Loading...
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MINUTES - 2/10/2005 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE – CITY OF MUSKEGO A pproved – 2/24/05 MINUTES OF MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 10, 2005 Audio Available Mayor Slocomb called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call: Aldermen Salentine, Patterson, Buckmaster, Borgman, Melcher, Schroeder, Madden, Mayor Slocomb, Clerk-Treasurer Moyer, and Interim Plan Director Muenkel were present. Clerk-Treasurer Moyer stated that the meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting law. Alderman Salentine moved for approval of the meeting minutes from January 20, 2005. Alderman Madden seconded. Minutes from January 20 were corrected. The last paragraph on page 2 was corrected to read, “Ald. Madden Salentine distributed a Virchow Krause payment history, which was discussed.” Motion carried. Approval of the Agenda – Alderman Schroeder moved to take New Business item 3 followed by Unfinished Business item 6 and then the remaining agenda. Alderman Madden seconded. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 1. Review Section 17.9.04 (7) Permitted Uses in the Lake Shore District (Regulations Regarding Boathouses) (Council 1/05) – Interim Plan Director, Jeff Muenkel, presented a memo that included information showing that about 30 existing structures would become nonconforming if the boathouse ordinance were repealed. Mayor Slocomb handed out a copy of the minutes for the Little Muskego Lake District in which they addressed structures and their location relative to the lake. If the boathouse ordinance were repealed, these structures would be considered principal structures that are required to be 50’ away from the ordinary watermark of the lake. The DNR currently has a 75’ setback in unincorporated areas, which is designed to promote easier maintenance of vegetation and increased refuges for wildlife. There will be a visual impact with structures but patios and decks are closer to the lake at this time. The Little Muskego Lake District Annual Meeting voted down a resolution to support a change to increase the setback requirement for new construction, 20 for and 37 against. If the Common Council agrees to consider repealing the boathouse ordinance, then the property owners should be notified if they have a potential nonconforming structure.  Alderman Melcher – stated that the DNR has not been in favor of boathouses in unincorporated areas since 1979. Several property owners had contacted Alderman Melcher who are opposed to boathouses. Many property owners were under the impression that new boathouses are currently not allowed, which is not the case. He feels a shoreline full of boathouses takes away from the aesthetic value of the shoreline; a patio is an open space. Boathouses also obstruct the view of the lake for property owners that do not own lake property. Boathouses many times are in disrepair and most often are not used for storage of boats. He is against new boathouses in order to preserve the nice environment of the lake and shoreline. Alderman Schroeder asked Alderman Melcher to list his reasons in writing for proposing the change for the Common Council. He would also like to see the proposed changes go to the lake districts for their input before moving any further on repealing the boathouse ordinance.  Alderman Patterson – Asked for a breakdown of how many boathouses on which lakes. Jeff Muenkel stated that they have some information from building permit information, but some are old and there may not be records. He would also like to have each Lake District get a letter with the proposed changes that can be presented at their annual meetings.  Alderman Borgman – has received two calls complaining about the size of certain boathouses.  Alderman Buckmaster – has no problem supporting a change to repeal the boathouse ordinance. Would also like to get input from the lake districts.  Alderman Salentine – suggested a mailing to the 2,000 properties in the lake districts notifying them of the proposed changes. The Committee of the Whole agreed that two questions should be included in the letters to the Lake District Associations. The first question is whether the Common Council should take action to eliminate all boathouses; the second question is whether the Common Council should require all new structures to be at least 75 feet from the shoreline. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Continue Discussion Regarding Structure of the Finance Department (Finance 1/05) Discussion May Also Include City Organizational Structure and Possible Creation of New Positions or Revision of Existing Positions and Reporting Relationships – The following comments were noted:  Alderman Schroeder – stated that he was in favor of filling the Finance Director position with some minor changes. His proposal was to be in favor of Assistant Administrator/Financial Officer who would be the department head of the Finance Department and report to the Mayor. Job responsibilities would include 75% financial officer/assistant administrator and 15% to 25% human resource. The human resource issues that have financial issues involved would be handled by the Assistant Administrator/Financial Officer. The human resource issues that are non-financial would be handled by Cathie Anderson, Executive Assistant/HR Coordinator. Executive Assistant/HR Coordinator would receive some direction from the Assistant Administrator/Financial Officer regarding non- financial human resource issues, with the approval of the Mayor. He felt that a person hired for the position could over time make suggestions on structure changes. He would like to get a person in place to begin to move forward. He felt that a city administrator did not receive enough support when discussed the past year. He would like a committee in place to work with the new department head and existing staff to evaluate the existing structure and possibly make suggestions for change if warranted. He would like the committee to be made up of department heads, aldermen, and possibly community members to provide input as to whether or not the City should move to hire an administrator.  Alderman Buckmaster – had concerns about the reporting structure for an administrator/HR position. If this position requires additional human resource hours then the department may need to be restructured. He does not object to the Assistant Administrator/Financial Officer as it was presented by Alderman Schroeder. Maybe a restructuring committee should be created to work with a new department head and finance department to set up a structure. He feels that creating a full-time administrator position would cause a review of the complete City structure. He would like to have a request for proposals developed for audit services after a new person is hired, in order to test the 2 market and see if there is any readjustment needed of audit/financial consulting services based on the new structure, once it is decided.  Alderman Melcher – stated that he would like to see staff involved in any restructure, such as how they see the system, the benefits, the good points, changes staff would like to see. Instead of changes coming from the top down the changes should come from the bottom up which has a much more positive decision. If this new person could take charge of union negotiations, this would free up the Mayor. His ultimate idea for the City is to have a Mayor who has more time to devote to economic development of the City. He feels that a person who would “grow into the position” may feel a burden has been added rather than something that they would willingly move into if the individual is hired knowing the job duties. He would like to see a person hired for a specific job description versus growing into a position.  Alderman Patterson – stated that the City has moved forward with strong department heads that have made changes with staff input and cooperation in the past. He feels that the new department head should review the department structure and then continue to grow. He would like to see a new department head hired and then given the opportunity to work with the existing system and then lead the department. The person could then grow into the position, with additional staff if needed so the person is not overburdened with new job duties. A committee could be created to review the department after a period of time had lapsed, not in the beginning and from month to month.  Alderman Madden – asked if the Committee of the Whole really knows what they want right now. Several positions have been discussed during the past year to year and one-half, such as administrator/community development person, administrator/HR person, and administrator/finance person. Is this process being rushed to fill a vacant department head position without considering and thinking about the positions that were discussed. An administrator position would not have as great of a financial impact because a finance director would not be hired. She would like to give the existing staff the option of submitting comments anonymously.  Alderman Salentine – stated that she is in favor of a full-time city administrator with a full-time mayor. An administrator could have economic development, financial, or human resource qualities.  Mayor Slocomb – stated that if an administrator is hired that cannot act in at least 50% of a finance director capacity then another accountant would need to be hired or work would need to be outsourced.  Alderman Borgman – stated that a position should be filled after a structure is in place instead of setting structure around a position or person. The Committee of the Whole asked the Mayor to provide the costs for two options. Also, the Mayor was asked to send an e-mail to the Finance Department staff asking them for comments regarding the structure of the department. Option 1 – Full-time Assistant Administrator/Financial Officer with a salary range increase from the previous finance director. Option 2 – Full-time City Administrator, change the Accountant to a Comptroller who would then be a department head, and increase two part-time positions to two full-time positions. 3 Alderman Melcher stated that he would like to see the current Accountant, Sharon Mueller, receive an increase in salary above what was approved at the Common Council Meeting, held January 25, 2005, for her Interim Finance Director duties. The compensation will be forwarded to the next Common Council Meeting. The increase will be as outlined in the e-mail the Common Council Members received. 2. Discuss Status of Old Muskego Settlement Centre (Lease) – no report, will be discussed this coming spring. 3. Discuss Status of Old Muskego Settlement Centre (Renovation) – an outside firm did an inspection and plan review. The City should know the results on February 11. 4. Update on Proposed Development at Valley Sand & Gravel Site (Ald. Schroeder 1/04) – nothing new. 5. Continued Review of Conservation Subdivision Ordinance (Common Council 3/04) – Alderman Buckmaster stated that there are different opinions regarding the existing ordinance. There is concern regarding wetlands located in these subdivisions. The Interim Plan Director Muenkel will be doing research to bring forward a formula for use of wetlands and developable land in conservation subdivisions. NEW BUSINESS 2. Discuss Recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Board Regarding Water Bugs Ski Team and the Proposed Idle Isle Building – Alderman Melcher reported that the following three options were proposed by the Building/Engineering Director for demolition and construction of a new building at Idle Isle Park. Option 1 The City would publicly bid the project. This would involve the design, bidding, and construction management by the City’s engineering staff. It is the most expensive option. The City would review the bids and allocate the initial cost to the Water bugs in the same way that the Festival Committee paid for the upgrades they requested to the Veterans Memorial Park pavilion. Option 2 A donation of 100% of labor or materials from the Water Bugs to help reduce the cost of the improvement. The donation of labor would require several additional steps to comply with the Department of Workforce Development standards and would require supervision and scheduling by the City’s engineering staff. This provision is only legal if 100% of the labor and materials are donated. If any portion of the work needs to be performed by a private contractor then the entire project must be publicly bid. Issues with this option are the unknown material amounts and the scheduling of the work. This option may also lead to conflict later if a certain division of work that was thought to be covered is suddenly or inadvertently overlooked. Option 3 Similar to Option 1, the project would be bid in several divisions of work. The divisions such as framing, concrete, plumbing, electric, etc. would allow the Water Bugs to bid the project as a normal contractor, with the Water Bugs taking on the roll of contractor. The amount of work and value of work performed by the Water Bugs could be used to offset the initial costs of the amenities that are currently being requested by the Water Bugs. The City would treat the Water Bugs as a contractor and they would be responsible for their division of work including scheduling, materials, and incidentals. The following comments were noted:  Alderman Schroeder – noted that the Club has asked for a 25-year lease for use of Idle Isle Park. The Park and Recreation Board have suggested a 10-year lease 4 instead. The Council should feel comfortable with the history of use of the lake by the Water Bugs and the feelings of the people on the lake. If a 10-year lease is considered then maybe it should be presented to the Little Muskego Lake District for comments. Over the next 10 years the use of the Little Muskego Lake for recreation will probably increase and many issues may come up that the residents may want to comment on. The noise from the Water Bugs practices and shows could be a problem for the property owners in the bay where they occur. He questioned the use of the new building. The City will use about 500 square feet of the building that includes the restrooms and the park department office. The Water Bugs will use the restrooms for changing costumes, the storage area for their boats/equipment, and the kitchen for food sales during the shows. He questioned the City’s cost that is estimated to be $133,000 for demolishing and constructing a new building for 500 square feet of restrooms and office space. He feels that the Common Council needs to be comfortable with allowing three quarters of the building to be used on a yearly basis by the Water Bugs and not the City.  Mayor Slocomb – stated that a 10-year lease would include very specific language as to dates of shows, practices, and all aspects of the Water Bugs’ operations. Some items should be reviewed on an annual basis. A 10-year lease agreement could be structured with a set economic value for the structure. The value would then decrease annually. If the City decides not to execute a lease then the City would pay to the Water Bugs the remaining value of the lease, if there is value remaining.  Alderman Buckmaster – stated that a lease with the Water Bugs is not a disadvantage because it will help Idle Isle be rebuilt. The current structure is not very aesthetically pleasing. He is ok with a 10-year lease in order to proceed with the new building. The Water Bugs shows are very popular and well attended by the community. He wants additional information regarding leases for new construction of a similar use.  Alderman Melcher – without the 10-year lease the Club will not donate time or money. They want some guarantee that they can use the structure and continue to use it as a ski team. He asked if a public hearing is needed for the new building. The Committee of the Whole agreed that a public hearing is not needed. The project timeline for the building is bidding it out in June with construction this coming fall.  Alderman Borgman – also questioned the use of the areas located in the building, similar to Alderman Schroeder.  Alderman Patterson – suggested the new building could be used for storage in the off-season to benefit park and recreation programs. If this is the case is should be clarified from the beginning. Communications and Miscellaneous Business as Authorized by Law – none. Adjournment – Motion by Alderman Buckmaster, second by Alderman Borgman to adjourn at 10:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Janice Moyer, CMC, CMTW Clerk-Treasurer 5 6