Wednesday, October 3, 2012


The Agenda Setting Session  is thew forum for the Council members to discuss the Resolutions and Ordinances  that will be submitted for action at the Business meeting the following week.Rarely is a Resolution approved for inclusion at the Business meeting voted down.

Resolution “V” increases a contract awarded to Remington for topographic services including aerial survey of the floodplain area. The original amount requested and allowed by the Council was $15,000. Apparently although covered the over flight of all of the involved areas that amount only permitted mapping the south side of the railroad tracks. The extra $4850 is for finishing the mapping of the area north of the tracks.

These contracts are awarded on professional services criteria without competitive bidding. Question; if there was competitive bidding under an RFQ could not perhaps the lowest bid contract for the complete study be less than the final cost of $20,000? Under the present practices we will never know.

The resolution to certify review of the 2012 best practice inventory, a required document which was due on September 30. It had already been submitted and was receiving related certification that the Council has reviewed the document.

The “inventory” is a series of practice questions that require a yes or no answer. If memory serves me right the city had 13 “nos”. With the result that there’ll be a loss of at least 1% state aid to the city in 2012.

Among the outstanding failures were: #1” general ledger items are not reconciled to bank statements”, #”2 have not filed copies of shares services agreement”, #3 “failure to comply with accepted practices insurance broker contracts to limit costs. Structure broker, #4 payments not defined in contracts” #4 supervisors do not review employee’s time and attendance documentation. These are only 4 of the 13 deficiencies noted.

Please note the Council is not required to act on these deficiencies which are administrative functions. All of this is due to the absence of a CFO, purchasing agent, and continuity in the fiscal offices the present administration. Could this be a policy, and not the result of unfortunate circumstances?

Public safety submitted one resolution to change the purchase of a Ford Fusion to a Ford Taurus. The Fusion requested was no longer available due to lateness of the purchasing order.

An other resolution changed the purchase of six but no longer available 2012 marked police cars to five 2013 model. Director Hellwig mentioned that the amount would be less; “a savings to the city”. He did not state what the cost of the 2012 or 2013 individual vehicles were.

A Resolution to "retroactively to Sept. 1 renewal of a prescription plan with Horizon Blue Cross Blue Sheild  for $408,018.09 was accepted for approval.

Withdrawn was a resolution to for allocation of funds from the UEZ funds for $87,978.10 to ‘complete the salaries and wages” adopted in 2012 Municipal budget. No reason was given.
Not part of the meeting, but every resolution requiring expenditures of funds by law has to have a CFO’s certificate of availability of the funds. I noted that on almost all of t he certificates the acting CFO’s signature is initialed by someone else. Could there be a question of legality?

1 comment:

  1. People who support this mayor really have no clue about how to run a business. They think we are fine because she hugs and kisses, and that's fine with them.

    Well, I hope when they look at what income they have left after paying for her mistakes, hugging and kissing pays their bills.