed just the way the
[59:47] motion read from the last council
[59:49] meeting.
[59:49] >> just mean like am I missing anything
[59:50] else?
[59:51] >> Well, I think the new hire in that let's
[59:54] discuss the new hire and do do we need
[59:56] another full-time person or would we
[59:58] like to see
[59:59] um you know, that broken up into
[1:00:01] different responsibilities.
[1:00:03] >> Yeah. So, so okay. Good. Good. How it's
[1:00:05] done, not necessarily that it's done.
[1:00:06] Okay.
[1:00:07] Um
[1:00:08] >> So, are we just to follow up on that?
[1:00:09] Are we deciding the executive pay raises
[1:00:12] today?
[1:00:13] >> No, you can't really decide on anything
[1:00:15] today. It's a work session. So, it's
[1:00:16] more of an exploratory
[1:00:18] >> But the votes are next
[1:00:19] at the next meeting.
[1:00:20] >> Correct. Can we just take one of one of
[1:00:22] these things in the work session
[1:00:25] description at a time and discuss one at
[1:00:28] a time? I mean
[1:00:29] >> I'm almost done. I'm almost done.
[1:00:31] >> Can I just follow up on
[1:00:33] >> Yeah.
[1:00:33] >> If you can finish your but I want to
[1:00:35] follow up on that.
[1:00:36] >> Oh, I was just going to say to me that
[1:00:37] would just be
[1:00:38] >> Yeah.
[1:00:39] >> good way to
[1:00:39] >> Yeah. And I'm almost done, so
[1:00:41] >> That's my thought.
[1:00:42] >> I'm almost done. Uh some of this will be
[1:00:43] helpful, some of it you probably won't
[1:00:45] care about. So, um the resident brought
[1:00:47] up that we weren't showing health care
[1:00:48] correctly, but I see this here
[1:00:50] and I feel like I have a pretty good
[1:00:52] basis on it. But um when when he spoke.
[1:00:55] Okay. We we talked about what is our
[1:00:56] philosophy for wages?
[1:00:58] I don't know what the specific one, but
[1:01:01] I like the needs of our residents are
[1:01:03] met in a timely manner. So, that's what
[1:01:05] I feel like the philosophy of our wages
[1:01:07] should be. If the needs of our residents
[1:01:09] are met in a timely manner, I think they
[1:01:12] should be paid 100% of what other folks
[1:01:14] are getting.
[1:01:15] If that's happening. Um okay. So, market
[1:01:18] based or not obviously, I like market,
[1:01:22] but
[1:01:24] more like 70% merit. So, I'm a 80/20
[1:01:26] guy. Market, about 20%. I like merit 80
[1:01:31] to 70%. I feel like it only will make
[1:01:34] everyone's life better, um and they'll
[1:01:36] be able to earn more if we base it off
[1:01:38] of merit. Um so, anyways, I uh So,
[1:01:42] anyways, the likes are I like the
[1:01:43] people. I like the um
[1:01:45] the the help when the staff helps, like
[1:01:47] when they've helped with fire
[1:01:48] mitigation, they've helped with um
[1:01:51] uh cleanup days and things. Um I like
[1:01:54] that they're all from Alpine. Um
[1:01:56] I like boosting the non-supervisor
[1:01:59] wages, like Jessica has said, I I like
[1:02:02] her idea of boosting the non-supervisor
[1:02:04] folks' wages, um because I believe they
[1:02:07] are here almost as many hours as anyone
[1:02:09] else, and they work just as hard as
[1:02:10] anyone else. Um
[1:02:12] uh And so, so because it's not that much
[1:02:14] different, and I'm seeing that
[1:02:16] discrepancy there, I like boosting them,
[1:02:18] and I have, in my experience with the
[1:02:20] non-supervisor roles,
[1:02:22] have uh
[1:02:23] very little if anything to complain
[1:02:25] about um
[1:02:26] or um
[1:02:28] uh any problems. So, I think it has been
[1:02:31] I think they have done well.
[1:02:32] Um
[1:02:33] I love Brent's research. My heavens, has
[1:02:36] that not been valuable. Wow. The
[1:02:37] dislikes, I do not like comparing
[1:02:39] against other cities with the threat
[1:02:42] that if we don't do what other cities
[1:02:43] are doing, folks will leave. I just
[1:02:46] don't see a basis for that. Alpine's too
[1:02:48] valuable um and it's too unique uh to
[1:02:52] fully compare uh what their rates are
[1:02:54] getting. I know we have a too big of a
[1:02:55] volunteer base and too big of a line of
[1:02:58] people that would love to work here,
[1:03:00] live here, and be a part of this. So,
[1:03:02] anyways, I don't like having staff
[1:03:04] determine who gets raises.
[1:03:06] Meaning, if we give a blanket thing to
[1:03:08] staff, and they determine in the staff
[1:03:10] who gets raises, that means the staff
[1:03:12] will be working for the staff, and not
[1:03:14] for the residents. I like what I'm going
[1:03:16] to get to what I would propose as what
[1:03:20] merit is defined by. Um
[1:03:23] and with the goal of bridging the
[1:03:24] connection between the residents and the
[1:03:26] city. That That I think if we could do
[1:03:27] that we would
[1:03:29] >> So, let me just
[1:03:31] clarify. My understanding is that city
[1:03:33] council has purview over the executive
[1:03:36] staff's salary increases.
[1:03:39] But as far as rest of the staff, it's
[1:03:41] all under Shane.
[1:03:43] >> Right. So, so I I don't like that. Not
[1:03:46] because I don't like Shane, but because
[1:03:47] then the staff will work for Shane. And
[1:03:49] I know they work for Shane. But
[1:03:52] I I would love them to be um rewarded
[1:03:55] for working for for for solving resident
[1:03:57] issues.
[1:03:59] So, part of that could be worked into
[1:04:00] the that part of that could be worked I
[1:04:02] haven't seen So, I have ideas
[1:04:04] >> But we you didn't have a performance
[1:04:05] standards at all until this year.
[1:04:07] >> getting up to them right now.
[1:04:08] >> So, what I'm just saying is maybe
[1:04:10] >> I don't think that's fair because
[1:04:11] reviews have happened. I've seen them.
[1:04:15] >> No.
[1:04:15] >> There was one year when we were
[1:04:17] extremely short-staffed. It could have
[1:04:19] spilled into 18 months when we didn't.
[1:04:23] But before that, I know on council, I've
[1:04:25] seen some. I've met with Shane and seen
[1:04:28] some in the past. I know we've done two
[1:04:31] in the last year. We did one in
[1:04:33] December. He just
[1:04:35] Oh, great. So, it's not a new thing and
[1:04:38] I know we've said this multiple times.
[1:04:40] It's just yes, there was a period when
[1:04:42] you first came on when we were extremely
[1:04:45] short-staffed and we did not get those
[1:04:47] done.
[1:04:47] >> All right. Well, regardless of when they
[1:04:49] were done or but let's I'm glad we're
[1:04:51] doing them. I'm glad they were done
[1:04:52] before cuz that's the standard practice.
[1:04:54] >> And maybe they have been done, but I
[1:04:55] would say the loop hasn't been closed
[1:04:57] because we haven't get been given
[1:04:59] the evaluation back. So, maybe people
[1:05:01] are filling them out and it's going
[1:05:03] somewhere.
[1:05:04] But you know, that also speaks to you
[1:05:07] know, maybe we need to invest in an HR
[1:05:09] department and we need something someone
[1:05:11] actually closing the loop on
[1:05:14] these reviews. But that's again a
[1:05:16] staffing thing and and to your point, um
[1:05:19] the mayor said that that the city
[1:05:21] doesn't have or the council can't go in
[1:05:24] beyond administrator
[1:05:26] to make those um determinations of pay.
[1:05:30] Could we just change the code then?
[1:05:33] >> Well, either way, however you would want
[1:05:35] to do it. I just feel like you're just
[1:05:37] hearing my feelings. I'll want me to
[1:05:38] just end. I don't have to
[1:05:39] >> The only thing I The only thing I was
[1:05:40] just trying to clarify is
[1:05:41] if that's important to the to the city
[1:05:44] to have resident service
[1:05:47] a priority, that can be worked into
[1:05:49] >> That's what I'm after.
[1:05:51] >> expectations.
[1:05:52] >> Exactly. So, now we get to the point of
[1:05:53] merit.
[1:05:54] >> And then it could be used for the
[1:05:55] evaluation by supervisors.
[1:05:56] >> Right, because
[1:05:57] I I I I think uh
[1:05:59] whether it's And it probably is. I
[1:06:00] assume it is. And I And I'm I imagine
[1:06:02] this is
[1:06:03] somewhat awkward to be talking about.
[1:06:04] So, sorry and sensitivity there to be
[1:06:07] talking about this. There probably
[1:06:08] aren't a lot of jobs in the world where
[1:06:10] your pay is talked about publicly on a
[1:06:12] live YouTube
[1:06:13] with people talking about it. So,
[1:06:16] I'm sorry about the experience and I
[1:06:18] hope we get to a great thing you're
[1:06:20] happy about, a win-win-win.
[1:06:22] Um anyways,
[1:06:23] so the merit This is This is I I I
[1:06:25] really thought it through.
[1:06:27] Um so anyways,
[1:06:29] like what I'm after is meeting
[1:06:31] the residents' asks and needs, not what
[1:06:33] we think is best, what what they think
[1:06:35] is best. So, I would think our residents
[1:06:37] are willing to pay our staff
[1:06:40] uh
[1:06:41] raises and very good wages
[1:06:44] if they feel like they're getting great
[1:06:45] services, okay? So, this is what I had
[1:06:47] an idea for merit
[1:06:49] besides reviews. Re- Reviews are fine
[1:06:51] and maybe you just want to stick with
[1:06:52] those, but these are what I had as an
[1:06:53] idea of a way that could be not
[1:06:56] subjective as to say a boss likes
[1:06:58] someone more or not or but based on
[1:07:00] these couple ideas, which you can keep
[1:07:03] any or none of them.
[1:07:05] So,
[1:07:07] a list of resident asks submitted that
[1:07:09] have been carried out through our
[1:07:11] process. So, on our website, we have
[1:07:13] something where residents can go in and
[1:07:16] put a put put an ask down or put a worry down or put a um
[1:07:21] a request
[1:07:23] on our website. And so, a resident
[1:07:25] Yeah. It's cool. Um and so, uh you go on
[1:07:29] and you put a request and they get it.
[1:07:32] If if if they show us look, we had 55
[1:07:36] resident requests and we hit 80% of
[1:07:38] them. I think that is a stellar job. I
[1:07:41] think that is a great job. And I think
[1:07:42] the residents will be happier and I
[1:07:44] think that will make a full case of
[1:07:47] merit for them to deserve
[1:07:49] um
[1:07:50] uh raises and job well done and their
[1:07:53] lives to be improved because they've
[1:07:54] improved the lives of so many residents.
[1:07:57] So, that's that's number one. It's on
[1:07:58] our website. Um
[1:08:00] and um I've done it. Um
[1:08:04] and it hasn't worked, but I think it
[1:08:05] can. I thought I I think it can work. Um
[1:08:08] uh
[1:08:09] I was just on Hillside Circle. I won't
[1:08:11] bring up specific It doesn't matter. It
[1:08:12] doesn't matter. I think it can work and
[1:08:14] I think that is a just an easy way to
[1:08:16] say, "Look, the staff carried out the
[1:08:19] worries and the concerns and the
[1:08:20] requests of this neighborhood, the
[1:08:22] worries and the concerns of this
[1:08:23] neighborhood. They made their lives
[1:08:25] better, the staff's life deserves to be
[1:08:27] better. I'm on board." Um okay. Um
[1:08:31] th- this doesn't have to be part of it,
[1:08:33] but I think a hospitality training where
[1:08:35] the staff and the council are together
[1:08:37] would be
[1:08:38] very helpful. Um and I've reached out to
[1:08:41] several people who can do it. I reached
[1:08:43] out to the guy who runs Disney World and
[1:08:45] he's going to get back to me. Um which
[1:08:47] sounds bizarre, but he runs a city full
[1:08:50] of hotels and rooms and guests and water
[1:08:52] and anytime something breaks or someone
[1:08:54] does something wrong, he's on the hook.
[1:08:56] And he helps s- staff and
[1:08:59] um
[1:09:01] board members and everyone come together
[1:09:03] and do a successful job as possible.
[1:09:04] Anyways, I think if we can do trainings
[1:09:06] together, team building, where staff and
[1:09:09] um
[1:09:10] uh uh
[1:09:11] council can
[1:09:13] uh fix the divide, I think we will be in
[1:09:15] a better place to help the residents.
[1:09:17] Okay, so anyways, those two things are
[1:09:19] merit. If we've done trainings and
[1:09:20] worked together cuz often we're on a
[1:09:21] different page.
[1:09:23] Um the last uh uh
[1:09:25] two things of what I would consider
[1:09:27] merit. First is the list from the
[1:09:28] residents um that submit hospitality
[1:09:31] trainings.
[1:09:32] Um and and then a survey
[1:09:35] that we send out and that just basically
[1:09:37] says, "Based on your interaction with
[1:09:39] city staff, do you feel like they
[1:09:40] deserve a 5% raise in compensation this
[1:09:43] year?"
[1:09:44] That's it.
[1:09:45] I I I think you'll get it if we meet
[1:09:47] their needs. I think you'll get it,
[1:09:48] maybe more.
[1:09:49] Um uh
[1:09:50] And then finally,
[1:09:52] this came up while you were talking, if
[1:09:54] there are opportunities to do in-house
[1:09:56] work that they should be bonus
[1:09:59] compensated. So, for example, if there's
[1:10:01] something Landon can do
[1:10:04] that it would cost a lot for someone
[1:10:06] else to do, I think that he should be
[1:10:07] compensated. When we build a uh fire
[1:10:10] station, you see how much it is.
[1:10:13] Well, that's really a lot. We could save
[1:10:15] a lot by having in-house work done. Or
[1:10:19] one of these
[1:10:20] uh fine
[1:10:21] uh employees, maybe she has an idea for
[1:10:24] fixing the cemetery or she can do it
[1:10:26] herself. Well, if she's doing the work
[1:10:28] that we'd have to contract, I think we
[1:10:31] could give that money to her or him
[1:10:33] versus the contractor and that would
[1:10:35] incentivize them to be proactive and
[1:10:38] they should be rewarded for it. Um those
[1:10:41] are my thoughts. So, that was how I
[1:10:42] considered merit. Going above and beyond
[1:10:44] should be rewarded. That's the
[1:10:45] opportunities for doing in-house work.
[1:10:47] Hospitality training so we can bridge
[1:10:48] our divide between residents, staff, and
[1:10:52] um
[1:10:52] council.
[1:10:54] Uh basing their um
[1:10:56] raises off of residents submitted asks
[1:10:59] being carried out in a survey that goes
[1:11:02] out and says, "Do you feel like your
[1:11:03] city staff this year deserves a 5% raise
[1:11:06] in compensation?" And I think they'll
[1:11:07] tell us.
[1:11:09] Um,
[1:11:09] anyways, that's that's I'm good with the
[1:11:11] a benchmark merit definition system. I'm
[1:11:14] good with leveling the non-supervisor
[1:11:16] workers up higher this year than the
[1:11:18] um, than the higher-ups.
[1:11:20] Um, so so I would be open to everything
[1:11:22] that they have said and I'm actually
[1:11:24] taking my cues from them because they
[1:11:26] have done this so many more times than
[1:11:27] me, but my idea is this year, take it or
[1:11:30] leave it, uh, 2% raise for higher-ups
[1:11:33] and a 5% for non-supervisory.
[1:11:36] And then we hit the system going forward
[1:11:39] where everyone drops to 2% per year with
[1:11:42] a merit of up to 6% based on those
[1:11:45] benchmarks. So they actually have an
[1:11:46] ability to get a very high um, increase
[1:11:50] if they hit those benchmarks.
[1:11:52] And they get a base of lower than usual
[1:11:55] which doesn't motivate them or anyone to
[1:11:59] kind of, you know, be relaxed or not
[1:12:00] really uh, at ease to a degree. This
[1:12:04] still rewards people who have been here
[1:12:05] a long time. So because no matter what
[1:12:08] they're getting it year after year after
[1:12:09] year. So we do value 17-year people,
[1:12:12] 10-year people, 13-year people, but they
[1:12:16] the real growth the real growth of 6%
[1:12:20] raises per year would come by meeting
[1:12:22] the needs of the residents, holding
[1:12:24] those trainings, doing bonus
[1:12:26] um, in-house work
[1:12:28] um, and based off of a survey from the
[1:12:30] residents. Um, that's all I had.
[1:12:33] >> Can I ask a few Oh, sorry, Shane, you
[1:12:35] had something you wanted to say.
[1:12:36] If we do decide like on a certain
[1:12:38] percentage, is it within our ability to
[1:12:42] and is it appropriate for us to dictate
[1:12:45] Is it
[1:12:46] um, employee by employee who should get
[1:12:49] what percentage of that? Is that
[1:12:52] >> Well, I would
[1:12:53] We would have to go a little bit more
[1:12:55] detailed in that.
[1:12:58] You would well
[1:13:02] It's kind of
[1:13:03] >> to have to interject that that is not
[1:13:04] what our state law is.
[1:13:07] So, no.
[1:13:07] >> That's what I was trying to clarify is
[1:13:09] that you really only have Your purview
[1:13:12] is for the executive staff.
[1:13:14] In our city, it's Shane and Kaden.
[1:13:17] Everybody else is under Shane's purview.
[1:13:20] >> Right. The Our Our role with everybody
[1:13:22] else is deciding on
[1:13:24] the percentage increase.
[1:13:26] >> Well, then that would just apply
[1:13:27] >> Or how it's Or how it's established.
[1:13:29] >> Well, then that would just apply
[1:13:31] >> Merit I'll just
[1:13:33] In this conversation, we have a
[1:13:34] legislative role. I I Googled it, which
[1:13:37] is to establish overarching policies
[1:13:40] um and organizational framework, which
[1:13:43] that's our role with the city employees.
[1:13:46] With Shane, we do more direct hands-on,
[1:13:49] but that's That's our role.
[1:13:51] >> Okay, that's understandable. The
[1:13:52] confusion where I might be coming from
[1:13:53] is two things, um but mainly
[1:13:57] we're being told that we're making a
[1:13:59] decision on the staff's raise,
[1:14:02] which I think was
[1:14:03] 4 or 5% and then we're being told that
[1:14:06] we're making a decision on the senior um
[1:14:10] uh staff as well.
[1:14:12] And we're also being asked about
[1:14:14] philosophy. So, that's where I'm trying
[1:14:16] I'm not I'm trying to solve all of that.
[1:14:18] So, if I hit a wall that I'm not
[1:14:20] supposed to cross, clearly let me know,
[1:14:23] but
[1:14:24] it's it's sounds like it's being asked of us,
[1:14:27] so that's why I'm
[1:14:28] um exploring solutions for it.
[1:14:31] If that makes sense.
[1:14:31] >> Then Chrissy, how do you remedy the
[1:14:34] discrepancy in
[1:14:37] the upper tier at pretty much the top of
[1:14:39] the pay scale but continuing to be
[1:14:41] raised, but then the the supportive
[1:14:44] staff having such a
[1:14:48] Yeah, a gap, I guess, in what is market
[1:14:50] value. If we're just leaning into what's
[1:14:53] always been done, I would say the reason
[1:14:55] we're at this junction is because we
[1:14:57] haven't gone in and said, "This is
[1:15:01] getting it to a point where it's not
[1:15:03] equitable anymore." And so, what's the
[1:15:05] remedy if the statute says we can't?
[1:15:08] Um then how do we remedy that situation?
[1:15:10] And again, I ask, do we need to look at
[1:15:14] the code so that we can get in and
[1:15:15] remedy?
[1:15:17] >> I think um how to remedy that is that we
[1:15:20] have this very
[1:15:22] quality information, and it did did
[1:15:24] point out this thing that, you know,
[1:15:26] you've talked about. And it your um
[1:15:30] observation is supporting is supported
[1:15:32] by this data, and we just
[1:15:34] that's part of our administrator's role,
[1:15:37] and we evaluate his role in, you know,
[1:15:41] fixing that the best way he sees
[1:15:44] possible. Like our the most equitable
[1:15:46] way, I should say, not just best, but
[1:15:49] like it's really up to him to address if we think it's a problem,
[1:15:53] or and maybe he doesn't think it's a
[1:15:54] pro- like we'd have to let But it really
[1:15:56] all of our um
[1:15:59] goals happen because our administrator
[1:16:02] makes it happen. We as a like I've said
[1:16:04] before, we as
[1:16:06] individuals have no authority to do
[1:16:07] anything, but as a council,
[1:16:09] we can direct and say we'd like, you
[1:16:11] know, to you to look at this further and
[1:16:13] come up with your own plan, and it we're
[1:16:15] going to give like 5%, and how you
[1:16:19] organize the money, some of it to
[1:16:21] benefit, some of it to raises, some of
[1:16:22] it to merit, like that's part of his
[1:16:24] evaluation is is he reading the room and
[1:16:27] seeing what we'd like to see, right?
[1:16:30] That's That's how it has to happen is
[1:16:33] we give him like what's important to us,
[1:16:35] but like the what part, but like
[1:16:39] they have to do the how.
[1:16:40] >> And that goes to our evaluation of
[1:16:42] executive staff, where we
[1:16:43] >> Right.
[1:16:44] >> make a determination of whether they're
[1:16:47] fulfilling the directive of the council.
[1:16:50] >> Right.
[1:16:51] >> I have a wrap
[1:16:52] >> I have one more just one more thing. I
[1:16:55] would caution against setting some
[1:16:56] specific amounts for future years. I
[1:16:58] think the better approach for me would
[1:17:00] be coming up with a policy
[1:17:04] an objective of how we want to look at
[1:17:06] things, have a an analysis that takes
[1:17:09] into into account multiple factors that
[1:17:11] we
[1:17:12] based on best practices that you know
[1:17:13] about and you know about through other
[1:17:14] mayors, come up with what we like, what
[1:17:17] we think is appropriate
[1:17:19] and then um get the recommendations from
[1:17:21] the staff and the mayor and then make
[1:17:23] our decisions on an annual basis. I
[1:17:26] wouldn't want to say 2% every year with
[1:17:28] a potential six. That's 8% or maybe you
[1:17:31] meant up to six. [clears throat]
[1:17:32] >> Uh up to six.
[1:17:32] >> But a 6% raise every year is not
[1:17:35] sustainable, especially as inflation
[1:17:37] drops and things like that.
[1:17:38] You know, you look at our history of
[1:17:39] raises, it's it's more in line about 3
[1:17:42] and 1/2%.
[1:17:43] It would be or
[1:17:44] >> 3% forever.
[1:17:45] >> Right. That was during the no inflation
[1:17:47] years of the 2010 to 2019, which was
[1:17:51] across the board with the private sector
[1:17:52] and the federal government as well. So,
[1:17:54] very consistent. All of this All of this
[1:17:56] is very consistent. I think
[1:17:57] >> go, so
[1:17:58] >> Okay.
[1:17:59] >> Yeah.
[1:18:00] If we could wrap it up or give next
[1:18:01] steps or I'll just I'll just log out and
[1:18:03] you guys can continue.
[1:18:05] >> Could I just follow up with a few
[1:18:07] questions cuz I also need to take off
[1:18:10] soon, but um I like your out-of-the-box
[1:18:13] thinking. Is it One follow-up question
[1:18:16] with that, is it
[1:18:18] um acceptable to have council members
[1:18:20] weigh in on performance reviews for the
[1:18:22] staff?
[1:18:23] That was just a question. Is that So,
[1:18:26] okay.
[1:18:27] >> You mean you mean for the higher-ups or
[1:18:28] just everyone?
[1:18:29] >> All of them.
[1:18:29] >> It's only
[1:18:31] >> You have input, so when we do a review,
[1:18:34] and this is how other cities do it, they
[1:18:36] have staff do it, and it's usually just
[1:18:40] the mayor will do a review based on the
[1:18:42] staff reviews. That's what most of the
[1:18:44] mayors do.
[1:18:45] That but this council has wanted an
[1:18:49] input in it, and so we did send out um I
[1:18:53] sent out and we started it what was it
[1:18:55] December or January? I can't remember.
[1:18:57] But we did start it this year
[1:18:59] specifically for Shane cuz Ryan had
[1:19:01] left. So it was January cuz Ryan was
[1:19:02] gone.
[1:19:03] Um he didn't have one. And so that's
[1:19:05] what we're doing, but normally it's
[1:19:09] um
[1:19:10] the city administrator gets reviewed by
[1:19:12] his staff, and then the mayor will go
[1:19:14] over
[1:19:16] those reviews with Shane or with his
[1:19:20] city with the city administrator and
[1:19:22] then go over that and
[1:19:24] um
[1:19:25] you know, see what you know, what needs
[1:19:27] to be worked on, what they're doing
[1:19:28] well, and then, you know, work on it
[1:19:30] that way. But you know,
[1:19:32] >> Mayor.
[1:19:33] >> even though I've been mayor for a while,
[1:19:35] I do rely heavily on other mayors on how
[1:19:37] they do things. And so that's what I go
[1:19:39] by and then my own work experience at
[1:19:43] Intel that I had for years and years. So
[1:19:45] that's how I'm basing, you know, how we
[1:19:48] do things. And then even like
[1:19:51] with, you know, if you think about it,
[1:19:52] public safety, we never get the salaries
[1:19:55] of every single person there. It's just
[1:19:57] beginning
[1:19:59] for just the, you know, the various
[1:20:01] whether you're and, you know, whether
[1:20:03] you're a paramedic or whether you're a
[1:20:04] firefighter and then, you know, captain
[1:20:07] and, you know, we never have this
[1:20:10] we've never had a breakdown like this
[1:20:12] where it has the individual salaries for
[1:20:14] the entire fire department or police
[1:20:16] department.
[1:20:17] >> I don't know how but Carrie got us all
[1:20:19] names.
[1:20:20] >> What?
[1:20:20] >> Uh Carrie got us all the salaries of
[1:20:23] fire and police every with their name
[1:20:25] and all.
[1:20:25] >> I know, but what I'm saying is when
[1:20:26] we've worked on their raises, that's not
[1:20:29] what we based it on. I think
[1:20:31] >> But that is changing going forward.
[1:20:32] We've asked them to not not for
[1:20:34] individuals, but we'd like to do a
[1:20:36] comparison of the of the steps.
[1:20:38] >> For sure. But you know, this is granted
[1:20:42] they have much larger staff than we do.
[1:20:45] Um but I do think that
[1:20:48] you know, what we're here for is
[1:20:51] to go over this wage studies. It seemed
[1:20:53] like
[1:20:54] you know, I think Shane sent it out a
[1:20:56] week before City Council meeting.
[1:20:59] Um if you guys had any questions on
[1:21:01] that, the process that we went to and
[1:21:03] the data that we collected from it.
[1:21:06] And then um if you had any questions on
[1:21:10] you know, moving forward. I think the I
[1:21:13] really appreciate Carolyn doing and
[1:21:15] going through the extra effort of
[1:21:16] getting the information that she wasn't
[1:21:19] able to get directly from the people and
[1:21:21] doing all the research. I think the
[1:21:23] compensation was invaluable. Um
[1:21:26] you know, to do the discussions around
[1:21:27] that.
[1:21:29] And I think that we do need to look at
[1:21:31] you know, if we're going to look at
[1:21:32] changing their health care, I do you
[1:21:35] know, to make it more in the average
[1:21:37] with you know, other cities that we do
[1:21:39] need to look at maybe
[1:21:41] increasing
[1:21:42] vacation hour accrual and days time off
[1:21:45] cuz Alpine is on the lower end and then
[1:21:48] even some of the other benefits were on
[1:21:49] the lower end. So I think if you know,
[1:21:52] is that the goal?
[1:21:54] I guess the way I always looked at it is
[1:21:56] you know, it's a give and take and it's
[1:21:59] what
[1:22:00] um works for the city.
[1:22:02] Um
[1:22:04] along with you know, where we are, but
[1:22:06] we have to look at yes, do we pay for
[1:22:10] insurance and is it's full coverage. But
[1:22:13] if you looked at that wage study, we
[1:22:15] were consistently below in salaries in
[1:22:18] almost every single
[1:22:20] position except for one. And we do have
[1:22:22] an outlier, but that was
[1:22:25] we went over a year without that
[1:22:26] position.
[1:22:28] And that's, you know, chain he actually
[1:22:30] went after him. He like count he went
[1:22:33] through all his contacts looking for
[1:22:35] somebody. And then, you know, was able
[1:22:38] to connect with Jason and we were able
[1:22:39] to bring him.
[1:22:40] And that was just the price that we had
[1:22:42] to pay to bring someone in. I personally
[1:22:44] try to recruit city engineers in my
[1:22:47] meetings that I went to with WFRC even
[1:22:50] like engineers up in Salt Lake City. You
[1:22:53] know, I would meet him and say, "Hey, we
[1:22:54] have a position open. Will you apply?"
[1:22:57] And they didn't. I have a friend whose
[1:22:59] son is an engineer for a major
[1:23:01] engineering firm. Send him the job
[1:23:03] description. He's like, "Yeah, no."
[1:23:06] Can't do that. So, it's just you do have
[1:23:08] to look at it. It's just it we're kind
[1:23:10] of a unique situation. Um
[1:23:13] but I think you kind of have to look at
[1:23:15] where do we want to go future. If, you
[1:23:17] know, city council wants to change the
[1:23:19] compensation structure, then that's
[1:23:21] something that we can look at. And I
[1:23:23] think, you know, if you guys want to do
[1:23:25] a formal request, um
[1:23:28] for me, I guess I look at yes, it's
[1:23:31] really expensive.
[1:23:33] Um I cuz it's the largest thing besides
[1:23:36] wages is our
[1:23:37] health well and your ass, right?
[1:23:40] But that I look at partially as a
[1:23:43] recruitment tool. But I say, you know,
[1:23:45] if you're going to take that away, think
[1:23:47] about it carefully on what the
[1:23:49] unintended consequences are. I'm all for
[1:23:51] equality.
[1:23:53] But just look at the whole picture. And,
[1:23:56] you know, we can move along with
[1:23:57] whatever you guys the direction that you
[1:23:59] want to go.
[1:24:01] But just
[1:24:02] I just say please consider what might
[1:24:03] happen.
[1:24:04] >> Could I just out of curiosity and this
[1:24:06] is maybe more directed to the staff is
[1:24:09] what incentivizes people to work here
[1:24:11] and what incentivizes them to stay cuz
[1:24:13] looking at these numbers like Andrew
[1:24:14] pointed out and what like was pointed
[1:24:16] out there's lots of
[1:24:18] people that have been here a long time.
[1:24:20] Is it more the
[1:24:21] >> I was going to say some of this I don't
[1:24:22] think is um
[1:24:24] it's a little bit misleading cuz I feel
[1:24:26] like our public works superintendents
[1:24:28] have been here more than 10 years,
[1:24:29] correct? But they've only been
[1:24:31] superintendents for 10 years in that
[1:24:33] position. But they've been working for
[1:24:36] Alpine for more than 25 or is it almost
[1:24:40] 30?
[1:24:40] >> and one's
[1:24:41] uh 25.
[1:24:42] >> Yeah, so it's
[1:24:44] >> have rewards for that time.
[1:24:45] >> And the institutional knowledge with
[1:24:46] that is I can't even tell you how
[1:24:49] valuable it is, but
[1:24:50] >> Right, and that's something that we get
[1:24:52] helped to be aware of to pay better
[1:24:53] rewards.
[1:24:54] >> those
[1:24:56] it is the health care benefits. I've had
[1:24:58] several say, "You change that." I cuz
[1:25:01] they can go anywhere.
[1:25:03] >> All right.
[1:25:03] >> Um they don't have to stay in the public
[1:25:05] sector cuz they have their benefits.
[1:25:08] They've you know, they've stayed they
[1:25:10] can get they can collect their
[1:25:11] retirement and they can go on to another
[1:25:13] job. But there as you pointed out, there
[1:25:15] aren't very many jobs that have full
[1:25:18] um insurance.
[1:25:20] >> Mayor, did that come across though uh
[1:25:21] not to try to alter the system, but to
[1:25:24] try to change the the incentive behind
[1:25:27] it? That's the reasoning. When we do
[1:25:28] surveys
[1:25:30] and say they come to you and you look
[1:25:31] over surveys
[1:25:32] it causes
[1:25:33] people to want to satisfy you. It causes
[1:25:37] them to want to make sure you're happy.
[1:25:39] Um because you're going to be the one
[1:25:41] cert deciding
[1:25:43] on how great they're doing or not, on
[1:25:45] how well they're doing. And there's a
[1:25:47] lot of
[1:25:48] subjective criteria.
[1:25:50] >> what?
[1:25:51] >> When we do surveys, I'm just saying say
[1:25:52] that say we do surveys. The survey
[1:25:54] I'm going back to defining merit.
[1:25:56] >> Okay.
[1:25:56] >> Say we do surveys and we keep that
[1:25:58] model, which is not bad. I don't think
[1:25:59] it's great.
[1:26:01] What it does is it creates
[1:26:03] a satisfaction based on your um
[1:26:05] approval.
[1:26:07] What the whole thing I just tried to say
[1:26:08] is I don't know if it came across clear
[1:26:10] is to remove even us or you from that
[1:26:13] satisfaction that
[1:26:15] entity trying to be satisfied and put it
[1:26:17] to the resident. And if the resident is
[1:26:20] satisfied, that is the merit based on
[1:26:23] them receiving wages. And the only
[1:26:25] non-subjective way I could do that,
[1:26:27] because you can't like vote, is based on
[1:26:29] their asks through the system they've
[1:26:31] set up to
[1:26:32] ask for things or bring up concerns and
[1:26:35] those being satisfied. So, the residents
[1:26:38] would be checked off.
[1:26:40] >> I feel like
[1:26:42] I understand where you're coming from.
[1:26:43] >> Okay, that's all I'm trying to get.
[1:26:44] >> I totally get it, but there is
[1:26:47] kind of um a hurdle in the way that
[1:26:50] you're thinking is that yes, I of course
[1:26:53] I want the residents to be happy. But my
[1:26:55] experience has been a lot of times
[1:26:57] residents want things that will affect
[1:27:00] their neighbors and other people and it
[1:27:02] can't, you know, if it's things like
[1:27:04] that we can that's within
[1:27:06] our current ordinances, that's easy to
[1:27:08] do. And I feel like So, hold on. And I
[1:27:10] feel like they can do that.
[1:27:11] >> Okay.
[1:27:12] >> But I feel like um you know, and this is
[1:27:16] where I feel like council is pivotal is
[1:27:19] if they don't like the way our
[1:27:21] ordinances are currently, that's not up
[1:27:23] to the staff to decide whether they get
[1:27:26] an exception or not. Staff is here to
[1:27:30] work for the city and do the business of
[1:27:32] the city, right? They they're doing our
[1:27:34] roads. They're doing the everyday Hold
[1:27:36] on. They're doing everyday business.
[1:27:39] >> If so, do I think it's fair that they
[1:27:41] get reviewed by somebody who wants to
[1:27:44] put up,
[1:27:45] you know, a 20-ft
[1:27:47] fence because they want to because
[1:27:49] they're sick of their neighbors and our guys are saying, "No, you can't
[1:27:52] do that." Do I think that's fair? No, I
[1:27:55] >> I agree.
[1:27:56] >> So, to me there's an inherent skewing
[1:27:59] where
[1:28:00] >> I agree.
[1:28:01] The The examples that are in my mind are
[1:28:03] ones that I've done or residents have
[1:28:05] asked me to do. It's like
[1:28:07] there's a sign not working coming down
[1:28:09] from Hillside Circle.
[1:28:11] It's just, "Can you fix it?" That's it.
[1:28:13] It's a slow down sign.
[1:28:15] It's been on the queue for 6 months.
[1:28:17] If that were fixed, that whole
[1:28:19] neighborhood would be happy. So, it's
[1:28:20] not can I put up a wall? That's not what
[1:28:22] I'm thinking.
[1:28:22] >> Okay.
[1:28:23] >> It's
[1:28:24] can you fix this fence? Or it's the
[1:28:25] water fountain outside that's broken.
[1:28:27] Can you fix the water fountain?
[1:28:29] >> Is it broken?
[1:28:30] >> No, it's just runs like it has for
[1:28:33] >> No, not that it
[1:28:34] >> the 30 years I've
[1:28:35] >> been hammered off.
[1:28:36] Um and so
[1:28:38] >> Well, they keep breaking it off just
[1:28:39] like people keep pulling the sprinkler
[1:28:41] lines out of the flowers on Main Street.
[1:28:43] They keep breaking. Somebody There are
[1:28:45] two flower pots hanging on the sign in
[1:28:47] the roundabout. Somebody took wire
[1:28:49] cutters and cut one, so now it doesn't
[1:28:51] hang anymore.
[1:28:52] Sitting on the ground.
[1:28:54] Three days before that, they pulled the
[1:28:56] water out of the other pot, so it died
[1:28:58] like in 2 days and it
[1:29:00] >> see how part of a problem it is? We we
[1:29:02] would solve it with maybe a camera and a
[1:29:04] water fountain and something like that.
[1:29:06] But either way, um it's it's not to do
[1:29:08] what you are saying, which I agree with
[1:29:10] you. Why why would we that we we
[1:29:12] wouldn't
[1:29:13] bring that into the equation say you
[1:29:14] didn't put up like some weird fight
[1:29:16] thing. It would be more like, "Hey, the
[1:29:18] residents are asking for this reasonable
[1:29:21] thing and look, they took care of it."
[1:29:24] They In my mind, when when I'm looking
[1:29:26] this over and it's raise time,
[1:29:29] I would be like,
[1:29:30] "Check box, check box, check box. They had these asks from our
[1:29:35] >> I think it's like what you're saying is
[1:29:37] it would be driven in the questions.
[1:29:38] Like the question would be has the staff
[1:29:41] taken care of public property or you
[1:29:44] request in a timely manner. It wouldn't
[1:29:46] be a specific narrow survey question. It
[1:29:49] would be how do you think our roads are?
[1:29:51] Um do you look at public property and is
[1:29:53] it well maintained? I mean, it's it's not kind of what you're saying that
[1:29:58] would be.
[1:29:59] >> Yeah, I don't think it needs to be each
[1:30:02] individual thing and I feel like that's
[1:30:04] where your thinking is like, "Okay, I
[1:30:06] have this person. Did they do that? Did
[1:30:07] they do that? I mean, really
[1:30:10] >> It could be broader, like do
[1:30:11] >> Staff's job is to run the city.
[1:30:13] >> Yes, yes. So
[1:30:14] >> And with the budget our size,
[1:30:18] a big chunk of it is just getting things
[1:30:21] done, just to run it and not to be able
[1:30:24] to do those things.
[1:30:25] >> I appreciate that they are willing to
[1:30:28] take on additional things, you know, and
[1:30:31] follow the direction of council and move
[1:30:34] forward that way.
[1:30:35] But yeah, no, I don't think that um
[1:30:39] residents, I think, you know,
[1:30:41] hopefully you guys are in touch enough.
[1:30:43] I know I get enough phone calls, texts,
[1:30:45] and emails
[1:30:46] um
[1:30:47] that when these surveys go out, that you
[1:30:50] guys can respond to it. But yes, I
[1:30:52] think, you know, we could probably Well,
[1:30:54] we do a general health survey every
[1:30:55] year, right? Through Utah State.
[1:30:57] >> About last couple of years.
[1:30:58] >> Um we've done it last couple of years.
[1:31:00] They can participate in that and that
[1:31:02] talks about the health of our city. And
[1:31:05] in the past, we've done really well on
[1:31:08] all accounts, that people are happy
[1:31:10] here. Um we've been in the top
[1:31:14] I think Cedar Hills was like one of the
[1:31:16] top cities before and then we were right
[1:31:18] up there with them. So, I guess I don't
[1:31:20] see the same
[1:31:22] My view is a little bit different than
[1:31:23] yours.
[1:31:25] Um I do feel like staff is addressing um
[1:31:28] resident issues. Um
[1:31:30] >> But I think like to your point, like
[1:31:32] they're they have a lot on their plate.
[1:31:35] There hasn't been an adoption of ways to
[1:31:37] improve efficiencies. As we look at our
[1:31:40] raises and what that's going to take,
[1:31:42] the only way to get ahead of that is to
[1:31:44] improve efficiencies. And you know, it's
[1:31:46] not a once a year survey. Like we really
[1:31:49] in this day and age should be actually
[1:31:51] um like when a resident says, "Hey, the
[1:31:54] sprinkler head in Creekside is broken."
[1:31:56] They should get an immediate thanks for
[1:31:58] reporting that. And And when it's
[1:32:00] completed, they would say, "Can you rate
[1:32:02] the city from one to five with a sad
[1:32:05] face and then a happy face?" Like we
[1:32:06] really should be adopting
[1:32:09] all of these things that take the
[1:32:12] workload
[1:32:13] off of our streamline staff to create
[1:32:16] efficiencies so that we can, when it
[1:32:18] becomes budget time,
[1:32:20] raise our staff with clear information,
[1:32:23] and because we've improved efficiencies,
[1:32:26] they're not having to work harder.
[1:32:28] There's a lot out there that will help
[1:32:30] our staff not have to work so hard in
[1:32:33] some of these areas.
[1:32:35] >> There's also the element in the goal of
[1:32:36] this is not just to increase efficiency,
[1:32:38] which is good, but to swap priorities.
[1:32:42] The the the things I'm bringing up,
[1:32:44] there is an effort to move the
[1:32:46] priorities from other things to
[1:32:49] resident-driven um asks and needs. So,
[1:32:52] it wouldn't be on top of everything. I
[1:32:54] In my mind, that some things would have
[1:32:55] to trade. Like we don't have time to do
[1:32:58] everything, so we're modeling and moving
[1:33:00] it this way because their raises are
[1:33:02] dependent on it towards these things
[1:33:04] that might seem trivial, but for
[1:33:06] residents, it's it's
[1:33:08] really big deal for them.
[1:33:09] >> Mhm. I get it, but to me, there's, you
[1:33:12] know, not that um
[1:33:14] I'm categorizing all of resident um asks
[1:33:18] to be trivial, but there are certain
[1:33:22] things that we do need to get done,
[1:33:24] right? You know, we talk about I know
[1:33:25] you were upset that we weren't getting
[1:33:27] your ordinances back to council in time
[1:33:31] when we didn't have anybody. Yet, we
[1:33:33] were able to get couple of other things
[1:33:35] in, and it's because some things are
[1:33:37] dictated by, you know, or mandated by
[1:33:39] the state that we do things in a timely
[1:33:41] manner. And then there was um I think
[1:33:44] DeAnn took it upon herself to go and do
[1:33:46] that. It wasn't Shane had nothing to do
[1:33:49] with that. DeAnn did that.
[1:33:51] Um
[1:33:52] but I do think there's a lot that you
[1:33:54] guys don't understand what staff does
[1:33:57] from day to day that needs to be done no
[1:33:59] matter what.
[1:34:00] >> That's true.
[1:34:01] >> Um because
[1:34:03] they're required to, right?
[1:34:05] >> And so to change their priorities, I
[1:34:08] think it's more that, you know, they
[1:34:11] have their set job and then, you know,
[1:34:13] maybe there could be other things, but I
[1:34:16] don't know
[1:34:18] um
[1:34:19] >> Well, let's just take it or leave it.
[1:34:20] It's an idea.
[1:34:21] >> I mean, if our
[1:34:22] >> staff isn't going out of their way doing
[1:34:24] all these these other things that aren't
[1:34:27] directive from the city council or
[1:34:29] anybody, they're just being taken care
[1:34:31] of, our city would be a totally
[1:34:33] different city.
[1:34:34] I mean, it it almost makes it sound like
[1:34:37] we're not serving the public when
[1:34:40] I see people calling people saying,
[1:34:42] "Hey, and this isn't part of our
[1:34:44] policies. We're not required to do this.
[1:34:46] Hey, looks like you have a high water
[1:34:48] bill. You might have a leak." I mean,
[1:34:50] I can give you hundreds of examples of
[1:34:53] this
[1:34:54] that
[1:34:55] you guys have probably never know about
[1:34:57] unless you're the recipient of one of
[1:34:59] those calls.
[1:35:00] >> But that's an efficiency if we had an
[1:35:02] automated system where they said, "Hey,
[1:35:04] you have a high water bill." then staff
[1:35:06] wouldn't have to be doing those touches
[1:35:08] again. It's looking at best practices.
[1:35:11] >> dependent on the resident signing up for
[1:35:13] it, and we beat the bush for ever since
[1:35:15] we've had the system for people to do
[1:35:17] it, and we're probably not even at 50%.
[1:35:19] So, the tools are there, but we can't
[1:35:21] force them to use them. We do force them
[1:35:23] in a way
[1:35:25] because if they have a leak and they
[1:35:26] want an adjustment because of their
[1:35:28] leak, we won't give them an adjustment
[1:35:30] until they sign up for Ion Water.
[1:35:32] >> Or could we say your water bill will
[1:35:34] have a fee,
[1:35:36] a handling fee of 25 more dollars a
[1:35:39] month if you don't sign up for Ion
[1:35:40] Water. I mean, there are ways to
[1:35:42] incentivize
[1:35:44] people to
[1:35:46] Well, in the long run it's going to save
[1:35:48] us money, and then our staff won't have
[1:35:49] to be calling them, and then our staff
[1:35:51] can focus on I would call it
[1:35:53] resident-driven initiative and
[1:35:54] government-supported.
[1:35:56] >> Yeah.
[1:35:56] >> And so again, if if we adopt a payroll
[1:36:00] system where payroll is automated, we
[1:36:02] have a staff member that twice a month
[1:36:04] now can do more resident-facing things.
[1:36:07] Like there are
[1:36:09] we're in a day and age where there's a
[1:36:11] lot of assistance out there for our size
[1:36:14] city of 10,000 people.
[1:36:16] >> try to make things more efficient. It's
[1:36:18] just a lot of things that you don't see.
[1:36:20] >> Right. We don't
[1:36:21] >> just just happen.
[1:36:22] >> speaking for myself,
[1:36:24] I it was eye-opening to see the scope of
[1:36:28] what a city government does in the 2 and
[1:36:30] 1/2 years I've been on. So, if we just
[1:36:32] rely on I I totally 100% that the the
[1:36:36] resident is the customer. That's who
[1:36:39] pays our bills. Very little to us, but
[1:36:41] as you mentioned, um
[1:36:43] but they're the customers. So, they
[1:36:44] should be treated like customers.
[1:36:47] Um but the resident, myself included, I
[1:36:50] was not aware of how deficient the fire
[1:36:52] station was for our firefighters. I
[1:36:54] wasn't aware of the street overlays and
[1:36:56] the constant maintenance you have to do.
[1:36:58] I kind of assumed that, but to Shane's
[1:37:00] point, there's so much that goes to
[1:37:02] running a city.
[1:37:03] And to your point, too, I think it's
[1:37:05] very important because I've heard
[1:37:06] feedback as well that I think we can
[1:37:08] have some improvements in our
[1:37:10] customer-facing side. That's why
[1:37:13] several months ago, I talked to a couple
[1:37:15] other city administrators and asked,
[1:37:16] "How do you handle the incoming issues?"
[1:37:19] And they told me about the software. And
[1:37:21] we recommended it, and I followed up
[1:37:22] again with Shane yesterday, and he said
[1:37:24] they they've now made a decision months
[1:37:27] later,
[1:37:28] and it sounds like it's going to be
[1:37:29] implemented. That might help streamline
[1:37:30] it where we do have
[1:37:33] for example, I
[1:37:34] if a resident says, "Hey,
[1:37:37] there's a potential code compliance,
[1:37:40] some kind of response so they know that
[1:37:41] we at least got the email." Just I don't
[1:37:42] want to get too much in the weeds, but I
[1:37:44] think that's one ex- example of we can
[1:37:48] look at best practices from other cities
[1:37:50] and be more customer
[1:37:53] forward-facing and and more responsive.
[1:37:56] >> Being a small city with a small budget,
[1:37:58] we felt like we needed to do our due
[1:38:00] diligence. It's an ongoing cost. It will
[1:38:02] have this cost every year.
[1:38:05] Um and so
[1:38:06] >> Well, Shane, what
[1:38:07] you're bringing up a good point when
[1:38:09] you're bringing up like, "Look, look, we
[1:38:10] do all these things that people ask us
[1:38:12] and you don't know." Uh maybe it is just
[1:38:15] us knowing. Um so
[1:38:18] whatever it is, um
[1:38:20] that right now there isn't like a um
[1:38:23] definitive structure other than I know
[1:38:25] the website. That's the only one I've
[1:38:26] been told is that you go on, you you you bring up a concern or a or an ask,
[1:38:32] and then it goes to you guys.
[1:38:34] Um if they just call you or something or
[1:38:36] they know you and they say, "Hey, we
[1:38:37] need this taken care of," and it gets
[1:38:38] taken care of, we appreciate it, but we
[1:38:41] don't know. We might not ever hear about
[1:38:42] it. But if they go through that system
[1:38:44] and then or or if we have whatever
[1:38:46] system you or everyone thinks is great,
[1:38:49] then you can say like, "Look, such and
[1:38:51] such neighborhood reached out or
[1:38:52] whatever. We took care of it. See how
[1:38:55] good this is?"
[1:38:56] And I'd be like so supportive. And then
[1:38:58] maybe
[1:38:59] >> So, I think to me what I've observed is
[1:39:03] staff goes out of their way to help any
[1:39:05] resident that comes in. Carolyn knows
[1:39:08] >> Well, right
[1:39:08] >> half the people that comes in are more
[1:39:10] than half by name and greets them and
[1:39:13] help them with whatever they need with.
[1:39:15] And that's I feel like how most of the
[1:39:18] people in this
[1:39:20] on staff are. That they will address and
[1:39:22] do things. Now, if you want them to help
[1:39:25] somebody on the phone or in person and
[1:39:28] then type up what they did,
[1:39:30] is that what you're asking for? Cuz to
[1:39:32] me, that's not efficient.
[1:39:33] >> I agree. What whatever system it is, if we have raises and we can base it off
[1:39:37] of this, satisfaction of the See, most people do it by numbers. How many
[1:39:41] sales or how much how much stuff you
[1:39:44] created or sold or or that kind of a
[1:39:46] thing. Our our We're kind of in a
[1:39:48] non-profit world where our impact is
[1:39:51] resident satisfaction. That's like our
[1:39:54] That's our success. We we we That's our
[1:39:56] fulfillment. That's our product. The
[1:39:58] resident um being fulfilled. That's like
[1:40:01] the need we're meeting. And so, I'm just
[1:40:03] trying to figure out a way to measure
[1:40:05] that. And then it's not like, "Hey, does
[1:40:07] Andrew think these fine folks should get
[1:40:09] a raise or not?"
[1:40:10] What a great position. No, it's more
[1:40:12] like
[1:40:13] we we we open up the the the very easy,
[1:40:17] you know, system that we create if we do
[1:40:20] it this way or whatever, and we show
[1:40:22] them that or they show us or whoever's
[1:40:24] sitting here in the future cuz it could
[1:40:26] be other people. Could be them. They
[1:40:27] could be sitting here. And they say,
[1:40:29] "Look, you you did all these things. And
[1:40:32] on 100 South, these folks came in and we
[1:40:34] fixed it." And
[1:40:36] >> But Andrew, those we don't even need to
[1:40:37] create it. It Your comment reminded me
[1:40:39] of about 2 years ago. I went to Highland
[1:40:42] and I said, "Hey, how do you guys do
[1:40:43] this?" And she just pulled up a
[1:40:45] spreadsheet. And she said, "This is how
[1:40:48] we do it. This is how we track it. As a
[1:40:50] matter of fact, we report on all council
[1:40:52] meetings. We'll tell them we have this
[1:40:54] many public works requests. We have this
[1:40:57] many No one's having to type a follow-up
[1:40:58] anything. It's literally all automated
[1:41:02] and everybody has public or the council
[1:41:04] has access to it through a reporting
[1:41:06] structure. And so, there's not Again,
[1:41:08] it's not more steps. It's actually less
[1:41:11] steps because now we don't have the
[1:41:13] resident showing up here and saying why
[1:41:16] they're unhappy. And now it's taken time
[1:41:18] and then we have to have staff follow up
[1:41:20] with them. But they're actually just
[1:41:22] They All these things exist. Highland
[1:41:25] has an incredible What are they using? I
[1:41:28] um I Again, it was 2 years ago. We
[1:41:30] talked about it. We've been talking
[1:41:32] about this I think since Greg Gordon.
[1:41:34] Also, he had mentioned some
[1:41:36] public-facing
[1:41:38] um customer service, you know, CS
[1:41:40] platforms that would be super helpful so
[1:41:43] we could
[1:41:43] >> Well, we have the we have the we have
[1:41:45] the website that works, but like a good
[1:41:47] example is one time I caught Landon on a
[1:41:51] big excavator
[1:41:53] on Healey taking down all the trees
[1:41:55] behind folks on Healey's house. I got
[1:41:58] calls from people how thankful they
[1:41:59] were.
[1:42:00] I don't think he was asked to do it. I
[1:42:01] have no idea. He did it. And he trimmed
[1:42:04] it all. They were so happy all the folks
[1:42:05] on Healey next to that new lot that I'm
[1:42:07] sure Shane was involved in many others.
[1:42:09] I don't I don't know who all, but I just
[1:42:10] saw. Anyways,
[1:42:12] um that new lot where they're trying to
[1:42:13] build a new cul-de-sac or something.
[1:42:15] That would be something where they could
[1:42:17] show
[1:42:18] we even went above and beyond and these
[1:42:20] residents were very satisfied. Um and
[1:42:22] this was one of the things we did.
[1:42:24] Healey neighborhood, very happy. Or um
[1:42:27] there here's their names or something.
[1:42:28] Just a little thing. And then I have a
[1:42:30] really nice basis to be like these guys
[1:42:32] are above and beyond. This staff is
[1:42:34] doing everything they're asked for and
[1:42:36] why should they not get a raise?
[1:42:38] >> That's what I say. They do those things
[1:42:40] every day.
[1:42:40] >> Well, no, I know. So so maybe it's just
[1:42:42] as simple as having a system that shows
[1:42:45] that to us cuz say I hadn't driven by
[1:42:46] there and known that, then I wouldn't be
[1:42:49] able to
[1:42:49] >> That's part of their job.
[1:42:51] >> If we document everything we do, like we
[1:42:53] have to write it down,
[1:42:55] it will take away from the boots on the
[1:42:58] ground. You know what I'm saying? We can
[1:42:59] do it, but it will it's it's got to take
[1:43:02] time away from the day because it takes
[1:43:04] time. I think that goes I think that
[1:43:06] goes beyond the scope of our role. Like
[1:43:08] husband said.
[1:43:09] >> It's fair. Um I'm just trying to get a
[1:43:11] non-subjective way to do it.
[1:43:12] >> No, I do agree like getting back to the
[1:43:15] residents they're expressing a concern.
[1:43:17] I do think we need to be better about
[1:43:18] following up with that. But as far as
[1:43:20] them documenting what they do every day,
[1:43:23] um
[1:43:24] you know, you're like, oh, that's great
[1:43:25] that he did that. Well, that's just him
[1:43:27] doing his job.
[1:43:28] >> No, I know.
[1:43:29] >> They do great things every day.
[1:43:30] >> Well, I know.
[1:43:31] >> One thought efficiencies is, you know, I
[1:43:34] think the staff kind of knows how they
[1:43:37] could be more efficient and maybe that's
[1:43:39] a conversation we need to have with them
[1:43:40] as well. Like, what what can we do to
[1:43:42] help you be more efficient or effective
[1:43:44] in your job? Because
[1:43:46] I don't really know, but they know
[1:43:48] because they do this every day.
[1:43:50] And then just understanding for me what
[1:43:52] they do on a daily basis helps me
[1:43:55] understand like, okay, what what time do
[1:43:57] they actually have to devote to doing
[1:43:59] XYZ that we're asking them to do.
[1:44:02] I don't know. I think an evaluation of
[1:44:04] that or that needs to be part of the
[1:44:05] conversation as well.
[1:44:07] >> Well, and that drives to I know you're
[1:44:09] trying to leave, but there is this one
[1:44:11] new hires. So, when we're asked to
[1:44:13] approve new hires, we can look back and
[1:44:15] have data and say, "Oh,
[1:44:18] we definitely need this person." And so,
[1:44:22] I I get I don't know if we're ending the
[1:44:24] meeting because Sarah's having to leave
[1:44:26] or if you guys can continue it, but
[1:44:28] where do you just stand before you leave
[1:44:30] on if you want more information about
[1:44:33] dividing up the roles and
[1:44:34] responsibilities? Like, would I compare
[1:44:37] it again to Cedar Hills and now knowing
[1:44:39] that they're smaller, it's even
[1:44:41] interesting. Cedar Hills is a smaller
[1:44:44] city has a finance director and they
[1:44:46] also have what they call an HR risk
[1:44:49] assessment management employee. So,
[1:44:53] I would really like to look at bringing
[1:44:55] those two positions in to staff along
[1:44:58] with the city planner.
[1:45:01] And potentially as all three part-time.
[1:45:03] Maybe one's a fractional. Um HR is often
[1:45:07] times outsourced. And there's a lot of
[1:45:10] great companies out there that do it. I
[1:45:12] think we have a lot of, you know,
[1:45:13] awesome companies at the point of the
[1:45:15] mountain. And then again, a city planner
[1:45:18] we have
[1:45:19] um trying to understand if Shane's time
[1:45:21] is cleared up because he's not doing all
[1:45:24] the finance stuff, then I don't know if
[1:45:26] we really need a full-time city planner.
[1:45:28] If that will offload quite a bit of his
[1:45:32] time as a resource moving it more into
[1:45:35] the city planning side and off of the
[1:45:37] finance.
[1:45:38] >> I think those are great ideas and all of
[1:45:40] very many city administrators that will
[1:45:42] be working on writing ordinances and the
[1:45:45] day-to-day things of new um
[1:45:48] new commercial site plans coming in.
[1:45:50] >> it was presented as we needed a planner
[1:45:52] so that Caden could work closer with
[1:45:54] Shane. And so
[1:45:57] with that, if you just look at the
[1:45:58] adjustment of responsibilities,
[1:46:01] if
[1:46:02] um
[1:46:03] Caden and Shane can work together closer
[1:46:05] because Shane's not having to work on
[1:46:07] the finance side, we may not have to
[1:46:09] offload some of so much of Caden's work
[1:46:11] to a whole new full-time employee.
[1:46:15] >> Right, but it's not just the finance
[1:46:17] thing. It You know what I mean? I think
[1:46:19] that's great. Let's offload that and I
[1:46:21] think Shane would appreciate that. I
[1:46:23] think um that wasn't anything that
[1:46:26] anyone asked him to do, but I think he
[1:46:29] had um he has an understanding of it and
[1:46:33] that that's something that he was
[1:46:34] willing to take on
[1:46:35] and realizing that it takes so much of
[1:46:38] the time during especially budget
[1:46:40] season.
[1:46:42] Um
[1:46:43] totally willing to go down there, but I
[1:46:45] do think the idea of
[1:46:48] and I think mainly it's driven by you,
[1:46:50] Andrew, but to address the needs as far
[1:46:53] as, you know, my thing has always been
[1:46:56] instead of catering to specific people,
[1:46:59] if we have a you know, if we have a
[1:47:01] deficiency in our code, then let's fix
[1:47:03] it. And that needs to be worked on.
[1:47:05] But that's something that a city planner
[1:47:07] does, not an administrator or an
[1:47:09] assistant administrator. You know, for
[1:47:12] Shane to work with Caden, it's
[1:47:14] really understanding our city and in
[1:47:17] imparting some of that institutional
[1:47:19] knowledge. It's not just
[1:47:21] Yes, this season it has been finances
[1:47:24] just cuz that's the season that we're
[1:47:26] in, but the rest of it is going to be,
[1:47:29] you know, really understanding. It's
[1:47:30] amazing to me when something comes in
[1:47:32] and there's an issue.
[1:47:34] Shane's like, "Oh, yeah, that's
[1:47:36] you know, when so-and-so was here,
[1:47:39] that's why that's that way." Where
[1:47:40] nobody understood why this lot was the
[1:47:43] way it was. We're like, "How did that
[1:47:44] happen, you know?"
[1:47:46] And he And some of that is just kind of
[1:47:48] imparting that institutional knowledge
[1:47:50] so that Caden will understand so that he
[1:47:52] can make better decisions in the long
[1:47:54] run. It's not just teaching him
[1:47:58] the job. It's Some of it is just trying
[1:48:00] to transfer that institutional
[1:48:01] knowledge. Kind of like what we're doing
[1:48:02] with Greg and his um
[1:48:06] with James is that there's so many years
[1:48:08] of institutional knowledge. There's only
[1:48:10] so many things that I can tell him, but
[1:48:11] then there's like literally a hundred
[1:48:13] other things or a thousand other things
[1:48:15] that will come up.
[1:48:16] And you can't really teach that. It's
[1:48:18] on-the-job training.
[1:48:20] >> And I understand that. I'd still like to
[1:48:21] look at a finance director and an HR
[1:48:25] risk assessment. Those are just
[1:48:27] >> Great. And maybe a public works director
[1:48:28] would be fantastic.
[1:48:30] >> thing on here of these cities that are
[1:48:32] on this sheet we were given just before
[1:48:33] the meeting.
[1:48:34] Of the the seven I think seven cities
[1:48:37] are on here.
[1:48:39] Uh the six besides Alpine have a
[1:48:41] full-time public works director and a
[1:48:43] full-time finance director.
[1:48:45] Um I The mayor said
[1:48:48] I wasn't asked by the city
[1:48:50] to take on those responsibilities. I
[1:48:52] volunteered to do it, but I almost feel
[1:48:54] like it's my
[1:48:55] >> Right. So now we're at a point where we
[1:48:57] need to re-evaluate. No No judgment on
[1:49:00] that. Just like, "Hey, let's
[1:49:01] re-evaluate."
[1:49:02] >> Yeah, which is going to mean more money,
[1:49:05] which is probably going to mean a tax
[1:49:07] increase. Just being totally honest.
[1:49:09] >> I mean, I'm open to evaluating that and
[1:49:12] looking at, you know, efficiencies of
[1:49:14] other
[1:49:15] adding other positions. Um I just think
[1:49:18] that also we should
[1:49:20] um
[1:49:22] I just think we should have an
[1:49:23] understanding of where we're at right
[1:49:25] now and then also include you know,
[1:49:27] staff's recommendation as well as to
[1:49:30] what they feel like would
[1:49:32] help us be more efficient as well. So,
[1:49:35] as long as that's part of the
[1:49:36] conversation
[1:49:37] and I'm okay exploring that, but
[1:49:40] >> Okay, I have to leave it too.
[1:49:41] >> Here's my conclusion for myself. I
[1:49:44] really appreciate this uh I think this
[1:49:45] has been very, very helpful. I I don't
[1:49:47] think
[1:49:49] But moving forward, I would like to have
[1:49:50] the information sooner and a and a more
[1:49:53] precise
[1:49:54] analysis of proposed raises
[1:49:57] well in advance so we can have these
[1:49:58] discussions, maybe even have work work
[1:50:00] sessions before the budget session. Um
[1:50:03] I am grateful for the employees.
[1:50:05] I am open like Sarah to discussions of
[1:50:08] potential alternatives to the staff's
[1:50:10] proposal of full-time planner.
[1:50:13] Uh I like I understand the
[1:50:15] considerations. So, I'm
[1:50:18] just like any other issue,
[1:50:20] I would like to study it, understand it
[1:50:21] better before I and make the most
[1:50:23] informed decision I can.
[1:50:24] Um
[1:50:26] And then I look forward to talk I I I'm
[1:50:28] in support of your raise for the
[1:50:32] non-executive employees. We'll have talk
[1:50:34] more about the executives later, I
[1:50:35] think.
[1:50:36] >> So, on that, I mean to have the item on
[1:50:39] the agenda we don't have any
[1:50:41] information.
[1:50:43] >> How about what?
[1:50:43] >> Like we have to have an ordinance with
[1:50:45] an exhibit that shows the rate the
[1:50:47] compensation
[1:50:49] for executive officer.
[1:50:51] >> now it's 5% and 3%?
[1:50:53] Is that what it was?
[1:50:54] >> That's what it was on there.
[1:50:55] >> So, I think we could just go with that
[1:50:57] and then if council wants to change it
[1:50:58] during the meeting, that way it won't be
[1:51:00] extra work. It's already there. So, if
[1:51:02] you guys want to change it
[1:51:03] >> Well, hold on, Mayor.
[1:51:04] >> that's fully fine in the ordinance.
[1:51:06] >> Don't Weren't we just told we don't make
[1:51:08] a decision on the staff that the we make
[1:51:10] a decision on the supervisors and then
[1:51:12] they make a decision on the staff or do
[1:51:14] we make a decision on both?
[1:51:15] >> No, no, no. So,
[1:51:17] for the executive staff, yes.
[1:51:19] But, staff salary is part of the total
[1:51:24] raises. So, yes, you will get a say, I
[1:51:27] mean, of the total budget cuz you have
[1:51:29] to approve the
[1:51:30] total budget. So, you don't get a say on
[1:51:33] individual staff other than the
[1:51:35] executive staff.
[1:51:37] You get a say on the overall raises for
[1:51:40] the entirety of the staff as part of the
[1:51:43] final budget.
[1:51:45] Does that make sense?
[1:51:46] >> They didn't make it very simple, did
[1:51:47] they?
[1:51:47] >> So, why are we moving forward
[1:51:50] with the They were two different agenda
[1:51:53] items. So, to move forward with the
[1:51:55] staff at the next council meeting makes
[1:51:58] sense. We still haven't even had time to
[1:52:01] dive into the executive side. So, why
[1:52:04] don't we continue that as the table?
[1:52:09] >> So, what more information do you need on
[1:52:11] the executive side?
[1:52:12] >> even think we've gone into a closed
[1:52:14] session to discuss any kind of
[1:52:17] evaluation or anything like that to
[1:52:19] really bring in all information.
[1:52:22] >> We did that back in January.
[1:52:24] >> Do you need Do you want
[1:52:25] >> going to be a follow-up, but there would
[1:52:27] never was.
[1:52:28] >> Well, that's true. Next city council
[1:52:29] meeting as far as
[1:52:30] >> can go into the closed session, but I
[1:52:33] would strongly suggest that you not
[1:52:36] delay
[1:52:37] the um tabled item for either one of
[1:52:40] them. I think they're all anxious.
[1:52:42] They're waiting. Um
[1:52:43] >> Well, it's again, our other cities are
[1:52:45] doing it right now, too. We're all
[1:52:47] moving through this process.
[1:52:48] >> city that is going through something and
[1:52:51] really there it's 1%. And if that's the
[1:52:54] case, you know, let's work it through,
[1:52:57] but my suggestion is not to table it
[1:52:59] again.
[1:53:00] >> If we did the closed session next
[1:53:02] meeting, wouldn't it be after the vote
[1:53:04] when you need it before?
[1:53:05] >> No, you can You can call to go into a
[1:53:08] closed session.
[1:53:08] >> the middle. That's right. I've seen
[1:53:10] that. Yeah. Okay. You could do that. Or
[1:53:12] do you want to do it today, Jessica?
[1:53:13] >> I I mean
[1:53:14] >> No, you can't go into a closed session.
[1:53:15] This is a work session.
[1:53:16] >> So, I was just testing you on that one.
[1:53:18] Good job.
[1:53:19] >> [laughter]
[1:53:20] >> Okay, I'll entertain a motion to
[1:53:23] adjourn.
[1:53:25] >> I'll move to adjourn.
[1:53:26] >> Is there a second?
[1:53:26] >> Second.
[1:53:27] >> It's been moved by Councilman Remler,
[1:53:29] seconded by Councilwoman um Smullen. All
[1:53:31] in favor?
[1:53:31] >> Aye.
[1:53:33] >> Adjourned.