HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/93CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 19, 1993
5:45 p.m.
Large Conference Room
Roll call: Mayor Manning, Angel, Buck, Budak, Lemke, Fox, Dell and
Wright.
Mayor Manning noted that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss
the possible merger of the Park and Recreation Departments.
Summary information was provided by Jim Rodemeyer, Personnel
Director, which was developed by two members each from the Park
Board and Recreation Commission, Councilpersons Buck and Dell, and
staff members from the Recreation and Park Departments, and Mr.
Rodemeyer. The committee did not debate the pros and cons of the
proposed merger but developed a job description for a new division
head, a table of organization for the new recreation division, and
the process for the recruitment and selection of said new division
head.
Mayor Manning stated that the city council would be considering a
resolution of intent to proceed with the proposed merger. Staff
would then be given authorization to proceed with the preparation
of an ordinance combining said commissions.
Councilperson Buck presented an amendment to the proposed
resolution of intent. He suggested that the commissions remain in
operation until a new board is appointed. Discussion was heard on
whether the council's intent was to have the two boards remain or
whether there would be one board. It was pointed out that if a
division head is appointed, it would be very difficult for that
individual to report to two boards. Councilperson Dell pointed out
that both commissions now deal with a wide range of activities.
Councilperson Angel stated that an equal representation from each
discipline would address this issue. Councilperson Buck stated
that several members of the Recreation Commission have served the
city very well for 20 - 25 years and it could be difficult to find
new people who would now want to serve in a combined board
capacity.
The existing committee structure for each of the boards was
discussed. Councilperson Lemke voiced his support for one board.
Mayor Manning recommended that the boards be abolished and a new
board be appointed with nine members. Councilperson Budak stated
that he could not support a combined board structure unless there
was cost savings by combining the staffs. The proposed
organizational chart was reviewed. The existing structure of both
departments including individuals in those capacities will be
provided by the personnel department. Mr. Rodemeyer further
pointed out that the proposed organizational chart was developed
with budgetary concerns in mind since funds have already been
budgeted for both departments for F.Y. 94. If a division head is
appointed, it will be that individual's responsibility to find
savings within the departments to operate within the confines of
the budget. Councilperson Budak stated that he would not vote to
put a division director over two department heads. Mr. Rodemeyer
pointed that the F.Y. 94 Recreation budget does not include monies
for the director's position. In order to meet the cut backs as
directed by the council, this salary was not included.
Tom Staack, member of the Recreation Commission, spoke against the
proposed reorganization. He pointed out that it would not save
money and that reorganization is not always equated with the term
"better". Mr. Staack reported that the committee established by
the Mayor to discuss the possibility of the merger included staff
members. The closed meeting of the Recreation Commission and Park
Board that was conducted on April 13th was to review the job
descriptions without the presence of staff and that whole issue has
been blown out of proportion. He asked that the council understand
the purpose of the meeting and that it was not intended to
circumvent the open meeting statute. He also questioned who had
sent a notice of the meeting postmarked the 16th that he received
City Council Work Session
April 19, 1993
Page 2
on the 17th for a meeting on the 13th. He also stated surprise
that the council is now considering a resolution to disband the
commission when only several months ago the commission was
celebrating the announcement of the Young family to donate an ice
facility to the city.
Mr. Rodemeyer stated that the provisions of the open meetings law
had been discussed at previous meetings and that personnel matters
can only be discussed in closed session at the request of the
individual being discussed. He also stated that it was not the
committee's direction from the council to discuss the merits of
reorganization but rather that was a policy decision of council.
The committee's focus was to develop a table of reorganization and
subsequent job descriptions. Mr. Staack stated that he thought
that the council was interested in their input on the proposed
reorganization. Mayor Manning clarified that it was -the
committee's direction to assume that the merger would take place
and to detail how that structure would work and how it would be
accomplished.
David Tyler, Chairperson of the Mayor's Reorganization Committee,
stated that the committee had reviewed the reorganization of the
city for eight months and had identified savings in the proposed
merger.
City Attorney Jim Walsh stated that city staff would need several
weeks to develop an ordinance combining said departments.
Barry McCammon, member of the Park Board, supported the
recommendation of the Mayor's Reorganization Committee and that the
city council should now move forward to deal with the issue of
reorganization as recommended.
It was agreed that the proposed resolution of intent be acted upon
by the city council this evening with the amendment that both
commissions remain in operation until an ordinance is adopted
combining said commissions. In the mean time, the committee was
instructed to continue to work on the reorganization proposal.
Mr. Walsh stated that his office continues to investigate the
alleged open meetings violation conducted by board members of both
commissions on April 13th. It was suggested that a member of the
Reorganization Committee be asked to serve with the committee to
continue discussion on the proposed merger of said departments.
No official action was taken. The meeting was adjourned at 6:25
p.m.
Larry P. Burger
City Clerk/Auditor
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 19, 1993
6:15 p.m.
Large Conference Room
Roll call: Mayor Manning, Angel, Buck, Budak, Lemke, Fox, Dell and
Wright.
The Mayor reported that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss
the petition received by residents of Sherwood Park to de -annex
from the City of Waterloo.
Don Temeyer, Planning & Development Director, asked that said
petition be referred to the Planning, Programming & Zoning
Commission which holds its next meeting on Monday, May 10th. Its
findings will be reported back to the council. The Iowa Code
provides for two types of annexation, voluntary and involuntary.
In response to a question from Councilperson Angel, City Attorney
Jim Walsh stated that "equitable distribution" means that any
assets that the city owns within the area must be distributed.
This also applies to any liabilities (investments) the city has
made to public improvements in the area.
Discussion was heard on whether the de -annexed area would create an
"island". The State of Iowa through its City Development Board
determines whether the proposed area would constitute an "island".
In an opinion prepared by Assistant County Attorney Pete Burk, the
area would create an "island" and would not meet the criteria.,for
severance from the corporate limits of the City of Waterloo. Mr.
Walsh pointed out that the voluntary procedure requires that all
property owners within the area agree to de -annex. There is no
criteria established for involuntary de -annexation although there
are procedures set forth for voluntary de -annexation.
Hugh Field, attorney representing the residents, asked what
specific issues the Planning Commission would be reviewing. Fire
protection is a concern. Councilperson Angel stated that perhaps
promises were made to residents in the area that the city cannot
deliver. It was noted that the county does not have a junk car
ordinance. Mark Linda, Black Hawk County Health Department,
questioned whether the impact to the county had been addressed with
county staff. Councilperson Lemke noted that the city taxes
residents now pay could be escrowed and used to provide water
services to the area. It was noted that the annual taxes paid to
the city by residents in the area is approximately $15,000.
Reed Craft, Manager of the Waterloo Water Works, suggested that
perhaps a rural water system could be installed. Councilperson
Dell urged that the issue be referred to the Planning Commission
for review of issues of future concern. He also noted that we have
an obligation not to proceed too quickly and overlook a potential
problem.
Mr. Temeyer noted that the issues will be identified by the
Commission and brought back to the council for consideration.
It was informally agreed that the city council would refer said
issue to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
No official action was taken. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50
p.m.
Larry P. Burger
City Clerk/Auditor