City Council

Minutes of Work Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, March 29, 2016 Page Minutes of the Work Session of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 3:35 p.m., in the Council Work Room located on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure The purpose of the Work Session was to hold a Strategic Planning Workshop and discuss Council business. Chair White welcomed everyone in attendance and indicated that all Council members are present. Strategic Planning Workshop Chair White explained she believes that through strategic planning, working together, and understanding each other even while disagreeing, the Council can still have a collective voice and that is her hope from this. She explained that for the past two years she has been talking about elevating what the Council does from a policy perspective. The hope is to get the Council members to look at things collectively and still allow them to be able to fulfill the promises they made during their campaigns. She reported Council staff has put together a great presentation. Council Executive Director Bill Cook explained this is part of the annual process for setting legislative projects for the next year and he has added a training on persuasion as well. Each Council member will be given time to talk about their projects and staff needs to receive direction tonight on which projects will be on the list for next year. He reported a new position for a policy analyst to do research has been proposed in the Council budget. Mr. Cook reviewed some of the tools included in the packet for this evening and commented that one of those tools is a livability index. He indicated Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith will talk briefly about the software that has been proposed and benchmarking on electronic stipends will be added to the agenda as well as potential team building opportunities as a council. Mr. Cook stated the branding process started today and it went well. He reminded the Council there will be a public meeting in the chambers on Friday, April 1, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Council Communications Manager Mabey provided the Council with an overview of the process the City and the consultant are following to proceed with the Branding Project. She reported the full proposal will be presented by the consultant to the Council in July of 2016. “Persuading the Council” Training: Mr. Cook made a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with useful tools and other information regarding how to react when they are presented with a persuasive proposal or request. He noted that if someone is successful in causing a person to think or act in a certain way, they have used persuasion. This can happen in the form of convincing, urging, assuring, pleading, or influencing. Persuasion is about helping people convince themselves. Much of communication is an attempt to influence others and everyone sends or receives persuasive messages throughout each day. The question is not whether to persuade or not persuade, but what technique or strategy should be used. People should consider whether they are trying to inspire, convince, or issue a call to action. He noted those seeking to persuade the Council may include:  Individual citizens or businesses  Community organizations  Special interest groups  Students  Media  Other government agencies and schools  City Administration  Neighborhood groups  Attorneys  The opposite of persuasion is being forced to think or act in a certain way and this is the definition of coercion. Those using coercion are seeking to pressure, compel, make, control, dominate, or manipulate. Most can intuitively feel the difference between persuasion and coercion. He then discussed human tendencies, noting people tend to return a favor, they will do things they see others doing, they tend to obey authority figures, they are more easily persuaded by people they like, and once a person commits to what they think is right he or she is more likely to honor that commitment. He noted the City Council has issued a call to civility with a focus on remembering the rights and dignity of individuals, exercising personal rights while protecting the rights of others, respecting the rights of others, refraining from incivility, and kindling the building of community. The Council’s resolution regarding civility indicates it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable and to have spirited debate without driving people away. He asked the Council to think of what people really want from them. The possibilities include: to be heard, a favorable decision, to influence a decision, or to change something. He reviewed eleven common persuasion strategies and expounded briefly upon each: 1. Partner and collaborate 2. Deflect and defer 3. Divide and conquer 4. Go as fast and as hard as we can 5. We want what we want and we want it now 6. We have answered all of your questions, so vote yes 7. Catch us if you can 8. String ‘em along 9. Just trust me 10. I’ll respect you if you respect me first 11. All-out war Mr. Cook asked the Council to think of which of these strategies are most effective. The answer depends on each situation and persuaders need to consider the potential reactions. Persuasion is an art form that all need to master and what people will remember is how you made them feel. In the end, it is all about relationships. He stated that with the information regarding persuasion, he would like for the Council to consider a meeting checklist that can be used to gauge the persuasion strategy in use and the appropriate response or counter. He offered potential responses to each of the eleven persuasion strategies and facilitated a discussion among the Council members regarding their feelings about the recommended responses or counter arguments. There was a focus on past issues that the Council has considered and the persuasion strategies and responses that were used in those cases. Council member Nadolski stated he appreciates the fact that the Council has focused on civility in the past, but there have been times that he feels stifled by the process due to the fact that there is such a heavy emphasis on kindness and civility. He feels the questions he has asked or alternative suggestions he has offered on certain issues have been offensive to other members of the Council. He wants the ability to continue to ask questions and gain clarification on issues that he or the public may not understand without upsetting the Council. Council member Lopez agreed. The Council discussed Council member Nadolski’s concerns and emphasized that they are open to questions and dialogue, but that they feel clarification should be sought and most discussion should be held in work session meetings. The Council concluded they are committed to working together to become a cohesive unit, but that members of the Council are able to disagree with one another without causing offense. Council member Nadolski mentioned he is still working on learning his role and responsibilities as a Council member, after which Council member Garner advised the most important thing for any Council member to keep in mind is the difference between an issue for the Council to consider and an administrative issue. Council members should not cross the line and interfere with administrative actions. Council member Nadolski indicated he has appreciated this dialogue and he feels it would be very beneficial to hold Strategic Planning Sessions on a more regular basis to allow for these types of discussions. Mr. Cook stated it may be possible to accommodate the scheduling of these types of meetings once each quarter. The meeting recessed at 5:19 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 5:38 p.m. Staff Work Plan: Mr. Cook referred to a chart in the meeting packet that identifies projects members of Council staff are currently working on. He indicated he did not wish to review the chart in depth, rather, he wanted the Council to have it for future reference in the event they are curious about how a certain project is tracking. FY2016 Legislative Projects: Mr. Cook noted legislative projects are related to policy and must be significant enough for the Council to identify as a priority for the given budget year. He referred to the list of current legislative projects included in the meeting packet and commented that some have been included on the project list over more than one year. The list of projects includes the following:  Branding of the City: collaborate with the Mayor to complete the City branding effort  Citizen survey: conduct a City-wide citizen survey  College Town Initiative: continuation of the initiative  Diversity charter: develop a diversity charter through the diversity connections initiative  Open Space Program: create an open space lands and hillside protection program   Predatory towing: develop policy to address predatory towing  Recreation master plan: complete the recreation master plan  Scholarship funding: consider funding options for a scholarship program  Smoking in public spaces: adopt a “smoking in public spaces” policy  Sustainability goals: establish sustainability goals for the City  Transit System: continue the development of a transit system plan  Water Conservation: evaluate the City’s goals for water conservation Chair White mentioned the College Town Initiative and noted there have been discussions about developing a similar initiative and partnership with the Ogden Weber Applied Technology College (OWATC). Mr. Cook explained that staff is working on those efforts through a team including members of City Administration and OWATC Administration. Members of Council staff provided brief status reports regarding some of the projects included on the list. One on Ones: Mr. Cook reviewed a document included in the Council packet that identifies various projects, goals, or initiatives identified by each Council member. He asked that each Council member review their own list and provide the entire Council with a brief explanation of their top priorities. Council member Hyer reviewed the projects or issues on his list. 1. Detention Ponds 2. Water Rate Study 3. Mount Lewis Sports Park 4. North end strategy 5. Predatory towing 6. Business incubator 7. HELP Program 8. Converted carports 9. General Plan The Council discussed the suggestion to conduct a water rate study in the next fiscal year. Council member Hyer stated he wants to address the fact that some residents feel they are being treated unfairly by the fact that they do not have access to secondary water, though the City does not have any control over the secondary water system. Chair White asked how the Council would proceed after receiving feedback from the water rate study. She would like to consider options for addressing issues raised in such a study, but feels the City’s reaction needs to be measurable. Council member Hyer explained the project that is most important to him is item four and he would like to focus on furthering efforts to bring the community together in the coming year. Vice Chair Blair commented that item seven regarding the HELP program is also included on Council member Garner’s project list and it may be appropriate to include it on the legislative projects list. Council members Garner and Hyer agreed. Before reviewing her list of projects or issues of concern, Chair White explained that she likes to develop measurable goals, but she is not sure how to legislate measurability. She stated she would like the Council to keep that in mind when reviewing her list of projects, which include: 1. How best to communicate with citizens? 2. Green Events 3. Be Measurable and Transparent 4. Recreation Master Plan 5. Economic Development Review 6. Sustainability 7. Use of the new quarter cent sales tax and gas tax 8. Transparency 9. Healthy Citizens 10. Off-leash Rules 11. Transportation 12. Landfill Diversion 13. Public Service Academy 14. Apathy of our Community 15. Developing Council Priorities 16. Strategic Planning Workshop 17. College Town Case Study 18. Boards and Commissions Review Vice Chair Blair reviewed the projects and issues included on his list. 1. Golf Course CIP Projects 2. Sidewalks 3. Use of the new quarter cent sales tax and gas tax 4. Recreation Master Plan 5. Lights at Monroe Park  6. Skydiving at Ogden Airport 7. Glass Recycling Vice Chair Blair mentioned he is very passionate about parks. He stated that the new pickleball courts at Monroe Park are very well used and he thinks it is important to provide specialized activities at various parks throughout the City to provide several options for users community-wide. Council member Garner reviewed his project list. 1. Sidewalks 2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds 3. Union Station 4. Smoking 5. 24th Street Interchange 6. Lindquist Field 7. Monroe Park 8. Glass Recycling 9. 36th and Quincy 10. 33rd Street 11. HELP Funds 12. Food Trucks 13. Hispanic Heritage Festival Council member Garner commented that sidewalks are very important to him. He also mentioned CDBG funds and using those funds to address homelessness as well as using RAMP funding to replace some lights at Lindquist Field. The Council discussed past actions regarding food trucks. Council member Garner noted he feels additional work is needed by the Planning Commission to determine whether food trucks should be allowed at City Parks. Council member Lopez agreed. He acknowledged the Council has received a recommendation from the Planning Commission that food trucks not be allowed at City parks, but stated residents have indicated it is something they desire and he would like to explore the issue further. Council member Garner also mentioned his wish to continue the joint resolution for the Hispanic Heritage Festival. Council member Stephens reviewed his list of projects. 1. Transportation Master Plan 2. Economic Development 3. Parking Master Plan 4. Condition of our Buildings 5. Union Station 6. Open Space 7. Recreation Master Plan 8. Lester Park Master Plan 9. College Town 10. Diversity Connections 11. Bullying and Suicide Program 12. Neighborhood Watch 13. Funding Council member Stephens indicated the Transportation Master Plan, Recreation Master Plan and the condition of City facilities are most important to him. He also mentioned the College Town Initiative, the Bullying and Suicide program and preparedness in the community and stated that funds need to be set aside in the future for these projects. Council member Lopez reviewed the items included on his project list: 1. Indoor Recreation 2. Redevelopment 3. Diverse Populations 4. Citizen Survey 5. Marshall White Center 6. Tourism 7. Neighborhood Councils Council member Lopez stressed that he feels there is large number of youth in the community that are underserved by the City’s recreational programs, especially during the winter months. He provided a video with information about a boxing program that was developed in another city to serve at-risk or low-income youth. These kids need healthy things to do to stay out of trouble and he wants more recreation geared toward the underserved population. Council member Nadolski summarized the projects included on his project list. 1. Public Safety 2. Transparency 3. Neighborhood Councils 4. Recreation Master Plan  Council member Nadolski stated he feels strongly that the City needs a Recreation Master Plan that includes all sorts of activities rather than just traditional sporting activities. It seems the entire Council is supportive of the development of such a Plan, which pleases him. He stated that public safety is his highest priority for the community. He discussed transparency and indicated he would like to find ways to reach out to the community and provide citizens with information. He would like to develop a legislative priority for community outreach and engagement and he would like dialogue from the City Council and City Administration regarding how to accomplish the goal of being more transparent. There was general discussion to identify projects or issues that are included on multiple Council members’ lists to consolidate the list for Council staff. The identified safety (public safety and infrastructure safety), recreation (indoor and outdoor), and community outreach and engagement. Chair White mentioned she feels sustainability and a legislative priority dealing with funding mechanisms should both be included on the list. Council member Stephens suggested funding can be considered throughout discussion of the City’s budget. There was further discussion regarding a funding policy. Mr. Cook noted that Council staff will develop a scoping document for each of the projects identified by the Council. He will ask for Council feedback as those scoping documents begin to take shape. AARP Livability Index: Mr. Cook reviewed documentation in the meeting packet that provides an explanation of the AARP livability index tool. The index is used to score communities throughout the country based on certain criteria. Communities are scored on a range of one through 100 and an above average score is anything above 67. Much of the data needed for the index is available through Weber County. He noted the City’s score using the index is 49 and he reviewed a list that identifies how the City’s score compares to scores in surrounding communities and the country. After reviewing the information on which the City’s score was based, the Council determined that some of the information is not up to date and that could be the cause of the score the City received. Council member Nadolski asked Mr. Cook if he is suggesting that the index be used for measurability of certain issues in the City. Mr. Cook replied he would like for the Council to determine that. He indicated he found the tool very interesting and facilitated a discussion regarding how such a tool could be utilized in Ogden. No conclusion was reached and Mr. Cook asked that the Council keep the index in mind for additional discussion at a future date. Enterprise Resource Planning Demos – Dashboard, Transparency: Ms. Eller-Smith mentioned that she heard about dashboard tools at an International City Managers Association (ICMA) conference, but more recently she has delved further into the purpose of the tool. Dashboards can be used as a quick check to gauge how the City is doing. It has been a recent trend for cities to put dashboard tools to use and she has reached out to some cities in the area to get information about the type of program they are using. Provo has a dashboard tool, but she could not find great information about it on their website. The Utah Transit Authority has a simple dashboard tool that includes statistics compared on a year to year basis. She noted that as the City is moving through the process of selecting an ERP tool, she has been focused on ensuring that the tool has a transparency component which is user friendly and could be accessed by the average resident through the City’s website. The Council discussed the various components of the dashboard or ERP tool, noting they prefer a product that offers quantifiable and measurable goals and objectives that can be benchmarked against. Council member Nadolski indicated that he would like to build a long term and sustainable product that will be a valuable tool for future elected leaders of the City. Council member Hyer agreed and added that if the product is high quality, future elected leaders will not want to do away with it. Ms. Eller-Smith indicated the project to select an ERP for the City will continue to move forward and is largely dependent upon the project to update the City’s website. She stated she does not know when this will be operational but her guess would be a year to 18 months. Benchmarking: Council Communications Manager Mabey explained that staff has done benchmarking with several other cities in the area relative to various issues that impact the City Council. She noted that efforts have been made over the past several years to transition to paperless operations and Council members have been provided with iPads to view Council packets electronically. Some cities are moving toward offering Council members a stipend to purchase the device of their choice and Council staff is recommending a similar program. The Council discussed the proposal and ultimately offered their support. Ms. Mabey added that if the stipend is not sufficient to cover the cost of needed devices, the City’s Information Technology Division offers no-interest loans for City employees to purchase a computer or other device. Mr. Cook clarified that loan program is not available to part-time employees, which is the classification assigned to Council members. Council member Nadolski expressed concern that the stipend could be viewed as a pay increase by constituents. Council member Garner pointed out the importance of emphasizing that a stipend program is becoming a standard throughout the State. Ms. Mabey added that the stipend will be taxed. The Council discussed other benefits available to full-time employees that may not be available to City Council members. Mr. Cook noted that the Council can choose to make an exception to policies governing benefit programs to provide such benefits to the Council, but that has not been done in the past. Discussion regarding the proposed stipend program continued, with the Council ultimately offering their support for Council staff’s recommendation. Review of proposed agenda for April 21, 2016 Council workshop meeting: Mr. Cook reviewed the agenda for the next Council workshop meeting scheduled for April 21, 2016. He noted the meeting was originally scheduled for 5:30 p.m., but facilitated a discussion with the Council regarding changing the start time to 3:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.  ________________________________________ JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: