Remarks by Carter Wilkey
124 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 4 of 5
Kent, to answer his previous question, do you know when the final, whatever rendition of the design we're on now, do you know when that one was adopted? When was this decision, yep, this is it, finally, we're done, stamp it, move it along?
To that point, Russell, whether we put it in writing or you have the same right to bring anything before this council, whether we tell you we put it in writing or not. So we can put it in writing and say, yeah, you have the right to bring this back and we'll look at it another day. But us putting that in writing is no different than you just calling her and putting it on the agenda and coming to us anyway. The answer is yes.
Yeah, we'll have the conversation, of course.
Things are not as good or as bad as they initially seem. That's what I'm hoping.
do we, sorry, before they do step away though, let's, we, as far as the five feet thing, do we want them to analyze this now that they have it? If he wants to come back and say, Hey, the five feet would be good. Just go to Kent with that information.
Mayor, with that, I would move that we direct Kent, our city engineer, to work with the Jenkins on letting them analyze the data that has been given to them and UDOT and work on a plan to shorten that island by however many feet is needed to make it good for their truck.
I'm assuming the only reason this is... Oh, there he is.
Well, but the reason it's on action is because we were talking about the funding, right? Right. No, we were talking about the impact. The bid's funded.
Mayor, I do have one point that I want to talk about this real quick. This project is kind of what brought it to life, and it's not on the agenda, so if we need to put it on the agenda. I am still concerned. I know in this situation we talked about the impact fees and the transportation.
Oh, yeah, I forgot there were two separate items. Thank you.
Yeah, 12 is done. Mike, my concern here as far as this is, I just want to give this as an example. We kind of try, citywide, especially when it comes to impact fees, we throw everything under the same hat. So they're in the same basket. So I wanted to, let's say for example, I owned a big factory and I had a hundred employees and I added a 33,000 square foot addition to my factory and I only added five employees. I'm not adding much more transportation, but that same factory, because they happen to be commercial, they're going to get charged $84,915 in an impact fee.
Okay. So it's not office square footage?
My question is do they even know that big book of uses exists and that they have that right to essentially appeal it?
So, Mayor, if I make a motion, which I'm ready to do, to not waive anything, because I don't think any of us... That's what's on our agenda. That does not eliminate the opportunity for them to reevaluate the amount and possibly lower it. Make that as part of your motion.
Okay. So then what I'll do is, Mayor, I move that we deny the waiving a portion or all of the impact fee for the new covered outdoor arena. But that the city will cover it. But that the city will cover it and that we will continue to work to see if. For what that is.
Any opposed? You're still getting your arena, Scott. Don't worry.
One quick question I have on this. I think he's picking the January 1. This all takes into effect January 1, correct?
So to your point then, Councilman Phillips, the past employees, the current employees versus the new ones, that would also take effective...
On your end, does that cause a lot of an issue to have past employees on one program and new employees on a little bit of another?
I mean, it's a pretty simple thing, I think, but. I mean, we're gonna have different caps on them, I believe, so. Yeah, you will. Councilman. Yeah, we have different.
So going along, we've had a lot of discussions of this as this week has gone on, and I do feel there's kind of two sides to this. One, the city has a very robust, in my opinion, as I've mentioned, I think this is a very robust and good time off policy, benefit package, whatever you want to call it, that in the past we've maybe had to be better than others just because of pay, and so, but I think in the years as we've worked hard to increase pay to try and make us more comparable with others, the private sector and public sector, We don't need to be as robust in this. That's why I'm fine at…
You just want to work overtime, yeah. You want to take a shorter lunch. We want our employees, we all have worked many hours in our personal lives. We know the effects of burnout. And as an employer, we don't want our employees to burnout. We want them to take their time off. We want them to take their lunches like they're supposed to so that they're more productive when they are working. And so I do share that major concern of people They count on this and they maybe work it to their advantage other than what it's initially intended for. So I'm honestly still torn between the two. I could go…
I never had the motion. Okay, I apologize.
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
But that's the term is for stacking in those left lanes. It's a very fair comment.