Loading...
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MINUTES - 2/24/2005 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE – CITY OF MUSKEGO Approved MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 24, 2005 (3/10/05) Mayor Slocomb called the meeting to order at 7:18 PM with Aldermen Salentine, Patterson, Buckmaster, Borgman, Melcher, Schroeder, and Deputy Clerk Blenski present. Ald. Madden was excused. Also present were Parks and Recreation Director Craig Anderson, and Water Bugs representatives Dave Birkle, Tom Reck and Shelly Wohler. Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The Deputy Clerk stated the meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting law. REVIEW MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Ald. Salentine moved for approval of the February 10, 2005 minutes. Ald. Borgman seconded; motion carried. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ald. Salentine moved to approve agenda. Ald. Schroeder seconded; motion carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Continue Discussion Regarding Water Bugs Ski Team, Inc. and Proposed Idle Isle Building Ald. Melcher requested that discussion on this item not exceed 25 minutes. Mr. Anderson presented the following information to the Committee of the Whole:  A Public Informational Hearing will be held on Monday, March 14, 2005 at 6:00 PM, prior to the regular Parks & Recreation Board meeting in the Muskego Room. The presentation will include information about the proposed building. Any questions that pertain to the building or its usage will be answered.  The replacement of this building has been a goal for many years. This has been a capital budget item for at least the last five years. The project has been put off because of budget constraints. In 2004, the Parks and Recreation Board approved the project with funding to be taken from Park Dedication money.  It is intended that the project be bid out in phases or stages. The Water Bugs will be able to bid on the various phases of the project, like any other contractor. A dollar value for usage of the building by the Water Bugs will have to be determined and paid for by the organization. At the last Committee of the Whole meeting, discussion took place about the City paying the Water Bugs for any remaining building equity if the lease was terminated prior to its expiration.  The building is being put up by the Parks and Recreation Department and is a City project. The Water Bugs have used the existing building to sell concessions and for storage. The organization asked to partner with the City if the existing building is razed and a new one built.  The Parks and Recreation Board is recommending a 10-year lease with the Water Bugs that would be renewable. As part of that agreement, there would be a minimum number of show and practice dates. The organization can ask for Committee of the Whole Page 2 February 24, 2005 more. Dates can also be taken away if there are compliance issues. The procedure would remain the same. The Water Bugs would annually appear before the Parks and Recreation Board requesting show and practice dates. Mr. Anderson reiterated that this building would be used by the Parks Department.  Mr. Anderson gave some of the specifications about the proposed building: open shelter area approximately 28’ x 40’, enclosed portion 40’ x 54’, total square footage 40’ x 82’, height at top of roofline 23’, height at the wall roofline 9’. The Water Bugs will use the top portion of the building for announcing and intend to address the loudness of the sound system.  Mr. Anderson gave the timeline for the building project: bidding project in June of 2005; razing existing structure in fall of 2005, building done so usable by spring of 2006.  Ald. Melcher commented that the existing building is 27 years old. Mr. Anderson stated the new facility would have bathrooms that could be utilized during park hours. Ald. Melcher noted that the building would resemble the one at Veteran’s park. Ald. Schroeder asked how the Water Bugs’ equity in the building would be determined. Mr. Anderson stated it will be based on the square footage of the building and what portion the Water Bugs will utilize. Mr. McMullen is working on determining that; the Water Bugs will pay for their portion. Ald. Schroeder asked how that relates to the equity they would have over the 10-year period. Mr. Anderson explained that the dollar amount of the Water Bugs’ portion will be determined and then the amount of sweat equity would be deducted. The amount remaining would be divided over the 10-year lease period. The Council will approve the final lease agreement. Mr. Anderson noted that the bid amounts are uncertain at this time. Mr. McMullen is trying to determine the best estimate of what this will cost to give the Water Bugs some idea. The project may be scaled back if the organization feels it cannot come up with the amount required. Ald. Patterson asked if there was discussion about the building being two stories. Mr. Anderson stated initially the Parks & Recreation Board did not know what the height limitation was. Interim Plan Director Muenkel indicated 30’ is the maximum. The height of the proposed building is 23’. The Water Bugs are going ahead with the proposal for the second story to see where it leads. That is one of the reasons the informational hearing will be held. Ald. Patterson asked if there was a minimum height that would work for the Water Bugs. Mr. Birkle said what is proposed is optimal for sound. The goal is to eliminate sound problems; this is the minimum to mitigate that. It was noted that drawings of the building were on display. Ms. Wohler stated that the height of the building is less than 23’, which is under the 30’ maximum. The building will not have a full second story. It is a first story building with an attic. Ald. Buckmaster asked what the height of the existing building is. Mr. Anderson responded probably 13 or 14’. Ald. Buckmaster stated that the proposed height is a significant increase. He wants to wait until the Parks and Recreation Board holds the public informational hearing. Ald. Salentine thanked Mr. Anderson and the representatives from the Water Bugs for attending the meeting. It was determined that this issue would proceed through the normal process. Mr. Anderson said the proposed agreement has to be written. The Finance Committee could review a preliminary draft of the lease agreement. Committee of the Whole Page 3 February 24, 2005 Ald. Patterson asked if there were any other solutions to the sound problems. Mr. Anderson said the complaints that have been received all relate to noise. The Water Bugs are trying to incorporate the equipment they have in the new building. Mr. Anderson said other alternatives could be looked at. Continue Discussion Regarding Interim Finance Department Structure, Including City Organizational Structure and Possible Creation of New Positions or Revision of Existing Positions and Reporting Relationships Ald. Melcher stated he did some research. Today, he visited City Hall to talk to as many employees as he could to obtain their views on the proposed organizational structure. He reported the following:  More individuals were in favor of an administrator with a separate position for finance. Many people believed it is difficult to put those two positions together.  There was also concern that combining the two positions was an overload for one person. Ald. Melcher stated he experienced a situation where was one person was in charge of Information Systems and Finance. The financial aspect dictated the operation of the Information Systems area and as a result, no technological upgrades were done. He does not believe everything should be determined by the “bottom line.”  Hesitation was also expressed about changing auditors at this time. It would be too difficult to make two transitions in one year. Ald. Melcher referred to the structure of the City of Delafield. They have an administrator, a deputy clerk-treasurer, a financial consultant and an accountant. The City of Pewaukee also has a city administrator with a separate Finance Department. He presented other examples of municipalities that have city administrators with separate employees who perform the financial responsibilities.  Many employees expressed the person hired to be city administrator should have credentials with at least a master’s degree and experience. It was also stated that creating and filling this position would free the Mayor’s time for other duties, such as economic development.  In addition, it was stated that the Mayoral position should remain full time. Ald. Schroeder asked what other changes were needed to have the city administrator position become reality. Ald. Melcher stated the following feedback from staff:  Staff from the Finance Department suggested making part-time positions full time. The accountant (now interim finance director) believed she could manage.  Other employees expressed concern that the accountant could not handle all the responsibilities of her position and that of the finance director and perhaps the finance director position should be filled. Committee of the Whole Page 4 February 24, 2005 Ald. Melcher stated that the city administrator would have human resource responsibilities, serve as the person in charge of department heads and take care of union negotiations. In addition, this individual would be a resource for all department heads, Mayor, Council and various committees. If a city administrator were hired, the two directions would be to still have someone serve as the financial officer, or to create a comptroller position with Finance Department part time employees made full time. Ald. Melcher stated that it was also mentioned that it would take time for a new person to be brought up to speed. This will take time away from staff. Ald. Buckmaster said he is not sure what the best way to proceed is. He likes the creation of administrator and comptroller positions. However, perhaps bringing an administrator on with experience should happen first. That individual could suggest the best organizational structure and then the positions needed could be filled. The Council would make the final decision. Ald. Melcher commented that other structural reorganization could be reviewed. He received a suggestion to separate Building and Engineering into two departments. Ald. Schroeder asked who would be the head of the Finance Department under Ald. Buckmaster’s scenario of waiting until the City Administrator is hired to review and propose the structural changes. That could take six to nine months. Who will work this Council through the 2006 budget process? Ald. Buckmaster stated he does not know. Ald. Salentine stated the City Administrator would do the budget; that function appears in the job descriptions that have been provided from other communities. Mayor Slocomb stated his concern goes beyond the budget process. You need financial depth. The City had that with a finance director and an accountant. Without that financial depth, there are risks. One is how the City is rated by Moody’s. There would be a huge financial impact if the rating drops. That impact would far exceed any salaries for the positions discussed. He prefers the suggestion of having an individual who would serve as the City’s financial officer with the ability to perform some administrative duties (75/25). Ald. Salentine requested the ratings by Moody’s for the time period prior to the City having a finance director to the present. Ald. Schroeder stated it appears the consensus is to move forward with a full time administrator. He believes in time the City may also need a finance officer. Remember what happened two years ago; positions were eliminated. There will be budget issues in the future. There could potentially be layoffs in the future with the addition of staff as proposed. Ald. Patterson stated that by going with an administrator we are basically throwing out the way City Hall is set up now and starting a whole new ball game. The learning curve will affect every department. Ald. Melcher stated there will be a learning curve but he does not agree that we will be throwing everything out and starting over again. He sees this as a moderate change, not a radical one. Ald. Buckmaster agrees that there could be budget issues. We could hire a city administrator and then possibly combine IT and Finance temporarily if cost is an issue. It is important that the Mayor be available to concentrate on the political aspirations of Muskego as far as development and the day-to-day operations. We need to look at how the City’s resources are managed. Committee of the Whole Page 5 February 24, 2005 Ald. Salentine stated a possible job description and pay range should be established so the position could be advertised for. Ald. Melcher agrees; staff would like to see the Council move forward on this as soon as possible. He knows the Oak Creek City Administrator and she has offered to come to a Common Council meeting to share her experiences. Ald. Melcher said forming a subcommittee is the best way to put together a job description; he agreed to serve on the subcommittee. Ald. Borgman and Patterson also agreed to work on the subcommittee. Mayor Slocomb asked what would be done with finance. Ald. Salentine stated that the City has saved money because the Finance Director position has not been filled. She believes the City could create an administrator position within the salary range of the finance director position. Ald. Schroeder stated there would never be a money savings with the direction that is being pursued. He will bring this point back at budget time. Mayor Slocomb again asked what would be pursued regarding the structure of the Finance Department. Ald. Salentine believes the consensus is to have a comptroller position until the administrator determines what the structure of the department should be. Ald. Buckmaster stated he does not disagree with having a comptroller but the individual hired would probably not recommend any changes until having gone through a budget cycle. He suggested in the interim the IT Department Head also serve as the head of the Finance Department. Ald. Schroeder said we have an interim Finance Director and head of the department. Ald. Buckmaster said his suggestion was to address the issue of depth, which was a concern of the Mayor’s. Ald. Melcher stated that any time reorganization is discussed, there is a fear among the people that they will be able to hold their positions. He would like them to have some assurance that they will be retained. Ald. Patterson expressed concern about waiting until an administrator is here to determine what will happen with the Finance Department. The department must be supported because the functions performed are very important. Ald. Schroeder stated if an administrator is hired in June or July, the individual would not be very effective for the next budget cycle. There will have to be something as Ald. Buckmaster suggested at least for the first year to get us through the budget process. Ald. Buckmaster said he would like the Mayor to come back with the pluses and minuses of how this might come out. What talents does the existing IT Director need to achieve the depth in the Finance Department that is required? He is very reluctant to hire a full time finance director until an administrator is hired. We have plenty of talent here in our department heads to make up for this for the remainder of the year. Ald. Schroeder said if the intent is to not restructure the Finance Department at this time, he does not think the accountant position should be changed to comptroller. Ald. Buckmaster has no problem with that. Ald. Schroeder stated he did not want there to be an issue if there are other department heads qualified to serve as the interim financial officer. The Committee took a brief recess. Ald. Salentine stated the Position Description Subcommittee would meet on Tuesday, March 1, 2005 at 7:00 PM. The Mayor’s Administrative Assistant will prepare an agenda and post the meeting notice. Ald. Salentine will also serve on the Committee of the Whole Page 6 February 24, 2005 subcommittee. Ald. Schroeder requested that the meeting be recorded. Discussion took place regarding the involvement of staff. It was determined that the subcommittee would put together a job description and then have it sent to Department Heads prior to the monthly meeting held with the Mayor for input. Discussion Regarding Possible Request for Proposals for Auditing Services Ald. Salentine requested this item be put on the agenda. Several Council members have suggested that requests for proposals be done. She did not think the response from V-K regarding the increase in fees because of the finance director leaving was detailed enough. The other issue is that apparently $73,400 was not billed to the City of New Berlin for the Tess Corners Pond project. This occurred over a four-year period from 1997 to 2001. She finds that disturbing. Why was this not discovered during the audit process? Mayor Slocomb stated there was no payment agreement in 1997. Unless there is some type of agreement that is submitted to the Finance Department, there is no way they can track it and it would not be discovered during an audit. How would they be aware of it? All of the payment information was driven by Engineering. Ald. Salentine stated that some invoices had been sent but not paid. Ald. Patterson asked who issued those. The Mayor stated he would research and provide the information. Ald. Melcher stated he did confer with the Finance Department and confirmed what the Mayor said. Mayor Slocomb stated an RFP for auditing services can be put together but will not be ready until June. Ald. Buckmaster asked how the audit is performed. The Mayor said it depends. GASB rules are involved. He requested that the Mayor provide a brief summary of the process. COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Ald. Buckmaster requested that only one Committee of the Whole meeting be held in March. Ald. Melcher stated he would not be at the March Public Utilities meeting as well as the March 22 Council meeting. Ald. Salentine moved to adjourn at 9:25 PM. Ald. Melcher seconded; motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Jill Blenski, CMC Deputy Clerk