Council Members Present
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 1 of 13
________________________________________________________________________________
HERRIMAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 12, 2008 APPROVED November 6, 2008 5:00 P.M. ~ Briefing Session (Open to the Public) 5:00:33 PM
Attendance: Chair/Mayor J. Lynn Crane.
Council Members Present:
Michelle Facer-Baguley, Jerry Walker, and Matt Robinson.
Staff Present:
John Brems, City Attorney Kristi Peterson, City Recorder Glenn Graham, City Planner Brett Wood, Assistant City Manager Gordon Height, City Engineer
Excused:
Council member Mike Day
1. 2. 3.
Review of tonight’s agenda items. Calendaring: When to hold July’s meetings. Joint meetings – Tuesday’s better?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5:30 P.M. ~ Regular City Council Meeting
Attendance: Chair/Mayor J. Lynn Crane.
Council Members Present:
Michelle Facer-Baguley, Jerry Walker Mike Day and Matt Robinson.
Staff Present:
John Brems, City Attorney Kristi Peterson, City Recorder Glenn Graham, City Planner Brett Wood, Assistant City Manager Gordon Height, City Engineer
Others Present:
Please see attendance sign in sheet.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 2 of 13
1.
WELCOME and INTRODUCTION MATTERS:
Chair /Mayor Crane welcomed those present and called the meeting to order at 5:38:23 PM We usually begin our meetings with a lesson on American Civics and Politics these are knowledge cards that I picked up in Philadelphia when a group of the city went back for some training. Tonight’s lesson is on the Untied States Customs Service; The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes on U.S. citizens as well as to collect import duties on goods brought here from foreign countries. These duties are known as customs, a word deriving from the “customary tribute” that a tenant in the Middle Ages was required to pay a feudal lord. The first Congress wasted not time on this issue, their second legislative act (July 4, 1789) being to impose import duties on goods, wares, and merchandise. Their fifth act (July 31, 1789) was to establish customs districts and authorize officers to collect duties. The responsibilities of customs officers have expanded to include interdicting and seizing illegal drugs and contraband (laundered or counterfeit money, endangered species, chemical and biological agents), and apprehending persons engaged in fraudulent impor-tation as well as copyright, trademark, and patent infringements. In 1927, the Bureau of Customs was made a separate agency of the Treasury Department (redesignated the United States Customs Service in 1973), divided into 20 management areas overseeing 300 American ports of entry.
5:44:03 PM
1.1
Reverence / Thought: A reverence was offered by John Taylor.
5:45:18 PM
1.2
Pledge of Allegiance: At the request of John Taylor, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
5:45:45 PM
1.3
Roll Call: All City Council Members are present at tonight’s meeting except for Mike Day.
5:45:59 PM
1.4
Citizen Comments: Chair / Mayor Crane opens the citizen comments and calls for any citizens who wishes to speak to come to the podium and address the City Council Members with items that are not on the agenda tonight. There were no citizen comments from the public. Chair /Mayor Crane declared the citizen comments section closed.
5:46:22 PM
Chair/ Mayor Crane explains that the Council at this time will move an item 4.2 towards the front of the meeting due to timing issues for Mr. John Taylor, Jordan School District. He calls for a motion. Council Member Jerry Walker MOVED to move item 4.2 a resolution of the city council of Herriman approving the adoption of an interlocal cooperative real estate sale agreement with the board of education of Jordan School District to the front of this meeting. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley with all present voting yes. Motion carried.
5:47:16 PM
4.2
Discussions and consideration of Resolution No. 08.09 “A resolution of the city council of Herriman approving the adoption of an interlocal cooperative real estate sale agreement with the board of education of Jordan School District.” Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley MOVES to approve resolution no. 08.09 a resolution of the city council of Herriman approving the adoption of an interlocal cooperative real estate sale agreement with the board of education of Jordan School District. Council Member Jerry Walker SECONDED the motion. Chair/ Mayor J. Lynn Crane asked if there were any questions on the motion. Being none, he calls for a roll call vote. Council Member Jerry Walker Yes
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 3 of 13
Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley Council Member Mike Day Council Member Matt Robinson Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane The voting was unanimous; the motion carried.
Yes ABSENT Yes Yes
2. CONSENT AGENDA: 5:55:31 PM 2.1 City Council written and electronic minutes of: June 5, 2008. 2.2
2.3
2.4
Discussions and consideration of Resolution No. 08.10 “A resolution of the City Council approving renewal agreement for general administrative engineering services with Bowen, Collins & Associates; Forsgren Associates; Horrocks Engineers; J-U-B Engineers; Psomas Corp; and Sunrise Engineering.” Discussions and consideration of Resolution No. 08.11 “A resolution of the City Council approving a renewal of an independent contractor agreement with Clayton Simms for criminal defence services.” Discussions and consideration of Resolution No. 08.12 “A renewal of an independent contractor agreement with Lorenzo Miller for criminal prosecution services.” Council Member Jerry Walker MOVES to approve the consent agenda as presented. Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley SECONDED the motion. All present voted yes; motion carried.
3. FINANCIAL MATTERS: 5:58:47 PM Chair/ Mayor Crane explains that the Council at this time will move item 3.2 before item 3.1 He calls for a motion. Council member Jerry Walker MOVES that we move item 3.2 before 3.1. Council member Matt Robinson SECONDED. Mayor Crane asks if there are any questions. All members unanimously vote yes. The motion carried.
6:14:44 PM
6:19:56 PM
3.1
Discussions and consideration of Ordinance No. 08-21 “A ordinance adopting a final budget making appropriations for the support of Herriman for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009; and determining the rate of tax and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Herriman City, Utah.” Chair/ Mayor Crane; we have as a matter of law we have to declares a certified tax rate and that certified tax rate is given to us by the County Treasurer. Interesting enough this is the first year we’ve had it this early in the month since we’ve been incorporated, we usually get it on the last day or two of June. Then having to guess pretty much what it’s going to be. Also, Utah laws don’t allow us to make any extra money with the certified tax rate so our certified tax rate goes down every year to offset any increase evaluation that we may have in our city – so if there is increased evaluation we can’t have windfall tax revenue, is the way the tax payers association would describe it. Council member Mike Day asks; you file for an adjustment then? Chair/ Mayor Crane respond; if we want to increase revenue we have to go through what they call truth Comments from council Michelle Facer-Baguley thinks that this is a very frugal budget and it is a substantial decrease from a ten million dollar operating budget to an approximately six million I think that is huge, and it just says again how amazing our staff is, that they really are concerned about the dollars that come into the city and when we are spending they recognize that the citizens are effected and they are very good stewards with that money and I’m really grateful for that.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 4 of 13
Council Member Jerry Walker MOVES to adopt ordinance 08-21 adopting a final budget making appropriation for the support of Herriman for the fiscal year July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009 and determining the rate of tax and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Herriman, City, Utah. Council Member Michelle Baguley SECONDED the motion. Council member Mike Day proposes an amendment to the motion. I want to propose an amendment to the budget that we fund safety expenses with property taxes rather then the twenty-five dollar user fee thrown on the bill. I’m just going to breeze through a couple of reason why… and these are all based on discussions that I’ve had with residents and my own opinions. First it’s called a user fee, but it’s not based on use, it’s a tax not a fee. In my opinion it’s missed named, it is a tax on the residents of Herriman yet they are not getting credited with a tax reduction. The current structure doesn’t’ allow then to use it as a tax deduction, to me this principal based issue even though it would be small in my opinion correct principals are to be followed. Currently I think our taxes are low but I think the fee is high so I propose that we change it. This change will also concur the city to be continually fiscally responsible with respect to the general fund with this money in the general fund. We will have the option to surplus funds either to the residents or if there is a surplus to capital projects or what have you. Although I don’t know the in’s and out’s of all the things in the general funds can be used on I know that this being in the general fund would help us to tighten that up. Last one, I believe one of the reasons I was elected was because of this issue and the people of Herriman are passionate about it and many of them are fired up about it. While the minimum noticing was met when the fee was enacted, many residents expressed their disappointment to me with the way the city implemented the fee. I believe more public input could have been considered on this issue. I think as the interest of time, there are some transparent issues that people have talked about and I feel that transparency is as important keeping the public informed on the issues and so I think that is an important one as we vote. So I just wanted to propose that amendment to the budget and in hopes that with my great persuasive powers, I would like persuade all five of you, including myself to make that change with all of my great corisma so with that in mind I propose that we change the fee to a tax and take it with the property taxes. Mayor Crane states that we have a second motion to amend the first motion. Matt Robinson seconds the second motion and asks the clarification, are you in specifics that you want to change 100% from fee to property tax or would you be open to a change in the method of funding public safety. Mike Day, I think there is a lot of things we charge fee on for example the parks fee, which doesn’t cover all of the parks clearly. Forgive me for my appearance I just literally came here from Lake Powell and when I dipped my boat into the lake I was assessed a $31 use fee and was rolling that over this week, I dipping my boat into the lake and I’m using a use fee and using the lake. Good times. And I thought about this situation that we have here in Herriman it’s a passionate and volatile issue and I know I’m not popular in this opinion, but a lot of residents including myself feel that it should be funded and it has to be funded it’s the primary focus of city government but at the same time perhaps it could be on our property taxes, I think that the way we fund public education we feel it’s important and if you large home and you don’t have children that are grown you still pay into that fund. Even though you’re not using it, it’s a tax. I believe personally the way we are doing it now, we are taxing the residents but we are not calling it a tax we’re calling it a use fee. Matt Robinson, I get those points, but the question I have is do we need to in you amendment propose that you have complete change from zero and then move a 100% to property tax or are you hoping to just a change in the method of how we fund tax public safety fee? Mike Day, into what kind of change? Matt Robinson, so for example- you call out a parks fee for $5 per resident per month. Probably doesn’t cover all of our parks Mike Day, it doesn’t, I’m not going to tackle that right now… Matt Robinson, a portion in fee and a potion in property tax, that cover those fees would you be open to a public safety funding method that is just not a complete 100% change but maybe a high bread of those?
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 5 of 13
Mike Day, I’m mobile. I like all 100% taxes personally, that is what I like – I feel that is what the residents want, but I’m workable on this issue, and I also realize that we’re in tight year and I know this isn’t popular. I’m looking at these numbers and the city has done great and they’ve done wonders. I just felt to sleep at night I have to do what I what I told people I would do, and in return they said they would vote for you, but how do you feel about this. Countless calls from Grandma’s calling me up what are you going to do about it, this is what I want, and I said I do feel good about that. Matt Robinson, so John do we need to be specific tonight on this amendment as to say exactly what that change would be or can we… John Brems, I think he is saying eliminate it and I think he is also saying increase property taxes to pay for it aren’t you? Matt Robinson, we have to do a high breed at this point, it’s not just a 100% elimination, I’d say it could be a high breed activity. John Brems, I think what the motion is right now is not a high breed. Mike Day, my motion was not a high breed and I had not considered it when I made the motion. Mayor J. Lynn Crane, and I think before we vote on the amendment we would have to say if this proposed amendment to the proposal was adopted, as we would go forward with budget it would imply going into truth and taxation and increasing our property tax approximately 700% we don’t know exactly what that would be but we did make some projections of that and some presentation of that when we had the retreat, and it would change our tax rate 700% and that would put our taxes at instead of .000296 to seven time that whatever that comes out to be. So and it is what it is, in theory that would generate as close as Shauna could figure the same amount of revenue as the fee would do. What we would probably do in that case, is continue to collect the fee until the first of January and then when we adopted the new tax rate the residents would pay the tax this November – December for the coming year and then we would not collect the fee beginning in January. Mike Day, so would they have to pay if this amendment passes, would they have to pay double in November and December, is that what I am hearing, am I hearing this correctly? Mayor J. Lynn Crane, in my opinion they would have to pay for the rest of this year because the rest of this year the taxes we get in November will be not necessary, if they are for this year we will have the revenue to spend for next year. So technically I guess you could say that the residents would be paying double for six months. Mike Day, for six months. Michelle Facer-Baguley, may I ask a question, if we were to go through truth and taxation, if we were to raise the tax rate and go through that process. Is that maybe John’s – I’m not actually sure to ask this question to. As we would receive this rate from the treasurer every single year, and they would go back and whatever formula they would use to adjust that, my assumption is that we would be subject to that annually anyways – the adjustment, even after we raise the tax then we are subject to that adjustment, is that correct? Jerry Walker, so that certified tax rate goes to 1.5 next year the county comes back and say “oh dam it’s 1.2 this year. John Brems, but it will be base upon the dollars in the door, so it will be the same dollar… Jerry Walker, so your dollars never go up? John Brems, right, but we wouldn’t need another truth in taxation. Michelle Facer-Baguley, unless we increased service. Mayor Crane, the whole point is- one of the principals of the way we fund it now is that as the household increase the revenue automatically increases, and so if we change the format in order to increase that revenue we would have to change taxes each year and so that is just the reality. Mike Day, another consideration is in a year under this current format that we have it covers the base but in surplus years – in years where the city is doing really well that money is a surplus but, I guess what I’m trying to say from a philosophical stand point; is it really a surplus when we’re also charging $300 per household per home. Do you see what I’m saying? To me, its based on principal – we’ve had this conversation before and I don’t want to rehash it again. But I just wanted to reiterate that to me and my estimation in a good year it would be true surplus because one of
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 6 of 13
the primary purposes of our government is to provide public safety, and if it came out of the general fund that would be established. Mayor J. Lynn Crane, my response to that would be; the way it was crafted and designed I don’t think it was ever any intent that there would ever be a surplus in that fund. If we had a surplus in the general fund, then you are absolutely correct and if we went into another cycle where there was significant developmental revenue, you’re right there maybe money that would be generated that could pay for public safety without having to raise the tax. Matt Robinson, let me comment Mayor if you don’t mind, and Mike I want to propose a change to your amendment that would allow me to set forth. Michelle Facer-Baguley, before we do that I have a whole lot of comments to make. Jerry Walker, I have a whole bunch. Michelle Facer-Baguley, because I don’t want this to get to convoluted I want you to know where I stand. I would just like to say that, and we’ve talked about this before. We really went over this, this was an extensive, extensive search, extensive exercise trying to decide… and I really believe we made a good decision and there are a number of reasons for that. I also, one of the reasons and we talk about the taxes, I believe that it is invalid when we expect someone that lives in a more expensive house to pay more for the same kind of services that the guy down the road receives. They receive service, they receive like services so if someone breaks into my house and I live in a mansion I get the same services as the guy who barely has a roof on his house. So to me it doesn’t make any sense that we are charging more to the guy that makes more money than the guy that makes less. Fundamentally I have a problem with that. So that is one of the reasons why I support this. The other thing is that this is a enterprise fund and it sure is not rated upon rather our tax rate goes up or weather our tax rate goes down, whether we have to increase taxes this year and the next year. It’s a enterprise fund, it’s exclusive, it’s not dependent on the general fund and it’s something that we can be sure of and it’s a public safety issue that we can fund because of that and I am grateful for that reason. And then the last thing, and this is not crush Councilman Day corisma in any manner what so ever, he mentioned the notice issues and now that you’ve been with us for six months I would admit to you that we have gave the same notice as we have always given, and as you can see we have the same crowd that we’ve always had. Quite frankly believe it or not it is true, unless it’s in your backyard people don’t care, and they really don’t see this until it hits their pocket book, but you know what? Sometimes it’s time for the residents to become responsible for what is going on in their city and to step up to the plate, and perhaps they feel like they’ve done that. Through speaking to you, but I would say that we ought to be expecting more of our residents, there have been notices and Mike Day, I didn’t say there weren’t notices. Michelle Facer-Baguley, there was a question about whether we was transparent in what we was doing and I believe that we have gave proper notice and it comes a time when you can’t lead everybody to the doctor’s office, if they need an exam they have to take themselves. Mike Day, I personally believe that if you look at the percentages at the ballot box. I think that the residents did, I think they know where I stand on this issue. So I think part of the process was that they went and voted. 1500 of the resident’s defence they did go and cast votes. Jerry Walker, let me address that really quick. First, the percentage of the voters is extremely low, so when you say 1500 voted how many did you call? Mike Day, I can give… Jerry Walker, you called everybody that voted in the primary. Mike Day, ya, you’re right. Jerry Walker, so we are talking about a bias group of people that voted. One of the things when the founding fathers put this together, the one thing that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Adams did not want to happen and they said absolutely this cannot be a democracy. For that very reason, they said a democracy instantly becomes a mobo-ocracy and that is what happens when you get mob tendencies and that is what you see. We’ve seen it time and time again with different issues. You say you can fill this room with people that don’t like that fee? I can fill it with three times more with people that will vote against the taxes and I bet I
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 7 of 13
can guarantee you that the people that you are talking to are half of the people that I get here because they don’t want the taxes either. They just don’t want anything. Mike Day, it’s not popular Jerry and I’m … Jerry Walker, let me finish. Those people that think its unfair are the people that unfortunately I hate to say it but they are at the lower end of the spectrum as far as property valuations. I went to the Counties Sheriff website and I pulled up where our calls in Herriman come from. Interestingly enough our calls are concentrated in those same areas. So those people are actually getting a higher level of service then those people that are living in the more expensive homes. Now, that is fine because…, we never said it was a user fee it’s a fee and it’s a fee you pay to have that protection and you always have it. A lot of grandma’s talk to you. If we put this to a tax, it will hurt the grandma’s worse than anyone else because they will have to pay the property tax and they don’t make enough money on their fixed income to file an itemized return. So they’ll get the tax but they won’t get the return so they don’t get helped anyway, they get hurt. We talked about a surplus of funds, to refund a surplus of funds and you talked about doing that in kind. We do that now, if there is extra money in that fund we add service at the end of the year or we pick-up service that continue into the next year because we know exactly how much money we will have to continue that fund. If we do it by taxes as the Mayor said, we will have to raise taxes every year or cut services. That is the only way it goes, cause the contract number goes up, but the property numbers… as soon as you pick a tax rate the state makes them stay the same and so anyway you do it the state makes it stay the same. We lose money so we have to increase taxes every year, if you put it into the general fund I can guarantee you to that the future councils will rape that fund. All you have to do is look at social security fund and how that evolved over the years, initially was an enterprise fund that was set aside that had to be kept to that. As soon as it went into the general fund, now where talking about, I don’t get any of it, but if I had money the money I put into social security I could retire today. But, when it goes into general fund, it gets raped because what happens is in a down year everybody looks at what they are going to have to cut and one of those things will be- well we’re sorry we just can’t afford eight officers per week this year we’re are going to have to drop down to seven. And I can guarantee that happens. The last thing I want to talk to, I think. You talked about people with higher property taxes pay for education even those that don’t have kids. So why would we continue to put our burden on them instead of spreading it out, personally I think we should change a tax in Utah, that is my personal opinion than its fair otherwise all you’re doing is hoping someone that is making money – you’re going to take it away from them and time and time again legislatures across the country and its happening in Salt Lake this week West Jordan tonight and in Washington all week long all they are looking for is to stick it to somebody who has made money. That is what a property tax does, it sticks it to the guy that successful and I don’t think that is fair and most of the time when we stick it to that guy it really not addressing that problems and the problems that we need to address are being fair and providing what Michelle said the same level of service no matter who calls. Mike Day, in a perfect world everybody will pay when they made the call to me if we lived in a perfect world, and we don’t live there. Jerry Walker, yea, last night. Let’s just go to last night because I’m an ambulance chaser , I followed three separate calls last night. We had in our city at one time, nine police cars. I know we’re not paying for paying for that, but we made the call and they came. We had three fire engines, two ambulances all at the same time. If we didn’t have an enterprise fund to be able to pay up the contract we risk losing that and I’m not willing to risk that. The enterprise fund is the only way we can respond immediately to increased population and population equals service more or less, as population goes up you need more service. Whereas with taxes it doesn’t respond to population at all. It only responds to how big the house was built that year. And the state makes sure that the next year they fix that so it doesn’t happen again. And so the only way that we can maintain good coverage for the people of Herriman and give them what they really need and one of the things I want you.. I lied this is the last thing that I had; now I remember what I wanted to say… One of the things that I learned very early on, Ben Franklin said; “The worst thing about public service is your decision to enter into it” And right on the heels on that
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 8 of 13
you learn very early on that you’re here to represent everyone, not just a couple of people. I’ve voted many times against my personal opinion because I could see what was best for the city and you don’t work for Don and Joe and everybody – you work for the city now and they are part of the city. We talked last week about refurbish uram – one of many – the many have to understand that just because they have, even if it’s a majority it doesn’t matter if they don’t have all the information and they’ve elected you to be their spokesman to collect all the information that you can and then make the decision based on that. Mike Day, right. Jerry Walker, and sometimes, I learned this with the skateboard park and I’ve come back to that a thousand times. I said for five years I would never ever, ever vote for a skateboard park and so the people that hated the skateboard park along with me, forced us, forced me to relook at the whole picture and suddenly that picture wasn’t what these people were painting wasn’t what I thought and so I did change my vote and I’m glad I did, because that has been the most successful park instantly that we have ever made, and there is a reason for that and it hasn’t turned out, interesting enough no one has been molested, nobodies been taken into the bathroom and beat to death, no little kids have disappeared on the way home, all of these things is what the mob that came in said would happen. Now we held six meetings, two of those were in the “NIMBY” areas and four were elsewhere, everybody knew – we advertised those meetings – door to door, to door, to door, door, on signs we made it everywhere these meeting were happening. The only meetings that were well attended were the “NIMBY” meetings, the other meetings included one that was attended solely by a scout troop from Riverton who needed to fulfil their quota so they could get their merit badge and the other three had many four people tops. Because those people wanted the skate park, those people wanted the skateboard park they just didn’t want it in their backyards. Now that we’ve done it who’s kids are there? Theirs, we did it for the good of the community and that is our job, is to collect all the information that everybody doesn’t have and I can guarantee, and this is nothing against you or Matt because we were all in the same boat. I can guarantee you, that you’ve learned a lot in the last six months that you had no idea happened, and one of the things that you’ve probably learned really fast is; no matter what you want to do the state doesn’t let you, and this is one of those things and so I don’t think a tax is a viable to do it. Mike Day, we can agree to disagree. Jerry Walker, right. Mike Day, I know other cities pay for out of general funds and I know they survive, I know Riverton breaths and they talk to their residents and say this is what we are going to do. We can agree to disagree and at the end of the day, it’s all good. I stand by my issue where I think it should be a tax and it already is, we are already paying it; let’s make it a tax and not a fee. Do I think this is going to pass? No, but will I be able to sleep at night know what I thought was best for the city? Absolutely. We can agree to disagree on the issue and life goes on. I suggest that we move on this and make some movement rather than circle the drain, I think we’ve had this conversation enough. Mayor Crane, let’s let Matt Matt Robinson, I paused and held until Michelle got her’s out. I just wanted to make a couple of points, and it will lead up to a proposed amendment to your amendment Mike so make note of that. I think that one of the principals that is significant in this discussion and we may agree and debate it for hours and days and weeks… the community that we talk to as by the campaigning and by the election last year and there was only a few people that commented to us it was general and it was across the board the people that had concerns about how we fund the public safety through the fee. Where these people ignorant about the reason why the decision were made? Perhaps, did they feel like they were involved in the decision? They did not. As we had those conversations with many, weather there was a majority or a minority of active people, there was a lot of concern. So when the principal sits critical for me on this particular issue is responsiveness and their concerns and ignoring the many that Mike and I was exposed to is the wrong thing to do, hearing what they had to say, understanding the issues and helping reform or make the right decision or support a passed decision was the right thing to do on our side.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 9 of 13
So with that now being said, I don’t think that Councilman Day’s recommendation or amendment to the budget is in anyway intended to reflect negatively on the decisions of the previous council, I think that Mike and myself appreciate the reasons for the decisions of the passed around the public safety fee and I think we could debate the reasons on both sides for a long time and I don’t want to do that tonight. I just wanted to point out that it is not a negative reflection on the previous council decision. What I think need to go without saying, but I will say it anyways – we have the same goal on the council that we fund a public safety meets today and in the future appropriately. And the question is how, what is the best way to do it, and still be responsive to the residents of this community and this is where the amendment to councilman Day’s amendment will come in to pay. I will put it out there and we can see the right procedure to go through if we want to go that way. We need a change- rather we vote to pass this or not is beside the point, but the point Mike’s making we change to 100% property tax, I would propose that we make the method of funding or sourcing the enterprise fund. It’s specifically and intencially ambiguous on how we make that change, but I think you get the point across that you trying to make a Mike on this one, that we change the method of sourcing enterprise fund for public safety. And that is where I leave with that. Jerry Walker, let me ask something to John, Can we fund an enterprise fund with taxes? John Brems, I think we have to do it separately. Mayor Crane, what would happen if we did that? We would have to go through the process of creating an additional special service district like we did with the park special service fee, which would require some time we could do that and then the tax levy that we’d levy would be exclusively for that service, we would just have to create a separate district that would operate and function separately outside of the city structure, we’d have to have a board. It could be us, but if we change the taxes on that I don’t know if we could do it without convening as a board of directors of that district. John Brems, the problem is, I don’t know how you would do it. Cause you’d have to get consent of the… to create the district. Michelle Baguley, couldn’t hear what she said… Matt Robinson, could it not be a highbred? Could it not? And continue to be a lower fee with a component… John Brems, yea, you could do that. Matt Robinson, that’s the point… John Brems, if you were,,, you have to have a balanced budget so if you reduce the fee you’re going to have to increase something else or reduce an expense… to increase would have to be your property tax I’d assume is what you are probably thinking about. And you really only have one shot to do that and that is before the end of this month otherwise you gotta wait another year. Matt Robinson, and another element is I don’t think either councilman Day or myself expect this amendment to happen, it in due diligent to the conversations that we’ve had, part of it, the elections and the campaign process so… Mayor Crane, we have a motion now to amend the amended motion, do we have a second for that? Mike Day, I’m still fuzzy on how it would work I guess. Matt Robinson, a voting for a hundred percent change to property tax from the fee will be very difficult to support for me, but supporting a change to how we source the enterprise fund so we know that we get a highbred of what you are proposing is something I can support. I don’t see success in this particular thing at a hundred percent change to property taxes. Mike Day, well we would have to have a vote… I didn’t hear anybody pounding their pen seconding that. Mayor Crane, if there is no second to that motion. That motion would die. And that would put us back to now voting on the amended motion of the original motion. Mike Day, I’ll second that motion… for the sake of getting closer to where I think we need to be. I’ll second that. Mayor Crane, so does that… if we vote now on the amended motion to the motion amendment that motion dies, We only have to vote on this one we don’t have to vote on that.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 10 of 13
Jerry Walker, no we do, we just have to vote backwards all the way back. Mayor Crane, so the first we’re going to have now, is on a motion made by councilman Robinson, seconded by councilman Day, modified by the method in which we would be funding the public safety enterprise fund to levy part of the in a package, is there any other question on that motion? If not, we’ll vote, being none he calls for a vote. Council Member Jerry Walker No Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley No Council Member Mike Day Yes Council Member Matt Robinson Yes Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane No Mayor Crane comments, we are in a throws of discussion with the sheriff office and other cities about the possible creation of a unified police district or unified police effort, similar to the unified fire authority. Unified fire authority is funded primary by one of two methods by member entity’s who joined the UFA for the Salt Lake Valley Fire District which is funded by private contract in which we are a member. The proposal if this police force goes forward the proposal would be to fund that with a tax levy and we would be involved with that and this whole discussion would essentially be moved. Is that going to happen? Three months ago I would say it was not going to happen, today I would say there is a little greater chance of that happening but I’m still not very optimistic. At any rate, I hear all your arguments and I think they all have merits one of the disadvantages that happens in this business, Jerry quoted Benjamin Franklin saying maybe the first mistake was when you decided to run, but you’re forced to make decisions that are for alternatives that are not necessary negative you know the common why for people to say things is there is one way to skin a cat, and rather you skin it from the tail first or from the head first you get the cat skinned, and so that is what we have to do often in this business is to decide between alternatives and we know that many residents that would support one alternative and the other would support the other alternative and… So I think it’s wonderful to have this conversation. The other thing I would just say before we go to the next amended motion or vote is that I… Matt Robinson, a comment mayor on this is a real play in my opinion in this particular topic; I think there is real help weather we agree or disagree on this particular topic… real help the raise the awareness in the community about a topic by having these kind of discussions… because that kind of disagreement will raise the interest and allow the information flow to increase the… Mayor Crane, I appreciate that… Mike Day, and how we handled it and the perception out there is sometimes is that, you know there isn’t due process and when there is disagreements and we handel it in the correct way it’s a beautiful thing. That is the whole purpose of why we are here. Jerry Walker, it’s just too bad that those same people aren’t here to see it. Mayor Crane, alright we have people filling the room.. we are in the middle of a city council meeting which has gone a little bit longer than we anticipated, so some of our dialog is being zeroed in on that agenda for that meeting, we will be threw here in just a few moments. Mayor Crane, so now we have a motion to amend the motion to adopt the budget to change the funding method and it had a second both were made by councilman Day and seconded by Jerry Walker the motion was that we change the method funding the public safety enterprise fund to a pure tax as opposed to the monthly fee… so we had a motion and a second we are now going to vote. Is there any other question on that motion? Council Member Jerry Walker No Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley No Council Member Mike Day Yes Council Member Matt Robinson No Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane No Mayor Crane, so that brings us back to the initial motion which was made by councilman Walker to adopt resolution no. 08-21 and ordinance to adopting a final budget making appropriations for the support of Herriman for the fiscal year
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 11 of 13
beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009 and determining the rate of tax and levelling taxes upon all real and personal property within Herriman City, Utah with the certified tax rate being .000296. Do we have a motion and a second? Motion Jerry Walker, SECONDED Matt Robinson Council Member Jerry Walker Yes Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley Yes Council Member Mike Day No Council Member Matt Robinson Yes Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane Yes Mayor Crane so that motion carries I want to thank you for the participation, I want to thank you for the dialog. My dad always said you treat issues like issues and people as people and so because we do have a different point of view on some of these issues it doesn’t make us. Mike Day, can I publically thank the staff and Shauna for her work on the budget, I know that these thing didn’t pop out of thin air but the result of many hours of work. Thank you, even though I voted no I extend my gratitude to you on the work of the budget and you service to this community. Mayor Crane, thank you Mike that brings us to the end of this council meeting with a couple of things I’ll mention.
5:59:19 PM
3.2
Public Hearing on the amendment to the 2007-2008 fiscal year budget.” Chair/ Mayor Crane makes comment on some accomplishments that he thinks are significant and number one is that the city will be out of debt with the exception of the bonding for the municipal water system. That means that the city has retired the debt on this building approximately 16 years earlier then we were required by the agreement we entered into. Not only that we will have completed three expansion project on this building that are all paid also. We built the building first of all with no improvements on the lower level, and then we began to negotiating with Salt Lake County fairly quickly and remodelled part of the lower level to accommodate a branch of the Salt Lake County Library and then as we began to expand we remodelled the south side of the lower level to accommodate the building department, then as we outgrew that we added two thousand square feet on this level and on the lower level and expanded the space that the library used and of course utilized the space for the city staff. Those additions have been funded and paid for through this period of time and so as we retire the bond this building will be completely paid for. I think that our residents would appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to retire those bonds at a rapid rate and we won’t have debt service on this building in future years. In addition to retiring the debt on this building, the city has also been able to purchase some of the historical properties in the city, we have budgeted to purchase the old rock house and in addition to that we’ve had the opportunity to purchase the land in which the original Fort set, so the city has now bought that land and we have that paid for out right within this budget as well. I don’t know when we’ll be able to develop that land but at least it’s ours and we’ll be able to put development out there that has commemorate to our history, I think that is a meaningful thing. Chair / Mayor Crane opens the public hearing to receive comments and calls for any citizens who wishes to speak to come to the podium and address the City Council Members with items that are not on the agenda tonight. Mike Bradshaw, address on file. Mr. Bradshaw commends the city, I think it’s tremendous especially considering the economic environment we are currently working in as conservative or we’re all seeing reduction in budgets and I think it’s important to see if the city matches that economically and being fiscally prudent I believe and though I obviously can’t speak for all the citizens out in the community but I certainly appreciate you being fiscally prudent and doing those things that are necessary and when it’s time to cut back, it’s time to cut back and when it’s time to push forward we push forward, thank you and keep doing a great job. Chair/ Mayor asks if there is anyone else that would like to address the council. Chair/ Mayor Crane declared this public hearing closed.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 12 of 13
6:07:16 PM Council member Mike Day arrives at this meeting. 4. DISCUSSIONS /ACTION MATTERS: 5:56:38 PM 4.1 Discussions and consideration of Ordinance No. 08-20 “An ordinance amending the subdivision ordinance with respect to bonds. CONTINUED Council Member Jerry Walker MOVES to Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley SECONDED the motion. Chair/ Mayor J. Lynn Crane asked if there were any questions on the motion. Being none, he calls for a roll call vote. Council Member Jerry Walker Yes Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley Yes Council Member Mike Day ABSENT Council Member Matt Robinson Yes Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane Yes The voting was unanimous; the motion carried.
7:07:28 PM
At this time, the Council Members gave consideration of adjourning into meeting Closed Session for the purpose of pending litigation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 52-4--Attorney John N. Brems Indicated this was an appropriate purpose to hold a Closed Session. Council Member Mayor Crane MOVED the Council adjourn into a closed session pursuant to the provisions of section 52-4- __ for the purpose of pending litigation. Motion was SECONDED by Council Member Michelle, with the following roll call: The vote was as follows: Council Member Jerry Walker Yes Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley Yes Council Member Mike Day Yes Council Member Matt Robinson Yes Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane Yes All City Council Members vote in support of this motion. This motion passes unanimously. The meeting adjourned into Closed Session at 7:42:56 pm
5. NOTICE OF FUTURE PUBLIC MEETINGS: 7:01:18 PM June 25 to amend the budget at 7pm / Celebration of the payoff of this building. The next joint City Council and Planning commission work meeting will be Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 5pm The next Planning commission meeting will be held on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 7pm. The next City Council meeting will be held on Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 7pm.
6. UPCOMING CITY EVENTS: 7:03:12 PM June 18, Horse Pulls, Butterfield Park at 7pm, June 19, Jr. Rodeo, Butterfield Park 5pm. June 20 and 21, IMPRA Rodeo – Fireworks, Butterfield Park, 7:30pm. June 27, Ground Breaking Announcement for the NEW Towne Centre, Salt Lake County Recreation Center, and Salt Lake County Library, at Herriman City Community Center. June 27, Car Show – Dutch oven Cook-off, 5 to 10pm Butterfield Park. June 28, Fort Herriman Days, Step Run, Parade, Park Activities, Entertainment, Fireworks – Please check with the City offices for times.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 13 of 13
Mayor Crane remarks there being no further business to come before the City Council tonight. He asked for a motion Council Member Jerry Walker MOVED to adjourn this meeting at 8:37pm. Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley SECONDED the motion. All City Council Members voted in support of this motion. Motion carried.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the Herriman City Council Meeting held on Thursday, 12 June 2008.
I, Kristi Peterson, do hereby certify that I am the duly appointed, qualified, and acting City Recorder for Herriman City, State of Utah, and do further certify that the foregoing minutes represent a true and accurate, and complete record of this meeting held on this date of Thursday, 12 June 2008.
________________________________________________________________________________
HERRIMAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 12, 2008 APPROVED November 6, 2008 5:00 P.M. ~ Briefing Session (Open to the Public) 5:00:33 PM
Attendance: Chair/Mayor J. Lynn Crane.
Council Members Present:
Michelle Facer-Baguley, Jerry Walker, and Matt Robinson.
Staff Present:
John Brems, City Attorney Kristi Peterson, City Recorder Glenn Graham, City Planner Brett Wood, Assistant City Manager Gordon Height, City Engineer
Excused:
Council member Mike Day
1. 2. 3.
Review of tonight’s agenda items. Calendaring: When to hold July’s meetings. Joint meetings – Tuesday’s better?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5:30 P.M. ~ Regular City Council Meeting
Attendance: Chair/Mayor J. Lynn Crane.
Council Members Present:
Michelle Facer-Baguley, Jerry Walker Mike Day and Matt Robinson.
Staff Present:
John Brems, City Attorney Kristi Peterson, City Recorder Glenn Graham, City Planner Brett Wood, Assistant City Manager Gordon Height, City Engineer
Others Present:
Please see attendance sign in sheet.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 2 of 13
1.
WELCOME and INTRODUCTION MATTERS:
Chair /Mayor Crane welcomed those present and called the meeting to order at 5:38:23 PM We usually begin our meetings with a lesson on American Civics and Politics these are knowledge cards that I picked up in Philadelphia when a group of the city went back for some training. Tonight’s lesson is on the Untied States Customs Service; The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes on U.S. citizens as well as to collect import duties on goods brought here from foreign countries. These duties are known as customs, a word deriving from the “customary tribute” that a tenant in the Middle Ages was required to pay a feudal lord. The first Congress wasted not time on this issue, their second legislative act (July 4, 1789) being to impose import duties on goods, wares, and merchandise. Their fifth act (July 31, 1789) was to establish customs districts and authorize officers to collect duties. The responsibilities of customs officers have expanded to include interdicting and seizing illegal drugs and contraband (laundered or counterfeit money, endangered species, chemical and biological agents), and apprehending persons engaged in fraudulent impor-tation as well as copyright, trademark, and patent infringements. In 1927, the Bureau of Customs was made a separate agency of the Treasury Department (redesignated the United States Customs Service in 1973), divided into 20 management areas overseeing 300 American ports of entry.
5:44:03 PM
1.1
Reverence / Thought: A reverence was offered by John Taylor.
5:45:18 PM
1.2
Pledge of Allegiance: At the request of John Taylor, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
5:45:45 PM
1.3
Roll Call: All City Council Members are present at tonight’s meeting except for Mike Day.
5:45:59 PM
1.4
Citizen Comments: Chair / Mayor Crane opens the citizen comments and calls for any citizens who wishes to speak to come to the podium and address the City Council Members with items that are not on the agenda tonight. There were no citizen comments from the public. Chair /Mayor Crane declared the citizen comments section closed.
5:46:22 PM
Chair/ Mayor Crane explains that the Council at this time will move an item 4.2 towards the front of the meeting due to timing issues for Mr. John Taylor, Jordan School District. He calls for a motion. Council Member Jerry Walker MOVED to move item 4.2 a resolution of the city council of Herriman approving the adoption of an interlocal cooperative real estate sale agreement with the board of education of Jordan School District to the front of this meeting. Motion SECONDED by Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley with all present voting yes. Motion carried.
5:47:16 PM
4.2
Discussions and consideration of Resolution No. 08.09 “A resolution of the city council of Herriman approving the adoption of an interlocal cooperative real estate sale agreement with the board of education of Jordan School District.” Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley MOVES to approve resolution no. 08.09 a resolution of the city council of Herriman approving the adoption of an interlocal cooperative real estate sale agreement with the board of education of Jordan School District. Council Member Jerry Walker SECONDED the motion. Chair/ Mayor J. Lynn Crane asked if there were any questions on the motion. Being none, he calls for a roll call vote. Council Member Jerry Walker Yes
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 3 of 13
Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley Council Member Mike Day Council Member Matt Robinson Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane The voting was unanimous; the motion carried.
Yes ABSENT Yes Yes
2. CONSENT AGENDA: 5:55:31 PM 2.1 City Council written and electronic minutes of: June 5, 2008. 2.2
2.3
2.4
Discussions and consideration of Resolution No. 08.10 “A resolution of the City Council approving renewal agreement for general administrative engineering services with Bowen, Collins & Associates; Forsgren Associates; Horrocks Engineers; J-U-B Engineers; Psomas Corp; and Sunrise Engineering.” Discussions and consideration of Resolution No. 08.11 “A resolution of the City Council approving a renewal of an independent contractor agreement with Clayton Simms for criminal defence services.” Discussions and consideration of Resolution No. 08.12 “A renewal of an independent contractor agreement with Lorenzo Miller for criminal prosecution services.” Council Member Jerry Walker MOVES to approve the consent agenda as presented. Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley SECONDED the motion. All present voted yes; motion carried.
3. FINANCIAL MATTERS: 5:58:47 PM Chair/ Mayor Crane explains that the Council at this time will move item 3.2 before item 3.1 He calls for a motion. Council member Jerry Walker MOVES that we move item 3.2 before 3.1. Council member Matt Robinson SECONDED. Mayor Crane asks if there are any questions. All members unanimously vote yes. The motion carried.
6:14:44 PM
6:19:56 PM
3.1
Discussions and consideration of Ordinance No. 08-21 “A ordinance adopting a final budget making appropriations for the support of Herriman for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009; and determining the rate of tax and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Herriman City, Utah.” Chair/ Mayor Crane; we have as a matter of law we have to declares a certified tax rate and that certified tax rate is given to us by the County Treasurer. Interesting enough this is the first year we’ve had it this early in the month since we’ve been incorporated, we usually get it on the last day or two of June. Then having to guess pretty much what it’s going to be. Also, Utah laws don’t allow us to make any extra money with the certified tax rate so our certified tax rate goes down every year to offset any increase evaluation that we may have in our city – so if there is increased evaluation we can’t have windfall tax revenue, is the way the tax payers association would describe it. Council member Mike Day asks; you file for an adjustment then? Chair/ Mayor Crane respond; if we want to increase revenue we have to go through what they call truth Comments from council Michelle Facer-Baguley thinks that this is a very frugal budget and it is a substantial decrease from a ten million dollar operating budget to an approximately six million I think that is huge, and it just says again how amazing our staff is, that they really are concerned about the dollars that come into the city and when we are spending they recognize that the citizens are effected and they are very good stewards with that money and I’m really grateful for that.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 4 of 13
Council Member Jerry Walker MOVES to adopt ordinance 08-21 adopting a final budget making appropriation for the support of Herriman for the fiscal year July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009 and determining the rate of tax and levying taxes upon all real and personal property within Herriman, City, Utah. Council Member Michelle Baguley SECONDED the motion. Council member Mike Day proposes an amendment to the motion. I want to propose an amendment to the budget that we fund safety expenses with property taxes rather then the twenty-five dollar user fee thrown on the bill. I’m just going to breeze through a couple of reason why… and these are all based on discussions that I’ve had with residents and my own opinions. First it’s called a user fee, but it’s not based on use, it’s a tax not a fee. In my opinion it’s missed named, it is a tax on the residents of Herriman yet they are not getting credited with a tax reduction. The current structure doesn’t’ allow then to use it as a tax deduction, to me this principal based issue even though it would be small in my opinion correct principals are to be followed. Currently I think our taxes are low but I think the fee is high so I propose that we change it. This change will also concur the city to be continually fiscally responsible with respect to the general fund with this money in the general fund. We will have the option to surplus funds either to the residents or if there is a surplus to capital projects or what have you. Although I don’t know the in’s and out’s of all the things in the general funds can be used on I know that this being in the general fund would help us to tighten that up. Last one, I believe one of the reasons I was elected was because of this issue and the people of Herriman are passionate about it and many of them are fired up about it. While the minimum noticing was met when the fee was enacted, many residents expressed their disappointment to me with the way the city implemented the fee. I believe more public input could have been considered on this issue. I think as the interest of time, there are some transparent issues that people have talked about and I feel that transparency is as important keeping the public informed on the issues and so I think that is an important one as we vote. So I just wanted to propose that amendment to the budget and in hopes that with my great persuasive powers, I would like persuade all five of you, including myself to make that change with all of my great corisma so with that in mind I propose that we change the fee to a tax and take it with the property taxes. Mayor Crane states that we have a second motion to amend the first motion. Matt Robinson seconds the second motion and asks the clarification, are you in specifics that you want to change 100% from fee to property tax or would you be open to a change in the method of funding public safety. Mike Day, I think there is a lot of things we charge fee on for example the parks fee, which doesn’t cover all of the parks clearly. Forgive me for my appearance I just literally came here from Lake Powell and when I dipped my boat into the lake I was assessed a $31 use fee and was rolling that over this week, I dipping my boat into the lake and I’m using a use fee and using the lake. Good times. And I thought about this situation that we have here in Herriman it’s a passionate and volatile issue and I know I’m not popular in this opinion, but a lot of residents including myself feel that it should be funded and it has to be funded it’s the primary focus of city government but at the same time perhaps it could be on our property taxes, I think that the way we fund public education we feel it’s important and if you large home and you don’t have children that are grown you still pay into that fund. Even though you’re not using it, it’s a tax. I believe personally the way we are doing it now, we are taxing the residents but we are not calling it a tax we’re calling it a use fee. Matt Robinson, I get those points, but the question I have is do we need to in you amendment propose that you have complete change from zero and then move a 100% to property tax or are you hoping to just a change in the method of how we fund tax public safety fee? Mike Day, into what kind of change? Matt Robinson, so for example- you call out a parks fee for $5 per resident per month. Probably doesn’t cover all of our parks Mike Day, it doesn’t, I’m not going to tackle that right now… Matt Robinson, a portion in fee and a potion in property tax, that cover those fees would you be open to a public safety funding method that is just not a complete 100% change but maybe a high bread of those?
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 5 of 13
Mike Day, I’m mobile. I like all 100% taxes personally, that is what I like – I feel that is what the residents want, but I’m workable on this issue, and I also realize that we’re in tight year and I know this isn’t popular. I’m looking at these numbers and the city has done great and they’ve done wonders. I just felt to sleep at night I have to do what I what I told people I would do, and in return they said they would vote for you, but how do you feel about this. Countless calls from Grandma’s calling me up what are you going to do about it, this is what I want, and I said I do feel good about that. Matt Robinson, so John do we need to be specific tonight on this amendment as to say exactly what that change would be or can we… John Brems, I think he is saying eliminate it and I think he is also saying increase property taxes to pay for it aren’t you? Matt Robinson, we have to do a high breed at this point, it’s not just a 100% elimination, I’d say it could be a high breed activity. John Brems, I think what the motion is right now is not a high breed. Mike Day, my motion was not a high breed and I had not considered it when I made the motion. Mayor J. Lynn Crane, and I think before we vote on the amendment we would have to say if this proposed amendment to the proposal was adopted, as we would go forward with budget it would imply going into truth and taxation and increasing our property tax approximately 700% we don’t know exactly what that would be but we did make some projections of that and some presentation of that when we had the retreat, and it would change our tax rate 700% and that would put our taxes at instead of .000296 to seven time that whatever that comes out to be. So and it is what it is, in theory that would generate as close as Shauna could figure the same amount of revenue as the fee would do. What we would probably do in that case, is continue to collect the fee until the first of January and then when we adopted the new tax rate the residents would pay the tax this November – December for the coming year and then we would not collect the fee beginning in January. Mike Day, so would they have to pay if this amendment passes, would they have to pay double in November and December, is that what I am hearing, am I hearing this correctly? Mayor J. Lynn Crane, in my opinion they would have to pay for the rest of this year because the rest of this year the taxes we get in November will be not necessary, if they are for this year we will have the revenue to spend for next year. So technically I guess you could say that the residents would be paying double for six months. Mike Day, for six months. Michelle Facer-Baguley, may I ask a question, if we were to go through truth and taxation, if we were to raise the tax rate and go through that process. Is that maybe John’s – I’m not actually sure to ask this question to. As we would receive this rate from the treasurer every single year, and they would go back and whatever formula they would use to adjust that, my assumption is that we would be subject to that annually anyways – the adjustment, even after we raise the tax then we are subject to that adjustment, is that correct? Jerry Walker, so that certified tax rate goes to 1.5 next year the county comes back and say “oh dam it’s 1.2 this year. John Brems, but it will be base upon the dollars in the door, so it will be the same dollar… Jerry Walker, so your dollars never go up? John Brems, right, but we wouldn’t need another truth in taxation. Michelle Facer-Baguley, unless we increased service. Mayor Crane, the whole point is- one of the principals of the way we fund it now is that as the household increase the revenue automatically increases, and so if we change the format in order to increase that revenue we would have to change taxes each year and so that is just the reality. Mike Day, another consideration is in a year under this current format that we have it covers the base but in surplus years – in years where the city is doing really well that money is a surplus but, I guess what I’m trying to say from a philosophical stand point; is it really a surplus when we’re also charging $300 per household per home. Do you see what I’m saying? To me, its based on principal – we’ve had this conversation before and I don’t want to rehash it again. But I just wanted to reiterate that to me and my estimation in a good year it would be true surplus because one of
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 6 of 13
the primary purposes of our government is to provide public safety, and if it came out of the general fund that would be established. Mayor J. Lynn Crane, my response to that would be; the way it was crafted and designed I don’t think it was ever any intent that there would ever be a surplus in that fund. If we had a surplus in the general fund, then you are absolutely correct and if we went into another cycle where there was significant developmental revenue, you’re right there maybe money that would be generated that could pay for public safety without having to raise the tax. Matt Robinson, let me comment Mayor if you don’t mind, and Mike I want to propose a change to your amendment that would allow me to set forth. Michelle Facer-Baguley, before we do that I have a whole lot of comments to make. Jerry Walker, I have a whole bunch. Michelle Facer-Baguley, because I don’t want this to get to convoluted I want you to know where I stand. I would just like to say that, and we’ve talked about this before. We really went over this, this was an extensive, extensive search, extensive exercise trying to decide… and I really believe we made a good decision and there are a number of reasons for that. I also, one of the reasons and we talk about the taxes, I believe that it is invalid when we expect someone that lives in a more expensive house to pay more for the same kind of services that the guy down the road receives. They receive service, they receive like services so if someone breaks into my house and I live in a mansion I get the same services as the guy who barely has a roof on his house. So to me it doesn’t make any sense that we are charging more to the guy that makes more money than the guy that makes less. Fundamentally I have a problem with that. So that is one of the reasons why I support this. The other thing is that this is a enterprise fund and it sure is not rated upon rather our tax rate goes up or weather our tax rate goes down, whether we have to increase taxes this year and the next year. It’s a enterprise fund, it’s exclusive, it’s not dependent on the general fund and it’s something that we can be sure of and it’s a public safety issue that we can fund because of that and I am grateful for that reason. And then the last thing, and this is not crush Councilman Day corisma in any manner what so ever, he mentioned the notice issues and now that you’ve been with us for six months I would admit to you that we have gave the same notice as we have always given, and as you can see we have the same crowd that we’ve always had. Quite frankly believe it or not it is true, unless it’s in your backyard people don’t care, and they really don’t see this until it hits their pocket book, but you know what? Sometimes it’s time for the residents to become responsible for what is going on in their city and to step up to the plate, and perhaps they feel like they’ve done that. Through speaking to you, but I would say that we ought to be expecting more of our residents, there have been notices and Mike Day, I didn’t say there weren’t notices. Michelle Facer-Baguley, there was a question about whether we was transparent in what we was doing and I believe that we have gave proper notice and it comes a time when you can’t lead everybody to the doctor’s office, if they need an exam they have to take themselves. Mike Day, I personally believe that if you look at the percentages at the ballot box. I think that the residents did, I think they know where I stand on this issue. So I think part of the process was that they went and voted. 1500 of the resident’s defence they did go and cast votes. Jerry Walker, let me address that really quick. First, the percentage of the voters is extremely low, so when you say 1500 voted how many did you call? Mike Day, I can give… Jerry Walker, you called everybody that voted in the primary. Mike Day, ya, you’re right. Jerry Walker, so we are talking about a bias group of people that voted. One of the things when the founding fathers put this together, the one thing that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and John Adams did not want to happen and they said absolutely this cannot be a democracy. For that very reason, they said a democracy instantly becomes a mobo-ocracy and that is what happens when you get mob tendencies and that is what you see. We’ve seen it time and time again with different issues. You say you can fill this room with people that don’t like that fee? I can fill it with three times more with people that will vote against the taxes and I bet I
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 7 of 13
can guarantee you that the people that you are talking to are half of the people that I get here because they don’t want the taxes either. They just don’t want anything. Mike Day, it’s not popular Jerry and I’m … Jerry Walker, let me finish. Those people that think its unfair are the people that unfortunately I hate to say it but they are at the lower end of the spectrum as far as property valuations. I went to the Counties Sheriff website and I pulled up where our calls in Herriman come from. Interestingly enough our calls are concentrated in those same areas. So those people are actually getting a higher level of service then those people that are living in the more expensive homes. Now, that is fine because…, we never said it was a user fee it’s a fee and it’s a fee you pay to have that protection and you always have it. A lot of grandma’s talk to you. If we put this to a tax, it will hurt the grandma’s worse than anyone else because they will have to pay the property tax and they don’t make enough money on their fixed income to file an itemized return. So they’ll get the tax but they won’t get the return so they don’t get helped anyway, they get hurt. We talked about a surplus of funds, to refund a surplus of funds and you talked about doing that in kind. We do that now, if there is extra money in that fund we add service at the end of the year or we pick-up service that continue into the next year because we know exactly how much money we will have to continue that fund. If we do it by taxes as the Mayor said, we will have to raise taxes every year or cut services. That is the only way it goes, cause the contract number goes up, but the property numbers… as soon as you pick a tax rate the state makes them stay the same and so anyway you do it the state makes it stay the same. We lose money so we have to increase taxes every year, if you put it into the general fund I can guarantee you to that the future councils will rape that fund. All you have to do is look at social security fund and how that evolved over the years, initially was an enterprise fund that was set aside that had to be kept to that. As soon as it went into the general fund, now where talking about, I don’t get any of it, but if I had money the money I put into social security I could retire today. But, when it goes into general fund, it gets raped because what happens is in a down year everybody looks at what they are going to have to cut and one of those things will be- well we’re sorry we just can’t afford eight officers per week this year we’re are going to have to drop down to seven. And I can guarantee that happens. The last thing I want to talk to, I think. You talked about people with higher property taxes pay for education even those that don’t have kids. So why would we continue to put our burden on them instead of spreading it out, personally I think we should change a tax in Utah, that is my personal opinion than its fair otherwise all you’re doing is hoping someone that is making money – you’re going to take it away from them and time and time again legislatures across the country and its happening in Salt Lake this week West Jordan tonight and in Washington all week long all they are looking for is to stick it to somebody who has made money. That is what a property tax does, it sticks it to the guy that successful and I don’t think that is fair and most of the time when we stick it to that guy it really not addressing that problems and the problems that we need to address are being fair and providing what Michelle said the same level of service no matter who calls. Mike Day, in a perfect world everybody will pay when they made the call to me if we lived in a perfect world, and we don’t live there. Jerry Walker, yea, last night. Let’s just go to last night because I’m an ambulance chaser , I followed three separate calls last night. We had in our city at one time, nine police cars. I know we’re not paying for paying for that, but we made the call and they came. We had three fire engines, two ambulances all at the same time. If we didn’t have an enterprise fund to be able to pay up the contract we risk losing that and I’m not willing to risk that. The enterprise fund is the only way we can respond immediately to increased population and population equals service more or less, as population goes up you need more service. Whereas with taxes it doesn’t respond to population at all. It only responds to how big the house was built that year. And the state makes sure that the next year they fix that so it doesn’t happen again. And so the only way that we can maintain good coverage for the people of Herriman and give them what they really need and one of the things I want you.. I lied this is the last thing that I had; now I remember what I wanted to say… One of the things that I learned very early on, Ben Franklin said; “The worst thing about public service is your decision to enter into it” And right on the heels on that
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 8 of 13
you learn very early on that you’re here to represent everyone, not just a couple of people. I’ve voted many times against my personal opinion because I could see what was best for the city and you don’t work for Don and Joe and everybody – you work for the city now and they are part of the city. We talked last week about refurbish uram – one of many – the many have to understand that just because they have, even if it’s a majority it doesn’t matter if they don’t have all the information and they’ve elected you to be their spokesman to collect all the information that you can and then make the decision based on that. Mike Day, right. Jerry Walker, and sometimes, I learned this with the skateboard park and I’ve come back to that a thousand times. I said for five years I would never ever, ever vote for a skateboard park and so the people that hated the skateboard park along with me, forced us, forced me to relook at the whole picture and suddenly that picture wasn’t what these people were painting wasn’t what I thought and so I did change my vote and I’m glad I did, because that has been the most successful park instantly that we have ever made, and there is a reason for that and it hasn’t turned out, interesting enough no one has been molested, nobodies been taken into the bathroom and beat to death, no little kids have disappeared on the way home, all of these things is what the mob that came in said would happen. Now we held six meetings, two of those were in the “NIMBY” areas and four were elsewhere, everybody knew – we advertised those meetings – door to door, to door, to door, door, on signs we made it everywhere these meeting were happening. The only meetings that were well attended were the “NIMBY” meetings, the other meetings included one that was attended solely by a scout troop from Riverton who needed to fulfil their quota so they could get their merit badge and the other three had many four people tops. Because those people wanted the skate park, those people wanted the skateboard park they just didn’t want it in their backyards. Now that we’ve done it who’s kids are there? Theirs, we did it for the good of the community and that is our job, is to collect all the information that everybody doesn’t have and I can guarantee, and this is nothing against you or Matt because we were all in the same boat. I can guarantee you, that you’ve learned a lot in the last six months that you had no idea happened, and one of the things that you’ve probably learned really fast is; no matter what you want to do the state doesn’t let you, and this is one of those things and so I don’t think a tax is a viable to do it. Mike Day, we can agree to disagree. Jerry Walker, right. Mike Day, I know other cities pay for out of general funds and I know they survive, I know Riverton breaths and they talk to their residents and say this is what we are going to do. We can agree to disagree and at the end of the day, it’s all good. I stand by my issue where I think it should be a tax and it already is, we are already paying it; let’s make it a tax and not a fee. Do I think this is going to pass? No, but will I be able to sleep at night know what I thought was best for the city? Absolutely. We can agree to disagree on the issue and life goes on. I suggest that we move on this and make some movement rather than circle the drain, I think we’ve had this conversation enough. Mayor Crane, let’s let Matt Matt Robinson, I paused and held until Michelle got her’s out. I just wanted to make a couple of points, and it will lead up to a proposed amendment to your amendment Mike so make note of that. I think that one of the principals that is significant in this discussion and we may agree and debate it for hours and days and weeks… the community that we talk to as by the campaigning and by the election last year and there was only a few people that commented to us it was general and it was across the board the people that had concerns about how we fund the public safety through the fee. Where these people ignorant about the reason why the decision were made? Perhaps, did they feel like they were involved in the decision? They did not. As we had those conversations with many, weather there was a majority or a minority of active people, there was a lot of concern. So when the principal sits critical for me on this particular issue is responsiveness and their concerns and ignoring the many that Mike and I was exposed to is the wrong thing to do, hearing what they had to say, understanding the issues and helping reform or make the right decision or support a passed decision was the right thing to do on our side.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 9 of 13
So with that now being said, I don’t think that Councilman Day’s recommendation or amendment to the budget is in anyway intended to reflect negatively on the decisions of the previous council, I think that Mike and myself appreciate the reasons for the decisions of the passed around the public safety fee and I think we could debate the reasons on both sides for a long time and I don’t want to do that tonight. I just wanted to point out that it is not a negative reflection on the previous council decision. What I think need to go without saying, but I will say it anyways – we have the same goal on the council that we fund a public safety meets today and in the future appropriately. And the question is how, what is the best way to do it, and still be responsive to the residents of this community and this is where the amendment to councilman Day’s amendment will come in to pay. I will put it out there and we can see the right procedure to go through if we want to go that way. We need a change- rather we vote to pass this or not is beside the point, but the point Mike’s making we change to 100% property tax, I would propose that we make the method of funding or sourcing the enterprise fund. It’s specifically and intencially ambiguous on how we make that change, but I think you get the point across that you trying to make a Mike on this one, that we change the method of sourcing enterprise fund for public safety. And that is where I leave with that. Jerry Walker, let me ask something to John, Can we fund an enterprise fund with taxes? John Brems, I think we have to do it separately. Mayor Crane, what would happen if we did that? We would have to go through the process of creating an additional special service district like we did with the park special service fee, which would require some time we could do that and then the tax levy that we’d levy would be exclusively for that service, we would just have to create a separate district that would operate and function separately outside of the city structure, we’d have to have a board. It could be us, but if we change the taxes on that I don’t know if we could do it without convening as a board of directors of that district. John Brems, the problem is, I don’t know how you would do it. Cause you’d have to get consent of the… to create the district. Michelle Baguley, couldn’t hear what she said… Matt Robinson, could it not be a highbred? Could it not? And continue to be a lower fee with a component… John Brems, yea, you could do that. Matt Robinson, that’s the point… John Brems, if you were,,, you have to have a balanced budget so if you reduce the fee you’re going to have to increase something else or reduce an expense… to increase would have to be your property tax I’d assume is what you are probably thinking about. And you really only have one shot to do that and that is before the end of this month otherwise you gotta wait another year. Matt Robinson, and another element is I don’t think either councilman Day or myself expect this amendment to happen, it in due diligent to the conversations that we’ve had, part of it, the elections and the campaign process so… Mayor Crane, we have a motion now to amend the amended motion, do we have a second for that? Mike Day, I’m still fuzzy on how it would work I guess. Matt Robinson, a voting for a hundred percent change to property tax from the fee will be very difficult to support for me, but supporting a change to how we source the enterprise fund so we know that we get a highbred of what you are proposing is something I can support. I don’t see success in this particular thing at a hundred percent change to property taxes. Mike Day, well we would have to have a vote… I didn’t hear anybody pounding their pen seconding that. Mayor Crane, if there is no second to that motion. That motion would die. And that would put us back to now voting on the amended motion of the original motion. Mike Day, I’ll second that motion… for the sake of getting closer to where I think we need to be. I’ll second that. Mayor Crane, so does that… if we vote now on the amended motion to the motion amendment that motion dies, We only have to vote on this one we don’t have to vote on that.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 10 of 13
Jerry Walker, no we do, we just have to vote backwards all the way back. Mayor Crane, so the first we’re going to have now, is on a motion made by councilman Robinson, seconded by councilman Day, modified by the method in which we would be funding the public safety enterprise fund to levy part of the in a package, is there any other question on that motion? If not, we’ll vote, being none he calls for a vote. Council Member Jerry Walker No Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley No Council Member Mike Day Yes Council Member Matt Robinson Yes Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane No Mayor Crane comments, we are in a throws of discussion with the sheriff office and other cities about the possible creation of a unified police district or unified police effort, similar to the unified fire authority. Unified fire authority is funded primary by one of two methods by member entity’s who joined the UFA for the Salt Lake Valley Fire District which is funded by private contract in which we are a member. The proposal if this police force goes forward the proposal would be to fund that with a tax levy and we would be involved with that and this whole discussion would essentially be moved. Is that going to happen? Three months ago I would say it was not going to happen, today I would say there is a little greater chance of that happening but I’m still not very optimistic. At any rate, I hear all your arguments and I think they all have merits one of the disadvantages that happens in this business, Jerry quoted Benjamin Franklin saying maybe the first mistake was when you decided to run, but you’re forced to make decisions that are for alternatives that are not necessary negative you know the common why for people to say things is there is one way to skin a cat, and rather you skin it from the tail first or from the head first you get the cat skinned, and so that is what we have to do often in this business is to decide between alternatives and we know that many residents that would support one alternative and the other would support the other alternative and… So I think it’s wonderful to have this conversation. The other thing I would just say before we go to the next amended motion or vote is that I… Matt Robinson, a comment mayor on this is a real play in my opinion in this particular topic; I think there is real help weather we agree or disagree on this particular topic… real help the raise the awareness in the community about a topic by having these kind of discussions… because that kind of disagreement will raise the interest and allow the information flow to increase the… Mayor Crane, I appreciate that… Mike Day, and how we handled it and the perception out there is sometimes is that, you know there isn’t due process and when there is disagreements and we handel it in the correct way it’s a beautiful thing. That is the whole purpose of why we are here. Jerry Walker, it’s just too bad that those same people aren’t here to see it. Mayor Crane, alright we have people filling the room.. we are in the middle of a city council meeting which has gone a little bit longer than we anticipated, so some of our dialog is being zeroed in on that agenda for that meeting, we will be threw here in just a few moments. Mayor Crane, so now we have a motion to amend the motion to adopt the budget to change the funding method and it had a second both were made by councilman Day and seconded by Jerry Walker the motion was that we change the method funding the public safety enterprise fund to a pure tax as opposed to the monthly fee… so we had a motion and a second we are now going to vote. Is there any other question on that motion? Council Member Jerry Walker No Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley No Council Member Mike Day Yes Council Member Matt Robinson No Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane No Mayor Crane, so that brings us back to the initial motion which was made by councilman Walker to adopt resolution no. 08-21 and ordinance to adopting a final budget making appropriations for the support of Herriman for the fiscal year
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 11 of 13
beginning July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2009 and determining the rate of tax and levelling taxes upon all real and personal property within Herriman City, Utah with the certified tax rate being .000296. Do we have a motion and a second? Motion Jerry Walker, SECONDED Matt Robinson Council Member Jerry Walker Yes Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley Yes Council Member Mike Day No Council Member Matt Robinson Yes Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane Yes Mayor Crane so that motion carries I want to thank you for the participation, I want to thank you for the dialog. My dad always said you treat issues like issues and people as people and so because we do have a different point of view on some of these issues it doesn’t make us. Mike Day, can I publically thank the staff and Shauna for her work on the budget, I know that these thing didn’t pop out of thin air but the result of many hours of work. Thank you, even though I voted no I extend my gratitude to you on the work of the budget and you service to this community. Mayor Crane, thank you Mike that brings us to the end of this council meeting with a couple of things I’ll mention.
5:59:19 PM
3.2
Public Hearing on the amendment to the 2007-2008 fiscal year budget.” Chair/ Mayor Crane makes comment on some accomplishments that he thinks are significant and number one is that the city will be out of debt with the exception of the bonding for the municipal water system. That means that the city has retired the debt on this building approximately 16 years earlier then we were required by the agreement we entered into. Not only that we will have completed three expansion project on this building that are all paid also. We built the building first of all with no improvements on the lower level, and then we began to negotiating with Salt Lake County fairly quickly and remodelled part of the lower level to accommodate a branch of the Salt Lake County Library and then as we began to expand we remodelled the south side of the lower level to accommodate the building department, then as we outgrew that we added two thousand square feet on this level and on the lower level and expanded the space that the library used and of course utilized the space for the city staff. Those additions have been funded and paid for through this period of time and so as we retire the bond this building will be completely paid for. I think that our residents would appreciate the fact that we’ve been able to retire those bonds at a rapid rate and we won’t have debt service on this building in future years. In addition to retiring the debt on this building, the city has also been able to purchase some of the historical properties in the city, we have budgeted to purchase the old rock house and in addition to that we’ve had the opportunity to purchase the land in which the original Fort set, so the city has now bought that land and we have that paid for out right within this budget as well. I don’t know when we’ll be able to develop that land but at least it’s ours and we’ll be able to put development out there that has commemorate to our history, I think that is a meaningful thing. Chair / Mayor Crane opens the public hearing to receive comments and calls for any citizens who wishes to speak to come to the podium and address the City Council Members with items that are not on the agenda tonight. Mike Bradshaw, address on file. Mr. Bradshaw commends the city, I think it’s tremendous especially considering the economic environment we are currently working in as conservative or we’re all seeing reduction in budgets and I think it’s important to see if the city matches that economically and being fiscally prudent I believe and though I obviously can’t speak for all the citizens out in the community but I certainly appreciate you being fiscally prudent and doing those things that are necessary and when it’s time to cut back, it’s time to cut back and when it’s time to push forward we push forward, thank you and keep doing a great job. Chair/ Mayor asks if there is anyone else that would like to address the council. Chair/ Mayor Crane declared this public hearing closed.
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 12 of 13
6:07:16 PM Council member Mike Day arrives at this meeting. 4. DISCUSSIONS /ACTION MATTERS: 5:56:38 PM 4.1 Discussions and consideration of Ordinance No. 08-20 “An ordinance amending the subdivision ordinance with respect to bonds. CONTINUED Council Member Jerry Walker MOVES to Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley SECONDED the motion. Chair/ Mayor J. Lynn Crane asked if there were any questions on the motion. Being none, he calls for a roll call vote. Council Member Jerry Walker Yes Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley Yes Council Member Mike Day ABSENT Council Member Matt Robinson Yes Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane Yes The voting was unanimous; the motion carried.
7:07:28 PM
At this time, the Council Members gave consideration of adjourning into meeting Closed Session for the purpose of pending litigation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 52-4--Attorney John N. Brems Indicated this was an appropriate purpose to hold a Closed Session. Council Member Mayor Crane MOVED the Council adjourn into a closed session pursuant to the provisions of section 52-4- __ for the purpose of pending litigation. Motion was SECONDED by Council Member Michelle, with the following roll call: The vote was as follows: Council Member Jerry Walker Yes Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley Yes Council Member Mike Day Yes Council Member Matt Robinson Yes Chair / Mayor J. Lynn Crane Yes All City Council Members vote in support of this motion. This motion passes unanimously. The meeting adjourned into Closed Session at 7:42:56 pm
5. NOTICE OF FUTURE PUBLIC MEETINGS: 7:01:18 PM June 25 to amend the budget at 7pm / Celebration of the payoff of this building. The next joint City Council and Planning commission work meeting will be Wednesday, June 18, 2008 at 5pm The next Planning commission meeting will be held on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 7pm. The next City Council meeting will be held on Thursday, July 3, 2008 at 7pm.
6. UPCOMING CITY EVENTS: 7:03:12 PM June 18, Horse Pulls, Butterfield Park at 7pm, June 19, Jr. Rodeo, Butterfield Park 5pm. June 20 and 21, IMPRA Rodeo – Fireworks, Butterfield Park, 7:30pm. June 27, Ground Breaking Announcement for the NEW Towne Centre, Salt Lake County Recreation Center, and Salt Lake County Library, at Herriman City Community Center. June 27, Car Show – Dutch oven Cook-off, 5 to 10pm Butterfield Park. June 28, Fort Herriman Days, Step Run, Parade, Park Activities, Entertainment, Fireworks – Please check with the City offices for times.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
HCCCM 6-12-2008 Page 13 of 13
Mayor Crane remarks there being no further business to come before the City Council tonight. He asked for a motion Council Member Jerry Walker MOVED to adjourn this meeting at 8:37pm. Council Member Michelle Facer-Baguley SECONDED the motion. All City Council Members voted in support of this motion. Motion carried.
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the Herriman City Council Meeting held on Thursday, 12 June 2008.
I, Kristi Peterson, do hereby certify that I am the duly appointed, qualified, and acting City Recorder for Herriman City, State of Utah, and do further certify that the foregoing minutes represent a true and accurate, and complete record of this meeting held on this date of Thursday, 12 June 2008.
