All present included Mayor Hart,
Council Member Elwell,
Council Member McDonald,
Council Member Jolley,
Council Member Roberts,
Council Member Rusick,
and
City Recorder Kari D. Jimenez.
STAFF:
City Manager Judy Gubler,
City Attorney Dale Coulam,
Parks and Recreation Director Benny Sorensen,
and
Public Safety Director Bob Flowers.
EXCUSED: None.
Audience: Shelia Sittler, Norma Notley, Claudette Larsen, JoAnne Cooper, Lisa Rutherford, Lance Anderson and others who did not sign in.
Council Member Jolley led the Flag Salute
Council Member Jolley gave the Invocation
There were no disclosures or conflicts of interest with items on this meeting's agenda.
Benny Sorensen reported that Flag Football will begin September 6, 2011. There are seventeen (17) teams and the coaches meeting was held on August 31, 2011. The Public Safety Department performed background checks and drug tests at the coaches meeting. Movies in The Park ended last week and there was one burial in August. Prisoners from the Washington County Jail will be in Ivins on September 2, 2011 assisting with weed abatement in the right-of-way between 400 South and 200 South at approximately 500 East. Council Member Jolley referred to Movies in The Park and suggested extending the movies into September. Council Member Roberts referred to the splash pad and play ground area at UNITY Park and inquired if there is a plan in the future to place a fence and shade structure in that area. Benny will look into those possibilities for next year's budget.
Judy Gubler indicated Chief Flowers was unable to attend the City Council meeting. She provided a written report to the City Council from Chief Flowers. A copy of the report is available by request through Ivins City Hall.
Commissioner Mike Scott reported the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on a proposed amendment to the zoning regulation that would increase the maximum size of accessory buildings from 50% of the footprint of the primary residence to 70% on lots that are one acre or larger. The Planning Commission recommended denying that change. The Planning commission also continued to review the commercial zoning changes and will likely finalize their recommendations in October and forward those to the City Council. The Planning Commission will be reviewing proposed changes to the Transportation Master Plan regarding roundabouts at their meeting on October 4, 2011. On the October 18, 2011 Planning Commission meeting the commission will be reviewing some information from the Certified Community Planner regarding ways to build a better Planning Commission. Council Member McDonald inquired what the reason was for the denial of the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance. Mike Scott stated there were a number of factors. The issues the Planning Commission considered was in most cases larger lots generally have larger homes so even though property owners are limited to 50%, in most cases property owners are still going to be able to have a larger accessory building. One of the key guidelines the Planning Commission had was the permitted use language which spells out that accessory buildings should be smaller than the primary residence footprint.
Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, Mayor Hart closed the Public Hearing.
Dale Coulam stated as a matter of procedure this item went through the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing and recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended approval without any changes to the drafted ordinance.
Council Member Elwell referred to page three (3) and indicated there are two (2) paragraphs numbered with a 9 when there should only be one. He referred to paragraph 9 "Meeting Properly Called" and inquired who calls a meeting to order and hold a vote to decide who chairs the meeting if the Vice Chair and Chair are both absent. Dale Coulam suggested the word "Called" be changed to "Noticed" or "Scheduled." It’s an official meeting and the statute says that at the meeting the body elects either a Mayor Pro Tem for the City Council or a Vice Chair for the Planning Commission. Council Member Elwell referred to 2.06.201(10) "Take a back seat during discussions". He doesn’t like the inclusion of that first phrase and suggested that first sentence be removed. The Council agreed to strike that first phrase. Council Member Elwell referred to section 2.06.316 "Debate, Interruptions, and Questions" and stated he needs clarification when one of the Council members has the floor and when a question is asked of them or they ask a question of someone else, he would like it to be clear that just because there was a pause to answer or ask a question, the person did not yield the floor. Dale Coulam stated that section says that before someone can interrupt, they have to obtain the consent of the Chair. Council Member Rusick also suggested the word "consent" be changed to "acknowledgement" so it reads in part "...without obtaining the acknowledgment of the chair." The Council agreed. Council Member Elwell referred to section 2.06.401 "Grounds for Reconsideration" and indicated the way that section is written causes him concern. He referred to part (2)(b)(iii) and inquired after thirty (30) days, to what period before it can be a logical thing that a new Council Member may have been elected who wishes to revisit something. Dale Coulam indicated the Council can always go back and re-address resolutions and ordinances. The purpose of these procedures was to bring some finality to a decision, which at the time dealt with an administrative decision. This portion of the Rules of Order & Procedure was drafted closely to Roberts Rules of Order. Rosenberg’s Simplified Rules of Order would have stopped at (2)(b)(ii). He recalls Mayor Barney and the City Council at the time discussing a time table of meetings as to what would be a reasonable time to bring the issue back. Thirty (30) days to submit a request for reconsideration allows the Council the opportunity to hear a request and take it under advisement and see if a Council Member comes forward with a formal request for re-consideration. Mayor Hart inquired if this language precludes any ordinance being brought forward at some time in the future. Dale Coulam stated "no" but suggested the language state this does not preclude the governing body from reconsidering legislative actions at any time. He will draft additional language for their review.
Council Member Rusick referred to section 2.06.201 "Duties of Chair" part (11) and inquired if the Mayor can make a motion. Dale Coulam indicated that can be clarified to say "in no event will the Mayor make or second a motion." Council Member Rusick referred to section 2.06.302 "Agenda Setting Procedures" and stated the Zoning Administrator used to review and approve matters to be placed on the agenda but the change in this ordinance now indicates that is handled by the City Manager and inquired as to that rationale. Mayor Hart indicated the Rules of Order and Procedure were originally tailored to the Planning Commission. Council Member Rusick referred to section 2.06.306 "Order of Business or Public Hearings" parts (3), (6) and (8) and suggested the word "shall" be used rather than the word "may". The Mayor and other Council Members agreed. She referred to the same section part (4) and inquired how many members of the public body have to object and if one (1) objects is that sufficient? The Council does not want to appear to be cutting off people who have something to say. Council Member McDonald stated a time limit is necessary to help people get to the point and stay to the point. Dale Coulam indicated that a Council Member could raise an informal point of order to the Chair. It is the Mayor’s roll to conduct the meeting. Council Member Rusick referred to part (9) in the same section and suggested that part read as follows: "If the motion is seconded, a vote must be taken by the public body." That language should also replace the language in section 2.06.307 "Order of Business for Regular Meetings" part (5). The Mayor and other Council Members agreed. Council Member Rusick referred to section 2.06.309 "Second Required" and suggested the following language for clarification "Any motion of the public body that fails to be seconded shall be deemed defeated." The Mayor and other Council members agreed. Council Member Rusick referred to section 2.06.310 "Withdrawing a Motion" and inquired if a motion can be withdrawn if the motion has been seconded. Dale Coulam stated not according to the other language. Judy Gubler suggested to clarify, the section read "After a motion is stated, and prior to the seconding of the motion, the motion may be withdrawn by the author." Council Member Rusick referred to someone making a motion, the motion being voted on and passing and inquired if the maker of the motion should be able to withdraw the motion. Dale Coulam indicated he will look at that further. Council Member Rusick referred to section 2.06.316 "Debate, Interruptions and Questions" and suggested the word "acknowledgement" be used rather than the word "consent". The Mayor and Council agreed.
Council Member Rusick referred to section 2.06.317 "Voting" part (2) and indicated that does not make sense. Dale Coulam suggested re-wording that sentence to read "Any member may abstain from voting". Council Member Rusick referred to section 2.06.318 "Rules of Order" and inquired if a member disagrees with the decision of the Chair and wants the City Attorney to address the matter, can that be done? Dale Coulam indicated he gives advice to the chair and the governing body and thinks that section is worded correctly with the Chair running the meeting. A legal question can be asked of the City Attorney and an opinion can be given but not all legal opinions are followed. Council Member Rusick referred to section 2.06.502 "Conflict of Interest" and stated the suggested language is weaker than the prior language. She inquired if a Council Member is an employee of an applicant, is that a conflict? Dale Coulam suggested leaving this under the code of ethics which defines what conflicts need to be disclosed. Council Member Rusick requested the City Attorney provide the conflict of interest information to the City Council members.
MOTION: Council Member Rusick moved to continue discussion of this ordinance to the next regularly scheduled meeting
SECOND: Council Member Elwell
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Elwell |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Jolley |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
AYE |
| Council Member Rusick |
AYE |
Judy Gubler indicated that previously the salary range for the Director of Finance was taken from the market data for the City Recorder. The City now has a Director of Finance position and a salary range for that position is needed. Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, Mayor Hart closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Roberts stated he tried to go online to see the pay schedule of the City employees but was unable to locate it and inquired why it was not on the website. He also inquired as to how the City determines what range to start an employee at and what determines the progression. Judy Gubler indicated salary information for the State of Utah is posted through Utah’s Right to Know website at utahsright.com. The Midpoint in the salary range would be someone who has approximately five (5) years of experience and fully performing all of the duties in the job description. All of the Department Heads are over that experience level. If the employees receive an increase in pay, which they have not since 2008, the increase is based on performance, experience and additional duties the employees take on. It is also based on market data of what a fully qualified individual would make in that position after being fully trained and able to complete all of the duties of their position. The information she provided to the Council was the market data from 2008, the approved salary range, the actual salaries of all Department Heads and 2010 market data for each of those positions, which has not been brought forward because salaries are frozen.
Dale Coulam stated the Council previously adopted a salary range for each position based on training from the University of Utah and it’s a practice used in public and private settings as a method for computing salary ranges that are fair and supportable. The City gathers data based on the parameters the Council has set in what cities can be used for data and see what other cities are paying people in those positions. From that you come up with an average and that is the Midpoint. The spread of the High and the Low are used to figure out the actual range. If the City has a new employee in a position, you would expect them to be in the Low range. If they are competent and performing the duties of their job and have some experience or know that job well, they are then at the Midpoint. Tenure only comes into play if you have someone in a position for a substantial amount of time and has a lot of expertise, schooling and training. You would expect to see those employees at the higher end of the salary range. Council Member Roberts inquired who determines who has earned an increase. Judy Gubler indicated she assesses the Department Heads and each Department Head assesses their own employees. Council Member Roberts inquired what point in the spread the Director of Finance is going to start. Judy Gubler stated that hasn’t been determined yet but the Midpoint is what is in the budget. The Director of Finance is worth every penny and originally started as a part-time employee. Council Member Rusick inquired if the reason the Director of Finance is receiving an increase is due to a change in job title. Dale Coulam indicated "yes" and stated that salaries are frozen but there may be a need for a few adjustments and this was clearly one of those. Council Member Elwell referred to the reported salaries not including the benefit package of the employees and because of that, the salary comparison doesn’t work. He respects the Director of Finance but inquired if a City the size of Ivins needs that degree of expertise. Judy Gubler stated it was the council’s decision to compare salaries with other cities that have a population of 30,000 or less. The City has recruited and hired the best and inquired if Ivins City wants Ivins employees to be able to go to a larger city and make more money. As far as if the expertise is needed, she stated the answer is "yes" if the City is going to operate at the level that the Council has the expectations of. Part of it is transparency; absolute transparency of Ivins finances which are in excellent condition. The Director of Finance position is more than just finance. Like other Ivins City employees, the Director of Finance does not wear just one hat. It was at the Council’s direction to obtain that accounting expertise. Council Member Foot and the Auditors pushed for that for several years. It saves the City to have this expertise in-house rather than contracting out.
Judy Gubler referred to the benefit package and indicated it is standard and comparable to the surrounding cities. Council Member Rusick suggested for the benefit of the Council the City could state the averages that include the benefits. She also suggested that when the new City Council is in place, they should be apprised of how the employee salaries and compensation works and review and explain the employee handbook and those processes that have been adopted. Dale Coulam stated there is a plan to present the salary ranges and calculations to the new Council after the first of the year. Had the Director of Finance job description not required a new salary range, the salary range policy would have been part of the new Council training at the first of the year. The City has been using the current formula to calculate salaries for approximately six (6) years and is based upon methodology that has been proposed and advocated by the University of Utah for the public and private sector. He has seen it in use and thinks it is sound and valid but that doesn’t mean the Council doesn’t have the ability to change it. Council Member Rusick agreed with Judy that the City population figure for salary comparison should be 30,000. She also agreed that the City saves a lot of money by having the Director of Finance on staff rather than hiring outside services. She is okay with the proposed salary range for the Director of Finance. Council Member McDonald stated the City does its citizens a great disservice if the City didn’t try to hire the best. He comes back to the efficiency that the Director of Finance gives the City. All businesses have swings and the Director of Finance tightens that swing to where there is a huge savings to the City. It would cost the City more money if the City doesn’t pay attention to what the private sector pays because if the Director of Finance takes a job in the private sector for more money, the City will have to hire somebody like the Director of Finance again to fix what’s not being taken care of because of inefficiencies on the City level. Mayor Hart indicated the Council has previously budgeted for the Director of Finance Midpoint salary, for the size of Ivins City that Midpoint is perhaps appropriate and certainly from a qualification standpoint Alan Rae is an individual who would command where ever he went likely beyond the Midpoint salary range. Council Member Roberts wanted to make it clear that the Director of Finance Alan Rae is a top notch employee.
MOTION: Council Member Rusick moved to approve Ordinance No. 2011-12, an Ordinance of Ivins City, Utah approving salary range for Director of Finance, that salary range being $45,947 at the Low, $80,443 at the Midpoint and $114,939 at the High
SECOND: Council Member McDonald
VOTE: The motion carried.
| Council Member Elwell |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Jolley |
AYE |
| Council Member Rusick |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
NAY |
Roll call vote. Four Council Members voted in favor, one Council Member opposed.
Council Member Roberts indicated this issue is something that needs to be addressed and sponsored by the City rather than by the individual. Judy Gubler stated Kevin Rudd in the Building and Zoning department addresses code and zoning enforcement and he has told individuals consistently to apply for a zone change. The $1000 application fee pays for that process. Lance Anderson and Fitness Ridge were asked to submit a zone change which they did and she is concerned about consistency. Enforcement of the ordinances that the Council has adopted is stopped when the individuals plead to the City Council. She indicated that Kevin Rudd has suggested for consistency that the City open the zoning ordinance once or twice a year for a review and if individuals want to request a change during that time frame, the requests would be lumped together and they would not be charged the $1000 application fee. If the Council were to be approached by an individual on a zoning issue they wanted changed, the Council would be able to respond that there are certain windows of opportunity to do that; otherwise, if the individual wants to address the issue sooner than that, they would be required to pay the $1000 application fee. Mayor Hart is sympathetic but his concern is that it could easily slip into the realm of arbitrary and capricious. If an individual is compelled to come forward and go through the process and pay the application fee and then the next individual does not, it places the City in a compromised position. The real issue is should the City permit storage containers and inquired if the City Council becomes the convenient bypass, what is the point of the regulation in the first place? Council Member Rusick stated when you are on the Council and an individual comes forward and says they have a need, the natural impulse is to try to do whatever you can for them but the City cannot do for one without doing for everybody. She referred to the possibility of an individual saying they need to keep two (2) cows on their property because it would be a hardship if they didn’t. She inquired if the City should then sponsor the change in the animal ordinance? It is a slippery slope and she is not inclined to do that. If the City is going to open the zoning ordinance a couple of times a year, the City needs to be careful and limit what is being opened in the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission is very thorough, methodical and slow. If the Planning Commission has to review twelve (12) zone changes, that is going to take half a year. The City Council needs to think about the issue that is proposed to be amended. She inquired how far the Council is willing to go with all the tax payers of the City having to pick up the tab for individuals who don’t want to spend what it costs the City to process a zone change. There was a lot of concern by this Council about the City spending $1200 to become a Blue Sky Community because that was tax payer money. The Council could now be spending thousands and thousands of dollars and as a citizen, Council Member Rusick would prefer that her tax money not be spent to change the ordinances. The only time she thinks the City Council and Planning Commission should institute a change is when staff brings something forward. Council Member Roberts indicated the Council would then have to go on the assumption that some previous council is all knowing and that the current Council has to abide by those ordinances that have been made in the past. Personal property rights and liberties are more important to address than the cost of what it would take to proceed with this. Council Member Elwell stated his approach is if reasonable people review certain things that their decisions in time will be reflective of those people who put them in office. He is in favor of opening the zoning ordinance periodically. Council Member Jolley and Council Member McDonald agreed with opening the zoning ordinance periodically as a general review. Mayor Hart indicated the ordinances are already periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission and it is a lengthy process. If the idea of periodically opening the zoning ordinance moves forward and everything is open for review, it will be time consuming and if there are elements of the zoning ordinance that need to be reviewed, that should be brought to the City Council from staff or residents who have particular disputes with a part of the zoning ordinance. If a review of the zoning ordinance occurs every six (6) months, that is all that the Planning Commission and City Council will be addressing. Council Member Rusick suggested that it should be specified that opening the zoning ordinance will not be an opportunity for developers to come in for zone changes for specific properties. She would be fine with reviewing the zoning ordinance periodically based on that. She stated that the question before the Council tonight is whether the City should sponsor a zone change amendment for the temporary placement of storage containers. Mayor Hart indicated the option is to put it on a list for review. Council Member Jolley stated there is a lot of wisdom in what Council Member Rusick stated. The money that the City is responsible for belongs to the citizens. This same scenario played itself out earlier this year relative to being a Blue Sky Community and is the same thing in his opinion. The City needs to be careful about using tax payer money to sponsor anything. Mayor Hart inquired if a motion is needed for this matter. Dale Coulam indicated it is for discussion only and he needs to speak with Kevin Rudd to see if a temporary permit can be issued for the storage container that is currently on the property.
Mayor Hart stated he brought this forward for the City to review after discussing this with the Economic Development Committee. He would like the Council Members to be thinking of what can be done to assist the Economic Development Committee to more firmly establish Ivins as a business friendly community. Council Member Rusick indicated after reading the relative portions of the impact fee ordinances it seems to her that the City has a lot of room to attract businesses and offer a deferral of impact fees as part of the negotiation process. It would be a bad negotiating process to put all the chips on the table at one time. Businesses will come to Ivins for other reasons besides the impact fees. She referred to the Veterans Care Center and stated the City didn’t advertise providing 10 acres of land if they chose to locate in Ivins. There may be some businesses that are riskier than others and the City may not want to defer impact fees. Council Member Elwell referred to the impact fee definition and stated that up front the City can waive or reduce fees based on certain criteria although he suggested there should be something that alludes to incremental payment for the businesses that could show and establish an incremental increase relative to impact. Mayor Hart stated there are certain types of businesses whose impact is not fully present when business opens. He inquired if the City were to make a provision for impact fee payments to be segmented, how would the City assure itself to receive those final payments after a CO (Certificate of Occupancy) is issued. Dale Coulam indicated that is the difficulty of this situation but it could be negotiated on a case by case basis in the agreement as a lien being placed or something similar. The Council agreed that the Mayor, Dale Coulam and Judy Gubler will explore ideas in a general way and work with the Economic Development Committee.
Council Member Jolley reported there is a new binnie located at Ivins City Park for donations to Big Brother Big Sisters.
Council Member McDonald - no report
Council Member Elwell reported that Friday, September 16, 2011 is National POW/MIA (Prisoner of War/Missing in Action) Recognition Day and he reminded the City to display the POW/MIA flag on that day.
Council Member Roberts - no report
Council Member Rusick - no report
Mayor Hart reported he was approached by some business owners inquiring if the City is interested in businesses advertising in the City newsletter. Council Member McDonald indicated it would help offset the cost. Council Member Rusick stated the City discussed this sometime ago and determined they did not want to do that. Judy Gubler indicated when the newsletter was first started, advertising was allowed and it was the resounding opinion of staff that they did not want advertising mixed in with the news. Council Member Rusick suggested a possible business directory and stated that would be a perfect project for the Economic Development Committee.
Judy Gubler reported the City Council was invited to an open house at Senator Lee’s office but it was being held tonight during the City Council meeting. She reminded the Council Members of the early voting schedule for the Primary Election. A copy of the schedule is available by request through Ivins City Hall. Judy reported that a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Kim Mitchell case has been filed and an answer to that will be filed in the near future.
Dale Coulam provided a draft copy of Ordinance No. 2011-09 regarding cable franchise agreements. A copy of the Ordinance is available by request through Ivins City Hall. Once the Ordinance is passed, the next step would be to review a franchise agreement.
Council Member Rusick would like to address the issue that was brought up under Citizen Comments regarding the horses and cattle not being attended to. She indicated people other than those that presented under the Citizen Comment section are noticing. Council Member Elwell suggested obtaining expert input on what’s required. Council Member Jolley indicated that prior to that item becoming an agenda item he suggested City staff consult with a large animal veterinarian.