Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Operations - 10/20/1992 OPERATMNS COMMITTEEtUNOTES October 20, 1992 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Charlie Lindsey Roger Lubovich Tony McCarthy Alana Mclalwain May Miller Kelli O'Donnell Don Wickstrom MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bill Doolittle Jean Parietti Raul Ramos The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Chairperson Houser. Approval of Vouchers All claims for the period ending October 15, 1992, in the amount of $2,579,100.39 were approved for payment. Utility Tax Ordinance Finance Director McCarthy stated that revising the Utility Tax Ordinance makes it possible to collect monthly and has provided stronger language for penalties and provisions for ovdrpayments. The City auditor has found that Cellular One has not been paying in taxes that they are coRectiing and there may be other instances of this happening. Committeemember Orr asked if this would present problems for businesses. McCarthy noted that this was for utility businesses only, of which there are about fifteen paying in to the City. There is also an exemption for those who owe $1,000 a month or less to continue with quarterly payments. McCarthy projected that for 1993 the City would earn$9,000 in interest income from the new reporting system. Orr questioned the penalty provisions. Huntington noted that the purpose is to collect on old accounts but an aggressive penalty is available at the discretion of the Finance Director for abusers of the system. McCarthy stated that this ordinance will be on the agenda for the next Council meeting and if passed would be distributed to the utility companies to give them time to have their system in place by February of 1993. Committeemember Orr moved to recommend approval of the ordinance. Committee Chair Houser seconded the motion. Bill Doolittle asked why the cable companies budget doesn't reflect this tax. McCarthy replied that it is his understanding that they pay a 5%franchise fee. Doolittle noted that this is on their total revenue and that he felt TCI drags their feet on paying. McCarthy agreed that the issue needs to be looked at but with the personnel shortage the workload has just been organized so the internal auditor can again focus on .auditing issues. The City contracts with a cable consultant who is supposed to monitor these items. A discussion followed of other related audit opportunities. Committeemembers Orr and Houser voted in favor of passing the motion. 1 OOPERAMONS C,OMIVIr= bMUTES 'i 'I October�0, 1992, Cons " Computer Listing of Consultant Costs McCarthy noted that this item was a request of Councilman White at the last City Q,ouncil meeting. He explained that the listing provided was for all categories in service areas of exp=€ res over $999. By doing the dollar limit, smaller items like film developing were not included W Xbq fp ittee wishes, a different selection can be used or a monthly reporting of all items over $999f cat be provided on an ongoing basis. McCarthy pointed out that the total of the report was about $5 million which includes major contracts such as Metro Sewage and the cost of Blue Cross Administration of the medical program. Houser requested that Committeemember White be given the information. McCarthy stated that White had been sent the information with the agenda package of this meeting. Procurement Contract Ordinance City Attorney Lubovich stated that the Procurement Contract Ordinance was requested to go back to Operations due to Councilmember Jon Johnson's request that King County guidelines for reporting be looked at for incorporation in the ordinance. The'Attorney's Office received the gelifnes this morning and have drafted up the inclusions but it has not been reviewed by Johnson yet. The amendment to the ordinance deals with the provisions for professional/consulting contracts. Some of the changes include a reporting requirement to the Operations Committee of,co;ttracts over $15,000 every six months for review and a disclosure report to be filed with the City for the purpose of preventing any conflicts of interest. Houser noted that the current ordinance was just passed. Lubovich agreed acid during further explanation noted that this was informational at this time since Johnson has not had an opportunity to review the draft to see if it was what he had in mind. After a discussion of the computer listing posokbilities and conflict of interest proposals Public Works Director Wickstrom addressed his concern that*q revisions may add delays to projects due to the large number of contracts on any given project and that length of time to go through a long process. After further discussion Houser directed that after a final draft is agreed to by Coumeilmember Johnson, the ordinance should be reviewed by Department Heads for their input. ; The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. by Conmottee Chair Houser. 2 OPERATII�NS COMMITTEE14INUTES October 20, 1992 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Charlie Lindsey Roger Lubovich Tony McCarthy Alana McIalwain May Miller Kelli O'Donnell Don Wickstrom MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bill Doolittle Jean Parietti Raul Ramos The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Chairperson Houser. Approval of Vouchers All claims for the period ending October 15, 1992, in the amount of $2,579,100.39 were approved for payment. Utility Tax Ordinance Finance Director McCarthy stated that revising the Utility Tax Ordinance makes it possible to collect monthly and has provided stronger language for penalties and provisions for ovetpayments. The City auditor has found that Cellular One has not been paying in taxes that they are collecting and there may be other instances of this happening. Committeemember Orr asked if this would present problems for businesses. McCarthy noted that this was for utility businesses only, of which there are about fifteen paying in to the City. There is also an exemption for those who owe $1,000 a month or less to continue with quarterly payments. McCarthy projected that for 1993 the City would earn$9,000 in interest income from the new reporting system. Orr questioned the penalty provisions. Huntington noted that the purpose is to collect on old accounts but an aggressive penalty is available at the discretion of the Finance Director for abusers of the system. McCarthy stated that this ordinance will be on the agenda for the next Council meeting and if passed would be distributed to the utility companies to give them time to have their system in place by February of 1993. Committeemember Orr moved to recommend approval of the ordinance. Committee Chair Houser seconded the motion. Bill Doolittle asked why the cable companies budget doesn't reflect this tax. McCarthy replied that it is his understanding that they pay a 5%franchise fee. Doolittle noted that this is on their total revenue and that he felt TCI drags their feet on paying. McCarthy agreed that the issue needs to be looked at but with the personnel shortage the workload has just been organized so the internal auditor can again focus on auditing issues. The City contracts with a cable consultant who is supposed to monitor these items. A discussion followed of other related audit opportunities. Committeemembers Orr and Houser voted in favor of passing the motion. 1 'OPERATIONS COMMrME MINUTE October 20, 1992, Cont Computer Listing of Consultant Costs McCarthy noted that this item was a request of Councilman White at the last City Pouncil meeting. He explained that the listing provided was for all categories in service areas of expemc res over $999. By doing the dollar limit, smaller items like film developing were not included. If thq pmmittee wishes, a different selection can be used or a monthly reporting of all items over $999 can be provided on an ongoing basis. McCarthy pointed out that the total of the report was about $5 million which includes major contracts such as Metro Sewage and the cost of Blue Cross Administration of the medical program. Houser requested that Committeemember White be given the information. McCarthy stated that White had been sent the information with the agenda package of this meeting. Procurement Contract Ordinance City Attorney Lubovich stated that the Procurement Contract Ordinance was requested to go back to Operations due to Councilmember Jon Johnson's request that King County guidelines for reporting be looked at for incorporation in the ordinance. The Attorney's Office received the guidelines this morning and have drafted up the inclusions but it has not been reviewed by Johnson yet. The amendment to the ordinance deals with the provisions for professional/consulting contracts. Some of the changes include a reporting requirement to the Operations Committee of coptracts over $15,000 every six months for review and a disclosure report to be filed with the City for the purpose of preventing any conflicts of interest. Houser noted that the current ordinance was just passed. Lubovich agreed and during further explanation noted that this was informational at this time since Johnson has not had an opportunity to review the draft to see if it was what he had in mind. After a discussion of the computer listing po 'bilities and conflict of interest proposals Public Works Director Wickstrom addressed his concern that the revisions may add delays to projects due to the large number of contracts on any given project and the,length of time to go through a long process. After further discussion Houser directed that after a final draft is agreed to by Councitlmiember Johnson, the ordinance should be reviewed by Department Heads for their input. The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. by Committee Chair Houser. 2