[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.

6.30.26 City Council Work Session

Transcript