Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Operations - 08/23/1995 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES August 23 , 1995 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Christi Houser, Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Tim Clark, Roger Lubovich, May Miller, Sue Viseth, Ken Chatwin, Bob Olson, Dee Gergich, Arthur Martin, Brenda Jacober MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bill Doolittle The meeting was called to order at 9 : 35 a.m. by Chairperson Johnson. Apyroval of vouchers. All claims for the period ending August 15, 1995, in the amount of $2, 670,422 .23 were approved for payment. Worker' s Compensation - Claims Handling Contract Renewal. Ken Chatwin of the Human Resources Department noted that the city has always automatically renewed the Scott Wetzel contract, and that he recently had an opportunity to get a proposal from Johnston & Culverson. He noted that $31, 000 was spent in 1994, but that that was based on 1993 which was a high claim year. He explained that the fees currently paid to Scott Wetzel and those proposed by Johnston & Culverson are very similar, and noted that most claims are medical rather than indemnity. Chatwin said that the city is not ready to handle their own claims, as it is very time consuming and is not cost effective. He offered to look further into this issue if the Committee desires, but noted that the city has been with Scott Wetzel since 1979 and that their prices are still in line. He recommended staying with Scott Wetzel. Orr moved to recommend authorization to renew Workers Compensation Claims Handling contract with Scott Wetzel. Houser seconded and the motion carried. Out of Country Travel. This item was removed from the agenda by Committee member Houser. Election Night Conflicts with Council Meetings. Councilmember Clark noted that in the past he had requested shifting the dates of some of the Council meetings due to holidays and so forth, but that election night had not been included in the final version. He asked the Committee to reconsider having Council meetings on election nights for the following reasons: 1) A respect for the citizens and their role in the process. He said having Council meetings on election night would put a barrier in front of citi- zenship. 2) There is an obligation to protect the process of democracy, and that financial matters are dealt with ,at elections. He said everyone is best served by having the highest number of participants possible, and that having Council meetings on election night creates a barrier for other organizations by putting Council business before the public's participation in community decisions. 3) There is a responsibility to respect the status of voters. He said voters should never have to make the r choice of voting or attending the Council meeting. 4) Voter participation should be encouraged, which the City is not doing by holding a Council meeting. 5) Recognition of the fact that no one has control of the agenda. He pointed out that citizens are free to bring up any concerns at a Council meeting, and said it would be inappropriate to schedule the Council's business to not be of major impact on the community. He said that by holding a Council meeting on the night people are to vote, when public health and safety issues may be formost on their minds and the Council meeting is their vehicle to address those concerns, the City would be scheduling them to come to the meeting rather than to go to vote. Clark requested that when the November election conflicts with the City Council meeting, that the Council meeting be moved. He spoke in opposition to having the Council meeting on the Monday preceeding the election, as it could be used as a forum. Orr said she cannot support moving a Council meeting to a date that she knows she cannot attend the meeting on. She said she rarely misses meetings, and that she cannot attend meetings on Mondays and Wednesdays. She suggested changing the time of the meeting to 8: 00 or 8: 15 p.m. after the polls close. Clark stated that this issue is about the voting public, not about how it affects Councilmembers. Orr responded that it is the responsibility of Councilmembers to attend the meetings to deal with whatever issues may come up, and she cannot support something that would remove her from her responsibility as a Councilmember. Houser agreed with the idea of starting the meeting at a later time. Orr pointed out that citizens get used to having Council meetings on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month, and that there would most likely be a communications problem if the day were changed. Clark noted that his primary concern is the election in November of each year. Orr and Houser suggested having the meeting on election night but starting it at 8 : 00 or 8: 15. Clark asked that the time be 8: 15 p.m. and all agreed. Johnson pointed out that notice would have to be given of the time change, but expressed concern that people may still show up at 7:00. Johnson noted that items which are brought up at a Council meeting by a member of the audience are generally referred to a committee, and are not acted upon that night. He said he does not recall ever before having a problem on election night, and that controversial items have been scheduled for the Council meeting before or after. Orr added that no citizen has ever said that having the Council meeting on election night has created a hardship for them to vote. Clark said citizens may have a sudden need to come before the Council; Johnson responded that they will have the opportunity to speak. Lubovich clarified that the language needed in the ordinance to change the meeting time is as follows: "if any such day of a regular meeting is on the day of the November General Election, the meeting shall be held on the same day at 8: 15 p.mb " Orr so moved. Houser seconded. Bill Doolittle noted that on election night there is a sense of urgency in the room and a rush to adjourn, and that starting the meeting at 8: 15 will make it worse. He suggested having the Council meetings in November on the first and second or first and fourth Tuesdays of the month. Clark noted that there is now only one Council meeting in December, and that meetings could be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays in November and the second Tuesday in December. Johnson pointed out that elections sometimes fall on the second Tuesday of the month. Johnson and Clark discussed having only one Council meeting in November, with a special meeting if necessary; Lubovich pointed out that that is budget time. Miller added that the tax levy ordinance must also be adopted at that time of year. Johnson suggested taking this matter under advisement and bringing it back to the next meeting. Orr withdrew her motion. Orr asked whether it could be determined on an annual basis whether to hold a meeting on the 2nd and 3rd or 2nd and 4th Tuesdays in November, based on budget issues, rather than amending the ordinance permanently. Lubovich suggested setting one meeting in November and calling a special meeting if required. Orr noted that special meetings require special notifications and that the agenda is limited. Lubovich stated that regular meetings have to be established by ordinance. Doolittle suggested amending the ordinance to give the Council the option of changing the date on an annual basis. Lubovich said that there may be a problem with that and offered to look into the options. Orr reiterated her concern about confusion as to the days. Lubovich noted that when the Fourth of July holiday was on the first Tuesday, the meeting was held on the the next business day, and said the same thing could be done with election night. Clark thanked the Committee for their consideration. July Financial Report. Finance Division Director Miller reviewed the July Financial Report. She noted that the General Fund was down a bit because all contracts were settled and retroactives were paid. . She said that a new investment policy has been drafted. She pointed out that page 8 shows that approximately half of the debts have been paid, and that General Fund revenues are strong and consistent. She explained the budget adjustment relating to the annexation budget, and noted significant activity in building permits, as well as fines and forfeitures. She noted that page 41 shows a balance in the Health Insurance Fund of $264, 997 in 1992 and $1,200, 000 in 1995, and that an actuarial study is currently being done. Upon Clark's question, Miller explained that page 25 shows a sales tax adjustment of $310,234, of which $273 , 000 has been received. CIP/Budget Calendar. Miller noted that department proposals are coming in and asked whether the Council would want a workshop on the CIP. She noted that the CIP does not have to be adopted until November. Orr said a workshop is a good idea and all agreed to have the workshop on October 10. Miller said she will bring this back to Operations on September 27, and to Council for adoption on November 7 . Miller distributed a handout regarding changes to the budget calendar. She explained that formerly the date for setting the tax levy was in October, that no one ever adopted their tax levy in October, and the code was changed to recognize that fact; however, they did not change the requirement that the preliminary budget be presented October 1st or before. She explained that this would require that the budget be balanced in September, which is impossible. She pointed out that Municipal Research Services believes that cities can continue to follow their current practice, if the Council agrees. She noted that current practice is to have the budget ready in October or November. Miller then explained the second change, which requires that a public hearing be held before the property tax levy is adopted. She said they usually do not have figures before early in December, and expressed concern about the ability to hold a public hearing in time to meet this requirement when the information is not available. Lubovich said this issue has been addressed in the past and agreed to research it. Johnson noted that the Assessor has never submitted the levy on time, and that the Department of Revenue has always ignored the deadline. Miller noted that figures can be estimated, but that they cannot be adjusted higher if estimated improperly. Added Item - Council Computers. Orr referred to a memo from Council President Woods stating that it costs $15, 000 a year for five Councilmembers to have computers. She asked for a detailed report as to how that figure was arrived at, since she understood the computers were surplus and the costs were minimal. Miller said it may be related to paying maintenance on the mainframe. Added Item - Meeting Notices. Bill Doolittle noted that he recently received four meeting notices on the same day, each with 32 cents postage on it. He asked why bulk mail was not used and why the notices are not consolidated. Orr explained that a staff person recently told her that bulk mail is not always delivered promptly or at all. Doolittle suggested showing the meeting times on the cable tv channel and Orr indicated that this is being done. She agreed that postage is worth looking into. Lubovich suggested updating the mailing lists annually; all agreed. On further comments from Doolittle regarding the notices, Houser explained that notice of cancellation of meetings is required. Roger said it may be that notice of cancellation of meetings only requires posting, not mailing. He agreed to check on it. Adiournment. There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 11: 00 o'clock. i ! OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES August 23 , 1995 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Johnson-Committee Chair, Christi Houser, Leona Orr STAFF PRESENT: Tim Clark, Roger Lubovich, May Miller, Sue Viseth, Ken Chatwin, Bob Olson, Dee Gergich, Arthur Martin, Brenda Jacober MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Bill Doolittle The meeting was called to order at 9 : 35 a.m. by Chairperson Johnson. Approval of Vouchers. All claims for the period ending August 15, 1995, in the amount of $2 , 670,422 . 23 were approved for payment. Worker' s Compensation - Claims Handling Contract Renewal. Ken Chatwin of the Human Resources Department noted that the city has always automatically renewed the Scott Wetzel contract, and that he recently had an opportunity to get a proposal from Johnston & Culverson. He noted that $31, 000 was spent in 1994, but that that was based on 1993 which was a high claim year. He explained that the fees currently paid to Scott Wetzel and those proposed by Johnston & Culverson are very similar, and noted that most claims are medical rather than indemnity. Chatwin said that the city is not ready to handle their own claims, as it is very time consuming and is not cost effective. He offered to look further into this issue if the Committee desires, but noted that the city has been with Scott Wetzel since 1979 and that their prices are still in line. He recommended staying with Scott Wetzel. Orr moved to recommend authorization to renew Workers Compensation Claims Handling contract with Scott Wetzel. Houser seconded and the motion carried. Out of Country Travel. This item was removed from the agenda by Committee member Houser. Election Night Conflicts with Council Meetings. Councilmember Clark noted that in the past he had requested shifting the dates of some of the Council meetings due to holidays and so forth, but that election night had not been included in the final version. He asked the Committee to reconsider having Council meetings on election nights for the following reasons: 1) A respect for the citizens and their role in the process. He said having Council meetings on election night would put a barrier in front of citi- zenship. 2) There is an obligation to protect the process of democracy, and that financial matters are dealt with at elections. He said everyone is best served by having the highest number of participants possible, and that having Council meetings on election night creates a barrier for other organizations by putting Council business before the public's participation in community decisions. 3) There is a responsibility to respect the status of voters. He said voters should never have to make the choice of voting or attending the Council meeting. 4) Voter Y participation should be encouraged, which the City is not doing by holding a Council meeting. 5) Recognition of the fact that no one has control of the agenda. He pointed out that citizens are free to bring up any concerns at a Council meeting, and said it would be inappropriate to schedule the Council's business to not be of major impact on the community. He said that by holding a Council meeting on the night people are to vote, when public health and safety issues may be formost on their minds and the Council meeting is their vehicle to address those concerns, the City would be scheduling them to come to the meeting rather than to go to vote. Clark requested that when the November election conflicts with the City Council meeting, that the Council meeting be moved. He spoke in opposition to having the Council meeting on the Monday preceeding the election, as it could be used as a forum. Orr said she cannot support moving a Council meeting to a date that she knows she cannot attend the meeting on. She said she rarely misses meetings, and that she cannot attend meetings on Mondays and Wednesdays. She suggested changing the time of the meeting to 8 : 00 or 8: 15 p.m. after the polls close. Clark stated that this issue is about the voting public, not about how it affects Councilmembers. Orr responded that it is the responsibility of Councilmembers to attend the meetings to deal with whatever issues may come up, and she cannot support something that would remove her from her responsibility as a Councilmember. Houser agreed with the idea of starting the meeting at a later time. Orr pointed out that citizens get used to having Council meetings on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month, and that there would most likely be a communications problem if the day were changed. Clark noted that his primary concern is the election in November of each year. Orr and Houser suggested having the meeting on election night but starting it at 8 : 00 or 8: 15. Clark asked that the time be 8: 15 p.m. and all agreed. Johnson pointed out that notice would have to be given of the time change, but expressed concern that people may still show up at 7: 00. Johnson noted that items which are brought up at a Council meeting by a member of the audience are generally referred to a committee, and are not acted upon that night. He said he does not recall ever before having a problem on election night, and that controversial items have been scheduled for the Council meeting before or after. Orr added that no citizen has ever said that having the Council meeting on election night has created a hardship for them to vote. Clark said citizens may have a sudden need to come before the Council; Johnson responded that they will have the opportunity to speak. Lubovich clarified that the language needed in the ordinance to change the meeting time is as follows: "if any such day of a regular meeting is on the day of the November General Election, the meeting shall be held on the same day at 8 : 15 p.m. " Orr so moved. Houser seconded. Bill Doolittle noted that on election night there is a sense of urgency in the room and a rush to adjourn, and that starting the meeting at 8: 15 will make it worse. He suggested having the Council meetings in November on the first and second or first and fourth Tuesdays of the month. Clark noted that there is now only one Council meeting in December, and that meetings could be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays in November and the second Tuesday in December. Johnson pointed out that elections sometimes fall on the second Tuesday of the month. Johnson and Clark discussed having only one Council meeting in November, with a special meeting if necessary; Lubovich pointed out that that is budget time. Miller added that the tax levy ordinance must also be adopted at that time of year. Johnson suggested taking this matter under advisement and bringing it back to the next meeting. Orr withdrew her motion. Orr asked whether it could be determined on an annual basis whether to hold a meeting on the 2nd and 3rd or 2nd and 4th Tuesdays in November, based on budget issues, rather than amending the ordinance permanently. Lubovich suggested setting one meeting in November and calling a special meeting if required. Orr noted that special meetings require special notifications and that the agenda is limited. Lubovich stated that regular meetings have to be established by ordinance. Doolittle suggested amending the ordinance to give the Council the option of changing the date on an annual basis. Lubovich said that there may be a problem with that and offered to look into the options. Orr reiterated her concern about confusion as to the days. Lubovich noted that when the Fourth of July holiday was on the first Tuesday, the meeting was held on the the next business day, and said the same thing could be done with election night. Clark thanked the Committee for their consideration. July Financial Report. Finance Division Director Miller reviewed the July Financial Report. She noted that the General Fund was down a bit because all contracts were settled and retroactives were paid. . She said that a new investment policy has been drafted. She pointed out that page 8 shows that approximately half of the debts have been paid, and that General Fund revenues are strong and consistent. She explained the budget adjustment relating to the annexation budget, and noted significant activity in building permits, as well as fines and forfeitures. She noted that page 41 shows a balance in the Health Insurance Fund of $264, 997 in 1992 and $1, 200, 000 in 1995, and that an actuarial study is currently being done. Upon Clark's question, Miller explained that page 25 shows a sales tax adjustment of $310,234, of which $273 , 000 has been received. CIPJBudget Calendar. Miller noted that department proposals are coming in and asked whether the Council would want a workshop on the CIP. She noted that the CIP does not have to be adopted • � J until November. Orr said a workshop is a good idea and all agreed to have the workshop on October 10. Miller said she will bring this back to Operations on September 27, and to Council for adoption on November 7 . Miller distributed a handout regarding changes to the budget calendar. She explained that formerly the date for setting the tax levy was in October, that no one ever adopted their tax levy in October, and the code was changed to recognize that fact; however, they did not change the requirement that the preliminary budget be presented October 1st or before. She explained that this would require that the budget be balanced in September, which is impossible. She pointed out that Municipal Research Services believes that cities can continue to follow their current practice, if the Council agrees. She noted that current practice is to have the budget ready in October or November. Miller then explained the second change, which requires that a public hearing be held before the property tax levy is adopted. She said they usually do not have figures before early in December, and expressed concern about the ability to hold a public hearing in time to meet this requirement when the information is not available. Lubovich said this issue has been addressed in the past and agreed to research it. Johnson noted that the Assessor has never submitted the levy on time, and that the Department of Revenue has always ignored the deadline. Miller noted that figures can be estimated, but that they cannot be adjusted higher if estimated improperly. Added Item - Council Computers. Orr referred to a memo from Council President Woods stating that it costs $15, 000 a year for five Councilmembers to have computers. She asked for a detailed report as to how that figure was arrived at, since she understood the computers were surplus and the costs were minimal. Miller said it may be related to paying maintenance on the mainframe. Added Item - Meeting Notices. Bill Doolittle noted that he recently received four meeting notices on the same day, each with 32 cents postage on it. He asked why bulk mail was not used and why the notices are not consolidated. Orr explained that a staff person recently told her that bulk mail is not always delivered promptly or at all. Doolittle suggested showing the meeting times on the cable tv channel and Orr indicated that this is being done. She agreed that postage is worth looking into. Lubovich suggested updating the mailing lists annually; all agreed. On further comments from Doolittle regarding the notices, Houser explained that notice of cancellation of meetings is required. Roger said it may be that notice of cancellation of meetings only requires posting, not mailing. He agreed to check on it. Adjournment. There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 11: 00 o'clock.