North Ogden City Council emails, 22 of 23

Feb 25 2012 - 9:08pm

The Standard-Examiner requested all email correspondence between the North Ogden mayor, city council and staff members, between Jan. 12-Jan. 30, regarding the subject of employee benefits.

These emails are presented as received from the city, may include duplicate messages and are not necessarily in chronological order.

 

 

 

 


-- Forwarded Message


--

 

From: Annette Spendlove <aspend@nogden.org>

To: "rtrotter16@yahoo.com" <rtrotter16@yahoo.com>

Cc: Ed Dickie <edickie@nogden.org>; Dave Carlson <DCarlson@nogden.org>; Cheryl Stoker <CStoker@nogden.org>; David Hulme <DHulme@nogden.org>; Justin Fawson <JFawson@nogden.org>; Kent Bailey <KBailey@nogden.org>; Richard Harris <rharris@nogden.org>; Wade Bigler <wbigler@nogden.org>

Sent: Friday, February 3, 2012 2:20 PM

Subject: GRAMA request

 

 

 

S. Annette Spendlove, MMC

City Recorder/HR Director

505 E. 2600 N.

North Ogden, UT 84414

801-737-9830 desk

801-430-2928 cell

801-737-2219 fax

 

Wade,

 

I think it best that we work on this in a systematic manner. If we act now, we come across as being reactive. We can let the staff present the information we requested and use it to help us arrive at a more informed decision. We don't need to vote tonight.

 

Kent

From: Wade Bigler

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:49 AM

To: Justin Fawson; Cheryl Stoker; Kent Bailey

Subject: RE: 80% benefit

I'm sure glad I asked you two how you felt now so I did not put forth a motion and have you reject it. The last we spoke of this in Kent's office and Justin wrote it on the board and then sent the priority list to each of us, we agreed to 80%. You two expressed the desire to lower it to 70%. I said I would like it lowered to 80%. Then I recommended we put a committee together of residents to look at all compensation aspects and then make any additional changes we felt necessary at that time. We spoke of how we need to be able to help select committee members since we all know different people with varying skill sets. I mentioned that putting this committee together would give us accurate and unbiased info that we could trust to base our decisions upon. I will not put forth a motion.

 

See you tonight.

 

Wade

 

From: Justin Fawson

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:13 AM

To: Wade Bigler; Cheryl Stoker; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey

Subject: Re: 80% benefit

Wade,

 

To be sure, I'd be interested in doing the total compensation study before making changes to their compensation. We can assume their wages are on par with the market, but until we dig into it, we can't know for sure. Their benefits are certainly far beyond what anyone in the private sector is offering, but we have to balance that with wages in my opinion.

 

Neal Berube called me yesterday to discuss this issue. He was on a state-level committee that looked at total compensation for state employees. They found that salaries were below private sector, but benefits and retirement were well above, so they right-sized both. They increased wages over time and set a cap on state insurance premium contributions so that employees could choose their plans. If they chose a high-deductible plan, the state paid 100% because the cost was much lower. If they chose a full coverage, low deductible plan, the employee would have to pay what the state would not. It was based on a total dollar amount contribution, not a percentage. They also did away with contributing to their retirement and moved instead to contributing to their 401k.

 

In a word, no, I'm not ready to cut it tonight. However, I do want to start the study. I'd love to have Neal and some other operations, finance and HR people in the community sit on this temporary, volunteer committee.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Justin

 

Sent from my Motorola ATRIXaNC/ 4G on AT&T

 

 

 


--Original message


--

 

From: Wade Bigler <wbigler@nogden.org>

To: Cheryl Stoker <CStoker@nogden.org>, Justin Fawson <JFawson@nogden.org>, Kent Bailey <KBailey@nogden.org>

Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 05:29:10 GMT+00:00

Subject: 80% benefit

I'd like to know how each of you are feeling about 80% tomorrow night in light of all the employee and Ed's clamor. Do you feel as you did before you were council members? Cut it to 80% now and then form the committee to look at every other aspect of their financial package? If each of you feel as you did a few weeks ago then this agenda item can be taken care of quickly, without controversy among the council. As I stated previously, I do not support it being lowered to 70% now. I think 80% is extremely fair, in fact a great benefit. I put this item on the agenda on behalf of the 4 of us wanting this done. Do you still feel the same?

 

 

________________________________________

From: Cheryl Stoker

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:42 PM

To: Wade Bigler; Ed Dickie; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

I also agree with the mayor and wade on the letter it seems like we all recieved. Everyone else has to state their name and address and I think this person should also have to do the same. Cheryl

 

________________________________

From: Wade Bigler

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:39 PM

To: Ed Dickie; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

 

1. It's obvious that someone in our city administration has indeed been talking with city staff and employees concerning reduction of benefits. This anonymous letter was typed and sent to us BEFORE the agenda and packet were avalable online so that is not where they got it from as was suggested.

 

In the past, the mayor has taken the stance to not respond to anonymous letters and emails. I have supported and agreed with the mayor on this point.

 

Regarding the anonymous letter that was asked if we would read it in council meeting: I believe city council meetings are set up so there are no unnamed persons having a voice in those meetings. If this employee wants to have the letter read in council meeting, then they should have to stand up, state their name and address just like every other participant is required to do, and then they can read their own letter rather than having someone else do it for them anonymously. They have the right and the opportunity to read their letter if they so desire, but it is my opinion that none of us should do so. It is an open and public meeting. No one should have an anonymous voice in a council meeting.

 

 

 

Wade

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Ed Dickie

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:02 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: letter to city council

 

The Mayor showed me a letter he received in the mail this weekend regarding the employee benefits. I think that this person said that they were a city employee? I want City Council to know that I have nothing to do with this nor have I discussed this agenda item with the employees. The letter the Mayor showed me does not have a name on it so I don't know if council or the Mayor is obligated to read it in the meeting other than just reference that you received it (and this is up to you all). The employees have access to see what is on the agenda and they pay attention to it so that is probably how they found out. We could see a few employees come to the meeting tomorrow - once again I have not asked them to do so, they are/will be acting on their own.

 

I will send an updated city benefit spreadsheet tomorrow before the meeting. We have sent an email out asking for this info and as they respond we add it to the spreadsheet. We thought it would be helpful for council e to know what other cities are currently providing their employees.

 

Respectfully,

 

Ed

 

 

Edward Dickie

City Manager

North Ogden City

Office: 801-737-2200

Cell: 801-940-1890

Wade,

 

To be sure, I'd be interested in doing the total compensation study before making changes to their compensation. We can assume their wages are on par with the market, but until we dig into it, we can't know for sure. Their benefits are certainly far beyond what anyone in the private sector is offering, but we have to balance that with wages in my opinion.

 

Neal Berube called me yesterday to discuss this issue. He was on a state-level committee that looked at total compensation for state employees. They found that salaries were below private sector, but benefits and retirement were well above, so they right-sized both. They increased wages over time and set a cap on state insurance premium contributions so that employees could choose their plans. If they chose a high-deductible plan, the state paid 100% because the cost was much lower. If they chose a full coverage, low deductible plan, the employee would have to pay what the state would not. It was based on a total dollar amount contribution, not a percentage. They also did away with contributing to their retirement and moved instead to contributing to their 401k.

 

In a word, no, I'm not ready to cut it tonight. However, I do want to start the study. I'd love to have Neal and some other operations, finance and HR people in the community sit on this temporary, volunteer committee.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Justin

 

Sent from my Motorola ATRIXaNC/ 4G on AT&T

 

 

 


--Original message


--

 

From: Wade Bigler <wbigler@nogden.org>

To: Cheryl Stoker <CStoker@nogden.org>, Justin Fawson <JFawson@nogden.org>, Kent Bailey <KBailey@nogden.org>

Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 05:29:10 GMT+00:00

Subject: 80% benefit

I'd like to know how each of you are feeling about 80% tomorrow night in light of all the employee and Ed's clamor. Do you feel as you did before you were council members? Cut it to 80% now and then form the committee to look at every other aspect of their financial package? If each of you feel as you did a few weeks ago then this agenda item can be taken care of quickly, without controversy among the council. As I stated previously, I do not support it being lowered to 70% now. I think 80% is extremely fair, in fact a great benefit. I put this item on the agenda on behalf of the 4 of us wanting this done. Do you still feel the same?

 

 

________________________________________

From: Cheryl Stoker

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:42 PM

To: Wade Bigler; Ed Dickie; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

I also agree with the mayor and wade on the letter it seems like we all recieved. Everyone else has to state their name and address and I think this person should also have to do the same. Cheryl

 

________________________________

From: Wade Bigler

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:39 PM

To: Ed Dickie; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

 

1. It's obvious that someone in our city administration has indeed been talking with city staff and employees concerning reduction of benefits. This anonymous letter was typed and sent to us BEFORE the agenda and packet were avalable online so that is not where they got it from as was suggested.

 

In the past, the mayor has taken the stance to not respond to anonymous letters and emails. I have supported and agreed with the mayor on this point.

 

Regarding the anonymous letter that was asked if we would read it in council meeting: I believe city council meetings are set up so there are no unnamed persons having a voice in those meetings. If this employee wants to have the letter read in council meeting, then they should have to stand up, state their name and address just like every other participant is required to do, and then they can read their own letter rather than having someone else do it for them anonymously. They have the right and the opportunity to read their letter if they so desire, but it is my opinion that none of us should do so. It is an open and public meeting. No one should have an anonymous voice in a council meeting.

 

 

 

Wade

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Ed Dickie

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:02 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: letter to city council

 

The Mayor showed me a letter he received in the mail this weekend regarding the employee benefits. I think that this person said that they were a city employee? I want City Council to know that I have nothing to do with this nor have I discussed this agenda item with the employees. The letter the Mayor showed me does not have a name on it so I don't know if council or the Mayor is obligated to read it in the meeting other than just reference that you received it (and this is up to you all). The employees have access to see what is on the agenda and they pay attention to it so that is probably how they found out. We could see a few employees come to the meeting tomorrow - once again I have not asked them to do so, they are/will be acting on their own.

 

I will send an updated city benefit spreadsheet tomorrow before the meeting. We have sent an email out asking for this info and as they respond we add it to the spreadsheet. We thought it would be helpful for council e to know what other cities are currently providing their employees.

 

Respectfully,

 

Ed

 

 

Edward Dickie

City Manager

North Ogden City

Office: 801-737-2200

Cell: 801-940-1890

Wade,

 

I assume that the 90% was figured into the current year's budget. Are you proposing that we make the change effective immediately or at the beginning of the fiscal year? Ed has gotten very excited about this proposed change. Is it because of the way it affects him personally or is this an issue that has earned him points with the city employees? I know he is the one who convinced the earlier council to offer 90% instead of the 80% they were previously getting.

 

How soon are we looking to review the entire compensation package? If it is soon, might that be a better time to deal with all these issues together?

 

Kent

 

________________________________________

From: Wade Bigler

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:29 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey

Subject: 80% benefit

 

I'd like to know how each of you are feeling about 80% tomorrow night in light of all the employee and Ed's clamor. Do you feel as you did before you were council members? Cut it to 80% now and then form the committee to look at every other aspect of their financial package? If each of you feel as you did a few weeks ago then this agenda item can be taken care of quickly, without controversy among the council. As I stated previously, I do not support it being lowered to 70% now. I think 80% is extremely fair, in fact a great benefit. I put this item on the agenda on behalf of the 4 of us wanting this done. Do you still feel the same?

 

 

________________________________________

From: Cheryl Stoker

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:42 PM

To: Wade Bigler; Ed Dickie; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

I also agree with the mayor and wade on the letter it seems like we all recieved. Everyone else has to state their name and address and I think this person should also have to do the same. Cheryl

 

________________________________

From: Wade Bigler

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:39 PM

To: Ed Dickie; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

 

1. It's obvious that someone in our city administration has indeed been talking with city staff and employees concerning reduction of benefits. This anonymous letter was typed and sent to us BEFORE the agenda and packet were avalable online so that is not where they got it from as was suggested.

 

In the past, the mayor has taken the stance to not respond to anonymous letters and emails. I have supported and agreed with the mayor on this point.

 

Regarding the anonymous letter that was asked if we would read it in council meeting: I believe city council meetings are set up so there are no unnamed persons having a voice in those meetings. If this employee wants to have the letter read in council meeting, then they should have to stand up, state their name and address just like every other participant is required to do, and then they can read their own letter rather than having someone else do it for them anonymously. They have the right and the opportunity to read their letter if they so desire, but it is my opinion that none of us should do so. It is an open and public meeting. No one should have an anonymous voice in a council meeting.

 

 

 

Wade

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Ed Dickie

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:02 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: letter to city council

 

The Mayor showed me a letter he received in the mail this weekend regarding the employee benefits. I think that this person said that they were a city employee? I want City Council to know that I have nothing to do with this nor have I discussed this agenda item with the employees. The letter the Mayor showed me does not have a name on it so I don't know if council or the Mayor is obligated to read it in the meeting other than just reference that you received it (and this is up to you all). The employees have access to see what is on the agenda and they pay attention to it so that is probably how they found out. We could see a few employees come to the meeting tomorrow - once again I have not asked them to do so, they are/will be acting on their own.

 

I will send an updated city benefit spreadsheet tomorrow before the meeting. We have sent an email out asking for this info and as they respond we add it to the spreadsheet. We thought it would be helpful for council e to know what other cities are currently providing their employees.

 

Respectfully,

 

Ed

 

 

Edward Dickie

City Manager

North Ogden City

Office: 801-737-2200

Cell: 801-940-1890

I'm sure glad I asked you two how you felt now so I did not put forth a motion and have you reject it. The last we spoke of this in Kent's office and Justin wrote it on the board and then sent the priority list to each of us, we agreed to 80%. You two expressed the desire to lower it to 70%. I said I would like it lowered to 80%. Then I recommended we put a committee together of residents to look at all compensation aspects and then make any additional changes we felt necessary at that time. We spoke of how we need to be able to help select committee members since we all know different people with varying skill sets. I mentioned that putting this committee together would give us accurate and unbiased info that we could trust to base our decisions upon. I will not put forth a motion.

 

See you tonight.

 

Wade

 

From: Justin Fawson

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:13 AM

To: Wade Bigler; Cheryl Stoker; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey

Subject: Re: 80% benefit

Wade,

 

To be sure, I'd be interested in doing the total compensation study before making changes to their compensation. We can assume their wages are on par with the market, but until we dig into it, we can't know for sure. Their benefits are certainly far beyond what anyone in the private sector is offering, but we have to balance that with wages in my opinion.

 

Neal Berube called me yesterday to discuss this issue. He was on a state-level committee that looked at total compensation for state employees. They found that salaries were below private sector, but benefits and retirement were well above, so they right-sized both. They increased wages over time and set a cap on state insurance premium contributions so that employees could choose their plans. If they chose a high-deductible plan, the state paid 100% because the cost was much lower. If they chose a full coverage, low deductible plan, the employee would have to pay what the state would not. It was based on a total dollar amount contribution, not a percentage. They also did away with contributing to their retirement and moved instead to contributing to their 401k.

 

In a word, no, I'm not ready to cut it tonight. However, I do want to start the study. I'd love to have Neal and some other operations, finance and HR people in the community sit on this temporary, volunteer committee.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Justin

 

Sent from my Motorola ATRIXaNC/ 4G on AT&T

 

 

 


--Original message


--

 

From: Wade Bigler <wbigler@nogden.org>

To: Cheryl Stoker <CStoker@nogden.org>, Justin Fawson <JFawson@nogden.org>, Kent Bailey <KBailey@nogden.org>

Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 05:29:10 GMT+00:00

Subject: 80% benefit

I'd like to know how each of you are feeling about 80% tomorrow night in light of all the employee and Ed's clamor. Do you feel as you did before you were council members? Cut it to 80% now and then form the committee to look at every other aspect of their financial package? If each of you feel as you did a few weeks ago then this agenda item can be taken care of quickly, without controversy among the council. As I stated previously, I do not support it being lowered to 70% now. I think 80% is extremely fair, in fact a great benefit. I put this item on the agenda on behalf of the 4 of us wanting this done. Do you still feel the same?

 

 

________________________________________

From: Cheryl Stoker

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:42 PM

To: Wade Bigler; Ed Dickie; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

I also agree with the mayor and wade on the letter it seems like we all recieved. Everyone else has to state their name and address and I think this person should also have to do the same. Cheryl

 

________________________________

From: Wade Bigler

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:39 PM

To: Ed Dickie; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

 

1. It's obvious that someone in our city administration has indeed been talking with city staff and employees concerning reduction of benefits. This anonymous letter was typed and sent to us BEFORE the agenda and packet were avalable online so that is not where they got it from as was suggested.

 

In the past, the mayor has taken the stance to not respond to anonymous letters and emails. I have supported and agreed with the mayor on this point.

 

Regarding the anonymous letter that was asked if we would read it in council meeting: I believe city council meetings are set up so there are no unnamed persons having a voice in those meetings. If this employee wants to have the letter read in council meeting, then they should have to stand up, state their name and address just like every other participant is required to do, and then they can read their own letter rather than having someone else do it for them anonymously. They have the right and the opportunity to read their letter if they so desire, but it is my opinion that none of us should do so. It is an open and public meeting. No one should have an anonymous voice in a council meeting.

 

 

 

Wade

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Ed Dickie

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:02 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: letter to city council

 

The Mayor showed me a letter he received in the mail this weekend regarding the employee benefits. I think that this person said that they were a city employee? I want City Council to know that I have nothing to do with this nor have I discussed this agenda item with the employees. The letter the Mayor showed me does not have a name on it so I don't know if council or the Mayor is obligated to read it in the meeting other than just reference that you received it (and this is up to you all). The employees have access to see what is on the agenda and they pay attention to it so that is probably how they found out. We could see a few employees come to the meeting tomorrow - once again I have not asked them to do so, they are/will be acting on their own.

 

I will send an updated city benefit spreadsheet tomorrow before the meeting. We have sent an email out asking for this info and as they respond we add it to the spreadsheet. We thought it would be helpful for council e to know what other cities are currently providing their employees.

 

Respectfully,

 

Ed

 

 

Edward Dickie

City Manager

North Ogden City

Office: 801-737-2200

Cell: 801-940-1890

Wade,

 

I guess I don't have the sense of urgency you have on this matter. I feel the same way Justin does. I'd like to look at total compensation then deal with everything in a more measured, thoughtful manner. It looks like we have Ed in an uproar and Debbie overwhelmed based on the information request I made this morning and that Dave Hulme added to. Dave Hulme suggested that we wait at least until the budget retreat. Even better would be if we had the total compensation study completed before the budget retreat.

 

Kent

From: Justin Fawson

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:13 AM

To: Wade Bigler; Cheryl Stoker; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey

Subject: Re: 80% benefit

Wade,

 

To be sure, I'd be interested in doing the total compensation study before making changes to their compensation. We can assume their wages are on par with the market, but until we dig into it, we can't know for sure. Their benefits are certainly far beyond what anyone in the private sector is offering, but we have to balance that with wages in my opinion.

 

Neal Berube called me yesterday to discuss this issue. He was on a state-level committee that looked at total compensation for state employees. They found that salaries were below private sector, but benefits and retirement were well above, so they right-sized both. They increased wages over time and set a cap on state insurance premium contributions so that employees could choose their plans. If they chose a high-deductible plan, the state paid 100% because the cost was much lower. If they chose a full coverage, low deductible plan, the employee would have to pay what the state would not. It was based on a total dollar amount contribution, not a percentage. They also did away with contributing to their retirement and moved instead to contributing to their 401k.

 

In a word, no, I'm not ready to cut it tonight. However, I do want to start the study. I'd love to have Neal and some other operations, finance and HR people in the community sit on this temporary, volunteer committee.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Justin

 

Sent from my Motorola ATRIXaNC/ 4G on AT&T

 

 

 


--Original message


--

 

From: Wade Bigler <wbigler@nogden.org>

To: Cheryl Stoker <CStoker@nogden.org>, Justin Fawson <JFawson@nogden.org>, Kent Bailey <KBailey@nogden.org>

Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 05:29:10 GMT+00:00

Subject: 80% benefit

I'd like to know how each of you are feeling about 80% tomorrow night in light of all the employee and Ed's clamor. Do you feel as you did before you were council members? Cut it to 80% now and then form the committee to look at every other aspect of their financial package? If each of you feel as you did a few weeks ago then this agenda item can be taken care of quickly, without controversy among the council. As I stated previously, I do not support it being lowered to 70% now. I think 80% is extremely fair, in fact a great benefit. I put this item on the agenda on behalf of the 4 of us wanting this done. Do you still feel the same?

 

 

________________________________________

From: Cheryl Stoker

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:42 PM

To: Wade Bigler; Ed Dickie; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

I also agree with the mayor and wade on the letter it seems like we all recieved. Everyone else has to state their name and address and I think this person should also have to do the same. Cheryl

 

________________________________

From: Wade Bigler

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:39 PM

To: Ed Dickie; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

 

1. It's obvious that someone in our city administration has indeed been talking with city staff and employees concerning reduction of benefits. This anonymous letter was typed and sent to us BEFORE the agenda and packet were avalable online so that is not where they got it from as was suggested.

 

In the past, the mayor has taken the stance to not respond to anonymous letters and emails. I have supported and agreed with the mayor on this point.

 

Regarding the anonymous letter that was asked if we would read it in council meeting: I believe city council meetings are set up so there are no unnamed persons having a voice in those meetings. If this employee wants to have the letter read in council meeting, then they should have to stand up, state their name and address just like every other participant is required to do, and then they can read their own letter rather than having someone else do it for them anonymously. They have the right and the opportunity to read their letter if they so desire, but it is my opinion that none of us should do so. It is an open and public meeting. No one should have an anonymous voice in a council meeting.

 

 

 

Wade

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Ed Dickie

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:02 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: letter to city council

 

The Mayor showed me a letter he received in the mail this weekend regarding the employee benefits. I think that this person said that they were a city employee? I want City Council to know that I have nothing to do with this nor have I discussed this agenda item with the employees. The letter the Mayor showed me does not have a name on it so I don't know if council or the Mayor is obligated to read it in the meeting other than just reference that you received it (and this is up to you all). The employees have access to see what is on the agenda and they pay attention to it so that is probably how they found out. We could see a few employees come to the meeting tomorrow - once again I have not asked them to do so, they are/will be acting on their own.

 

I will send an updated city benefit spreadsheet tomorrow before the meeting. We have sent an email out asking for this info and as they respond we add it to the spreadsheet. We thought it would be helpful for council e to know what other cities are currently providing their employees.

 

Respectfully,

 

Ed

 

 

Edward Dickie

City Manager

North Ogden City

Office: 801-737-2200

Cell: 801-940-1890

Agreed. Wade, I'm all for cutting it--IF we see that wages are on par with the private sector--which we won't know until the 'study' is done. I think the benefits will be cut either way as we see the results of the committee come in--simply because the retirement plus 401K seem to go FAR beyond what the private sector is offering anywhere. We may also decide to increase wages and pay less on the insurance premiums, etc. I agree that no motion to reduce the benefits should be put forward tonight, but don't we need to request the 'total compensation' study and give direction to form a temporary committee of residents?

 

Thanks,

 

Justin Fawson

City Council Member

North Ogden City

Office: 801-782-7211

Cell: 801-781-0016

From: Kent Bailey

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:55 PM

To: Wade Bigler; Justin Fawson; Cheryl Stoker

Subject: RE: 80% benefit

Wade,

 

I think it best that we work on this in a systematic manner. If we act now, we come across as being reactive. We can let the staff present the information we requested and use it to help us arrive at a more informed decision. We don't need to vote tonight.

 

Kent

From: Wade Bigler

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:49 AM

To: Justin Fawson; Cheryl Stoker; Kent Bailey

Subject: RE: 80% benefit

I'm sure glad I asked you two how you felt now so I did not put forth a motion and have you reject it. The last we spoke of this in Kent's office and Justin wrote it on the board and then sent the priority list to each of us, we agreed to 80%. You two expressed the desire to lower it to 70%. I said I would like it lowered to 80%. Then I recommended we put a committee together of residents to look at all compensation aspects and then make any additional changes we felt necessary at that time. We spoke of how we need to be able to help select committee members since we all know different people with varying skill sets. I mentioned that putting this committee together would give us accurate and unbiased info that we could trust to base our decisions upon. I will not put forth a motion.

 

See you tonight.

 

Wade

 

From: Justin Fawson

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:13 AM

To: Wade Bigler; Cheryl Stoker; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey

Subject: Re: 80% benefit

Wade,

 

To be sure, I'd be interested in doing the total compensation study before making changes to their compensation. We can assume their wages are on par with the market, but until we dig into it, we can't know for sure. Their benefits are certainly far beyond what anyone in the private sector is offering, but we have to balance that with wages in my opinion.

 

Neal Berube called me yesterday to discuss this issue. He was on a state-level committee that looked at total compensation for state employees. They found that salaries were below private sector, but benefits and retirement were well above, so they right-sized both. They increased wages over time and set a cap on state insurance premium contributions so that employees could choose their plans. If they chose a high-deductible plan, the state paid 100% because the cost was much lower. If they chose a full coverage, low deductible plan, the employee would have to pay what the state would not. It was based on a total dollar amount contribution, not a percentage. They also did away with contributing to their retirement and moved instead to contributing to their 401k.

 

In a word, no, I'm not ready to cut it tonight. However, I do want to start the study. I'd love to have Neal and some other operations, finance and HR people in the community sit on this temporary, volunteer committee.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Justin

 

Sent from my Motorola ATRIXaNC/ 4G on AT&T

 

 

 


--Original message


--

 

From: Wade Bigler <wbigler@nogden.org>

To: Cheryl Stoker <CStoker@nogden.org>, Justin Fawson <JFawson@nogden.org>, Kent Bailey <KBailey@nogden.org>

Sent: Tue, Jan 24, 2012 05:29:10 GMT+00:00

Subject: 80% benefit

I'd like to know how each of you are feeling about 80% tomorrow night in light of all the employee and Ed's clamor. Do you feel as you did before you were council members? Cut it to 80% now and then form the committee to look at every other aspect of their financial package? If each of you feel as you did a few weeks ago then this agenda item can be taken care of quickly, without controversy among the council. As I stated previously, I do not support it being lowered to 70% now. I think 80% is extremely fair, in fact a great benefit. I put this item on the agenda on behalf of the 4 of us wanting this done. Do you still feel the same?

 

 

________________________________________

From: Cheryl Stoker

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:42 PM

To: Wade Bigler; Ed Dickie; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

I also agree with the mayor and wade on the letter it seems like we all recieved. Everyone else has to state their name and address and I think this person should also have to do the same. Cheryl

 

________________________________

From: Wade Bigler

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:39 PM

To: Ed Dickie; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris

Subject: RE: letter to city council

 

 

1. It's obvious that someone in our city administration has indeed been talking with city staff and employees concerning reduction of benefits. This anonymous letter was typed and sent to us BEFORE the agenda and packet were avalable online so that is not where they got it from as was suggested.

 

In the past, the mayor has taken the stance to not respond to anonymous letters and emails. I have supported and agreed with the mayor on this point.

 

Regarding the anonymous letter that was asked if we would read it in council meeting: I believe city council meetings are set up so there are no unnamed persons having a voice in those meetings. If this employee wants to have the letter read in council meeting, then they should have to stand up, state their name and address just like every other participant is required to do, and then they can read their own letter rather than having someone else do it for them anonymously. They have the right and the opportunity to read their letter if they so desire, but it is my opinion that none of us should do so. It is an open and public meeting. No one should have an anonymous voice in a council meeting.

 

 

 

Wade

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Ed Dickie

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:02 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: letter to city council

 

The Mayor showed me a letter he received in the mail this weekend regarding the employee benefits. I think that this person said that they were a city employee? I want City Council to know that I have nothing to do with this nor have I discussed this agenda item with the employees. The letter the Mayor showed me does not have a name on it so I don't know if council or the Mayor is obligated to read it in the meeting other than just reference that you received it (and this is up to you all). The employees have access to see what is on the agenda and they pay attention to it so that is probably how they found out. We could see a few employees come to the meeting tomorrow - once again I have not asked them to do so, they are/will be acting on their own.

 

I will send an updated city benefit spreadsheet tomorrow before the meeting. We have sent an email out asking for this info and as they respond we add it to the spreadsheet. We thought it would be helpful for council e to know what other cities are currently providing their employees.

 

Respectfully,

 

Ed

 

 

Edward Dickie

City Manager

North Ogden City

Office: 801-737-2200

Cell: 801-940-1890

Justin could you please resend me the emails reguarding the parking ordinances that was sent. I somehow deleted them. I sent one, I have a question on it also. How does it apply to the homes that where built with smaller side lots and close together...

From: Justin Fawson

Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:30 AM

To: Wade Bigler; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Ed Dickie

Subject: Action Items, Priorities and Agenda Items

In an effort to consolidate some of the things I've been thinking about into an email, I'm going to try to summarize the open action items, my priorities and request agenda items for our next meeting in this email.

 

Open Action Items-

* (Justin, Kent and Ed) Need to schedule a meeting with Ed and Kent to discuss additional details regarding employees and the petition lawsuit

* (Mayor Harris and Dave Carlson) Looking for a decision regarding Brent Taylor's involvement in email correspondence

o I contacted Ryan Wilcox and he is having his legislative attorneys review these issues. He stated that this "does present a problem" and we should express these items to Brent

* (Mayor Harris) Opening the City Attorney position up to applicants as well as RFP

My priorities (budget and otherwise)-

* Budget

o Align the total compensation of city employees more closely with the private sector

OCss I'd like to see a 'Total Compensation' summary that includes wages as well as benefits for all city employees

OCss More immediate changes to benefits are needed

o I'd like to put together a temporary committee of residents to study privatization of some city services

o Align budget cuts with those that are occurring (or have occurred) in the private sector

OCss Put a STOP to the mentality of shortfalls=increased burden on residents (ie taxing/rate increases)

o Categorize 'wants' versus 'needs' in the 2012-2013 budget

OCss Needs are essential services. Wants will be closely scrutinized

o Evaluate the mix of PT versus FT employees

* Business

o Hire an OUTSTANDING Economic Development Director (could be dual role of community services)

o Review ordinances that pertain to businesses in North Ogden and change/update those that are stifling businesses

o Get completely behind the Economic Development Plan

o Actively recruit businesses into North Ogden that would enhance our city and better provide for residents' needs/wants

o Resolve the disproportionate fee issue--either by reversing it or changing the method of collection--if there is not clear justification (review reporting on police calls)

* Public Works

o Listen to the residents. REALLY listen to them and involve them on the committee on a broader scale

o Explore the possibility of reducing the requirements on public works (ie services they provide) to reduce requirements of the complex

o Not an issue of "not in my back yard". My opinion is that this should not be located in a residential area

o Determine requirements versus items in the Blayloc Study that would be 'nice to have'

* Other

o It is my desire to, at some point, take a look at our police department size and scope

OCss My opinion is that our department should be sized according to need, not a static growth ratio (1 per 1,000 residents)

OCss I think it's a real issue if our officers spend a majority of their time waiting to issue speeding tickets (I have NO idea what the ratios look like on time usage)

OCss I also think we need to carefully consider the practice of using private property for speed traps (ie--most every LDS church parking lot in North Ogden)

o I think we need to be utilizing better communication methods within our city

OCss Social media, email and text alerts, etc., for two-way communication with residents

OCss Town Hall meetings where members of the community can discuss issues (less formally than in a council meeting)

o Other matters that residents bring to my attention :)

Agenda Items- (Ed, please forward this section to Annette)

* (From previous agenda) New ordinance update (reversing the water shutoff) should be on the next agenda

* (From previous agenda) Updated utility rates are also planned for the next meeting

* I'd like to have Debbie report back to the council the same information she committed to share with the resident regarding the utilities shortfall

o My expectation is that Debbie would be able to present this in a manner that would be understandable to all of us--regardless of how complicated it is

o I am not a fan of taking resident's comments 'offline' because other residents don't have the benefit of hearing the answer (and many of them are asking the same question)

* Several of us would like to see the cap on attendance to committee meetings (currently a maximum of 2) removed

* I've been asked to have the council review the ordinance regarding parking large trailers, etc at a resident's home

o The request was made that we consider a period for 'loading' during which residents would not be fined for parking campers/trailers in their yards (I'm sure Dave would have a recommendation for us)

Thank you,

 

Justin Fawson

City Council Member

North Ogden City

Office: 801-782-7211

Cell: 801-781-0016

I ditto everything Justin said. Our city employees are great.

 

Wade Bigler

 

From: Justin Fawson

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 1:59 PM

To: ken.mscity@webpipe.net

Cc: Ed Dickie; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: RE: Agenda

Ken,

 

Thank you for your email and for your years of service to North Ogden City. I think it's important for our city employees to know that there is no malicious intent or hostility toward them regarding this issue. This review of compensation packages (including pay and benefits) isn't based on past performance or dissatisfaction we have felt. I can't speak for the other members of the council, but my feeling is that this is a matter of course and an obligation that the council has to our residents who pay every dollar of the city employees' compensation. It is our responsibility to ensure that the packages offered are reasonable and, as you mentioned, competitive. I agree that we need to ensure that we are delivering excellent services to the residents of North Ogden.

 

On your second point regarding the use of volunteers to do the work of city employees. I believe you may be referencing the article in the Standard Examiner about the RAMP funds. My comments to Dave Nordquist were aimed at ensuring the city was matching the funds given back to the city through RAMP in the form of volunteer hours whenever possible. Dave has done a great job getting Eagle Scouts, church and community groups involved in many different projects throughout the city. The dog park, as I understand it, was created solely through volunteer hours--and that's how we matched the RAMP funds (we're required to match the RAMP grants in materials or labor. Volunteer hours count toward the labor matching). I'm certain we're very limited in what volunteers can do in the city from a liability perspective. I certainly don't want volunteers patching the streets or fixing main breaks. These are better left to the professionals--as you stated.

 

Again, thank you for your perspective and time you took to share your thoughts. I would encourage you to share any further comments or thoughts during the public comments during the first part of the city council meeting tomorrow. Keep in mind that it starts at 6:30 now.

 

Best regards,

 

Justin Fawson

City Council Member

North Ogden City

Office: 801-782-7211

Cell: 801-781-0016

From: Ed Dickie

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:08 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: FW: Agenda

I was asked to forward this email to mayor and council.

 

 

Edward Dickie

City Manager

North Ogden City

Office: 801-737-2200

Cell: 801-940-1890

From: Ken [mailto:ken.mscity@webpipe.net]

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:02 PM

To: Ed Dickie

Subject: Agenda

 

Mr. Dickie,

I read in the Standard agenda section for the next North Ogden City Council's meeting agenda item # 1 that there is to be discussion concerning the changes on the percent that the city and employee pays for health and dental premiums.

 

It seems that each time a new council is elected this item comes up, from my 20+ years of being a North Ogden city employee this came up way too often. In most cases when the % changed in favor of the employee, it was done with the concession that it was in lieu of a pay increase.

 

I hope the new council would give this some serious consideration before making any changes.There are always new council members that think that the North Ogden City employees are paid too much. When I was working for North Ogden, our employees were always behind all of the other local cities in the pay scale and benefits. In the years that I work there we were always losing great employees to other cities for that very reason. I stayed as well as a few others because I enjoyed working in the city. However, if the council is hostile to employees the city can lose valued employees that will result in the loss of needed institution memory and quality service.

 

Being a North Ogden resident and retired employee of North Ogden City, I feel we need to leave the current system as is. Let's keep our hard working employees of North Ogden happy so that they continue to do a great service to the residents of the city as they do now.

 

I also understand that there are some council members that would like to see more volunteers to do the work of the city, there is some work in the city that could be done by volunteers as the city has now a great volunteer staff working for the residents to make it a better place to live. However, my expreience is that volunteers have little accountability since they have nothing to lose by stopping their service, and volunteer service wanes with time as volunteers become burnt out. Furthermore, serviing as a volunteer is a thankless job with public criticism that does not exist to the same extend as volunteers in other organizations, , chruches, and non-profits. Volunteers also have limited availability, work schedules, pose a higher liability than employees, do not have the training, and do not know OSHA standards. For example, like the recent snow storm we had how many people could or would leave there work to come and volunteer to plow snow? I would guess that number would be short of the number needed. Volunteers also fixing water main breaks on a cold winter night or understanding the OSHA rules relating cleaing sewer lines or similar is not somthing that the city should rely on. For these and many more reasons and situations we need the employees since a volunteer staff will not work.

I also understand that there are some council members that would like to see more volunteers to do the work of the city, there is some work in the city that could be done by volunteers as the city has now a great volunteer staff working for the residents to make it a better place to live. However, my expreience is that volunteers have little accountability since they have nothing to lose by stopping their service, and volunteer service wanes with time as volunteers become burnt out. Furthermore, serviing as a volunteer is a thankless job with public criticism that does not exist to the same extend as volunteers in other organizations, , chruches, and non-profits. Volunteers also have limited availability, work schedules, pose a higher liability than employees, do not have the training, and do not know OSHA standards. For example, like the recent snow storm we had how many people could or would leave there work to come and volunteer to plow snow? I would guess that number would be short of the number needed. Volunteers also fixing water main breaks on a cold winter night or understanding the OSHA rules relating cleaing sewer lines or similar is not somthing that the city should rely on. For these and many more reasons and situations we need the employees since a volunteer staff will not work.

 

I know that in the meeting there will not be any public comment on this issue. This is why I am sending this email in hopes that you foward it to the Mayor an City Council so they know that there are residents out there who are not in favor of any changes to the system.

 

Ken Martin

348 West 1875 North

North Ogden City

Ken,

 

 

Best regards,

 

Justin Fawson

City Council Member

North Ogden City

Office: 801-782-7211

Cell: 801-781-0016

From: Ken [ken.mscity@webpipe.net]

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 3:49 PM

To: Justin Fawson; Wade Bigler

Subject: RE: Agenda

Thank you for responding back to me,that means to me that you will listen to the citizens.I to think it is important that compensation packages be look at also but as I stated,it is always the very first item that comes up when a new council is elected,I was on the receiving end of the review several times and after several months there were council persons that called me in to there office and told me that there sole purpose for running for office was to fire me but after seeing that I was doing my job they had no problem with me it was a person that had told them that I was not doing my job probably because I would not let them do something that was against the city ordinances. As far as the citizens who pay for every dollar of the employees wages,I guess that you can say that about ever professions, that the citizens pay all of the wages of everybody,including doctors,teachers,store employees ect. but we just don't have the say in those wages.I for one think we have the best employees in the state working for our great city,there has never been a time that I have called the city that I have not had a response and I don't believe it was because I am a retired employee,I believe it is because they care about the resident's of the city.

 

On the volunteers issue,I did read the article on the dog park and I do understand that concept as I deal with that here in MSCITY were I work part time we have used the help of volunteers here for the matching funds,what I am referring to was when the petition was going around to have the bond for the public works building placed on the ballot there was a lot of talk from the people that came to my house to sign the petition of doing away with city employees so that we did not need the building and we would use residents to do the work,I know that is not was supposed to be said or happen but it did. I did sign the petition only because I felt it should be voted on for the amount of the bond,I know we need a newer building but there are better choices for the location of it. The right choice if it is to be relocated is at the pit on Mountain road that location has the least impact on the number of residents in the city.

 

Thank you again for your response back to me.

 

Ken

 

From: Justin Fawson [mailto:JFawson@nogden.org]

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 2:00 PM

To: ken.mscity@webpipe.net

Cc: Ed Dickie; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: RE: Agenda

Ken,

 

Thank you for your email and for your years of service to North Ogden City. I think it's important for our city employees to know that there is no malicious intent or hostility toward them regarding this issue. This review of compensation packages (including pay and benefits) isn't based on past performance or dissatisfaction we have felt. I can't speak for the other members of the council, but my feeling is that this is a matter of course and an obligation that the council has to our residents who pay every dollar of the city employees' compensation. It is our responsibility to ensure that the packages offered are reasonable and, as you mentioned, competitive. I agree that we need to ensure that we are delivering excellent services to the residents of North Ogden.

 

On your second point regarding the use of volunteers to do the work of city employees. I believe you may be referencing the article in the Standard Examiner about the RAMP funds. My comments to Dave Nordquist were aimed at ensuring the city was matching the funds given back to the city through RAMP in the form of volunteer hours whenever possible. Dave has done a great job getting Eagle Scouts, church and community groups involved in many different projects throughout the city. The dog park, as I understand it, was created solely through volunteer hours--and that's how we matched the RAMP funds (we're required to match the RAMP grants in materials or labor. Volunteer hours count toward the labor matching). I'm certain we're very limited in what volunteers can do in the city from a liability perspective. I certainly don't want volunteers patching the streets or fixing main breaks. These are better left to the professionals--as you stated.

 

Again, thank you for your perspective and time you took to share your thoughts. I would encourage you to share any further comments or thoughts during the public comments during the first part of the city council meeting tomorrow. Keep in mind that it starts at 6:30 now.

 

Best regards,

 

Justin Fawson

City Council Member

North Ogden City

Office: 801-782-7211

Cell: 801-781-0016

From: Ed Dickie

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:08 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: FW: Agenda

I was asked to forward this email to mayor and council.

 

 

Edward Dickie

City Manager

North Ogden City

Office: 801-737-2200

Cell: 801-940-1890

From: Ken [mailto:ken.mscity@webpipe.net]

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:02 PM

To: Ed Dickie

Subject: Agenda

 

Mr. Dickie,

I read in the Standard agenda section for the next North Ogden City Council's meeting agenda item # 1 that there is to be discussion concerning the changes on the percent that the city and employee pays for health and dental premiums.

 

It seems that each time a new council is elected this item comes up, from my 20+ years of being a North Ogden city employee this came up way too often. In most cases when the % changed in favor of the employee, it was done with the concession that it was in lieu of a pay increase.

 

I hope the new council would give this some serious consideration before making any changes.There are always new council members that think that the North Ogden City employees are paid too much. When I was working for North Ogden, our employees were always behind all of the other local cities in the pay scale and benefits. In the years that I work there we were always losing great employees to other cities for that very reason. I stayed as well as a few others because I enjoyed working in the city. However, if the council is hostile to employees the city can lose valued employees that will result in the loss of needed institution memory and quality service.

 

Being a North Ogden resident and retired employee of North Ogden City, I feel we need to leave the current system as is. Let's keep our hard working employees of North Ogden happy so that they continue to do a great service to the residents of the city as they do now.

 

I also understand that there are some council members that would like to see more volunteers to do the work of the city, there is some work in the city that could be done by volunteers as the city has now a great volunteer staff working for the residents to make it a better place to live. However, my expreience is that volunteers have little accountability since they have nothing to lose by stopping their service, and volunteer service wanes with time as volunteers become burnt out. Furthermore, serviing as a volunteer is a thankless job with public criticism that does not exist to the same extend as volunteers in other organizations, , chruches, and non-profits. Volunteers also have limited availability, work schedules, pose a higher liability than employees, do not have the training, and do not know OSHA standards. For example, like the recent snow storm we had how many people could or would leave there work to come and volunteer to plow snow? I would guess that number would be short of the number needed. Volunteers also fixing water main breaks on a cold winter night or understanding the OSHA rules relating cleaing sewer lines or similar is not somthing that the city should rely on. For these and many more reasons and situations we need the employees since a volunteer staff will not work.

 

I know that in the meeting there will not be any public comment on this issue. This is why I am sending this email in hopes that you foward it to the Mayor an City Council so they know that there are residents out there who are not in favor of any changes to the system.

 

Ken Martin

348 West 1875 North

North Ogden City

I ditto everything Justin said. Our city employees are great.

 

Wade Bigler

 

From: Justin Fawson

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 1:59 PM

To: ken.mscity@webpipe.net

Cc: Ed Dickie; Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: RE: Agenda

Ken,

 

Thank you for your email and for your years of service to North Ogden City. I think it's important for our city employees to know that there is no malicious intent or hostility toward them regarding this issue. This review of compensation packages (including pay and benefits) isn't based on past performance or dissatisfaction we have felt. I can't speak for the other members of the council, but my feeling is that this is a matter of course and an obligation that the council has to our residents who pay every dollar of the city employees' compensation. It is our responsibility to ensure that the packages offered are reasonable and, as you mentioned, competitive. I agree that we need to ensure that we are delivering excellent services to the residents of North Ogden.

 

On your second point regarding the use of volunteers to do the work of city employees. I believe you may be referencing the article in the Standard Examiner about the RAMP funds. My comments to Dave Nordquist were aimed at ensuring the city was matching the funds given back to the city through RAMP in the form of volunteer hours whenever possible. Dave has done a great job getting Eagle Scouts, church and community groups involved in many different projects throughout the city. The dog park, as I understand it, was created solely through volunteer hours--and that's how we matched the RAMP funds (we're required to match the RAMP grants in materials or labor. Volunteer hours count toward the labor matching). I'm certain we're very limited in what volunteers can do in the city from a liability perspective. I certainly don't want volunteers patching the streets or fixing main breaks. These are better left to the professionals--as you stated.

 

Again, thank you for your perspective and time you took to share your thoughts. I would encourage you to share any further comments or thoughts during the public comments during the first part of the city council meeting tomorrow. Keep in mind that it starts at 6:30 now.

 

Best regards,

 

Justin Fawson

City Council Member

North Ogden City

Office: 801-782-7211

Cell: 801-781-0016

From: Ed Dickie

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:08 PM

To: Cheryl Stoker; David Hulme; Justin Fawson; Kent Bailey; Richard Harris; Wade Bigler

Subject: FW: Agenda

I was asked to forward this email to mayor and council.

 

 

Edward Dickie

City Manager

North Ogden City

Office: 801-737-2200

Cell: 801-940-1890

From: Ken [mailto:ken.mscity@webpipe.net]

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:02 PM

To: Ed Dickie

Subject: Agenda

 

Mr. Dickie,

I read in the Standard agenda section for the next North Ogden City Council's meeting agenda item # 1 that there is to be discussion concerning the changes on the percent that the city and employee pays for health and dental premiums.

 

It seems that each time a new council is elected this item comes up, from my 20+ years of being a North Ogden city employee this came up way too often. In most cases when the % changed in favor of the employee, it was done with the concession that it was in lieu of a pay increase.

 

I hope the new council would give this some serious consideration before making any changes.There are always new council members that think that the North Ogden City employees are paid too much. When I was working for North Ogden, our employees were always behind all of the other local cities in the pay scale and benefits. In the years that I work there we were always losing great employees to other cities for that very reason. I stayed as well as a few others because I enjoyed working in the city. However, if the council is hostile to employees the city can lose valued employees that will result in the loss of needed institution memory and quality service.

 

Being a North Ogden resident and retired employee of North Ogden City, I feel we need to leave the current system as is. Let's keep our hard working employees of North Ogden happy so that they continue to do a great service to the residents of the city as they do now.

 

I also understand that there are some council members that would like to see more volunteers to do the work of the city, there is some work in the city that could be done by volunteers as the city has now a great volunteer staff working for the residents to make it a better place to live. However, my expreience is that volunteers have little accountability since they have nothing to lose by stopping their service, and volunteer service wanes with time as volunteers become burnt out. Furthermore, serviing as a volunteer is a thankless job with public criticism that does not exist to the same extend as volunteers in other organizations, , chruches, and non-profits. Volunteers also have limited availability, work schedules, pose a higher liability than employees, do not have the training, and do not know OSHA standards. For example, like the recent snow storm we had how many people could or would leave there work to come and volunteer to plow snow? I would guess that number would be short of the number needed. Volunteers also fixing water main breaks on a cold winter night or understanding the OSHA rules relating cleaing sewer lines or similar is not somthing that the city should rely on. For these and many more reasons and situations we need the employees since a volunteer staff will not work.

 

I know that in the meeting there will not be any public comment on this issue. This is why I am sending this email in hopes that you foward it to the Mayor an City Council so they know that there are residents out there who are not in favor of any changes to the system.

 

Ken Martin

348 West 1875 North

North Ogden City

 

From Around the Web

  +