minutes of the finance committee of stow city council...

Minutes of the Finance Committee of Stow City Council Meeting held on Thursday, Sep-tember 11, 2014, at 6:59 p.m. Committee Members Present: Rasor, Costello, Lowdermilk & Riehl Other Council Members Present: Adaska, D’Antonio & Pribonic City Officials Present: Mayor Drew, Law Director Zibritosky, Finance Direc-

tor Baranek, Director of Budget & Management Earle, Service Director Wren, Director of Planning &

Development Kurtz, Assistant City Engineer Rayman, Fire Chief Stone, Lieutenant Titus, Parks & Recrea-

tion Director Nahrstedt, Manager of Information Sys-tems Germano & Clerk of Council Emahiser

Press Representatives: Stow Sentry

Call to Order

Mr. Rasor called the meeting to order.

Approval of Minutes

MOTION: Mr. Costello moved and Mr. Riehl seconded to approve the Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting of August 14, 2014 as circulated.

Yes Votes: Rasor, Costello, Lowdermilk & Riehl

No Votes: None. The motion carried.

Budget/Financial Report

MOTION: Mr. Costello moved and Mr. Riehl seconded to acknowledge receipt of and approve the Budget/Financial Report dated August 31, 2014.



Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting of 2. September 11, 2014

Business Items

Stow Municipal Court’s Statement of Operations (Before Adjustments/Allocation) Mr. Earle stated Mr. Baranek produces every month a Statement of Operations for the Court System as part of the budget. It includes a full-year budget for the most current year (2014) and year-to-date information to reflect against that full-year budget. This information has been produced by Mr. Baranek for a number of years. He decided that he wanted to start filing it with Council, so they would have the opportunity to review it and ask questions. He thought that was probably the reason it was on the agenda this evening. The court operationally is stable. As you can see from the report itself, the deficit is shrinking for this year and is on pace to be under control by the end of the year. Mr. Rasor stated he had just wanted to bring this up as a discussion item since it was circulated. He asked if anyone had any questions? There were none. Mr. Rasor stated that any further questions could also be directed to the finance department. Authorize Contract – Summit Testing & Inspection – Graham Road Rehabilitation Project Ms. Rayman stated the Graham Road Rehabilitation Project requires that a geotechni-cal engineering firm be hired for inspection and testing. They had solicited bids. They received proposals from three companies. Summit Testing & Inspection was the lowest and best bid. They were requesting authorization to hire them at the cost of $29,900 of which 80% was reimbursable by FHWA. Mr. Lowdermilk stated he had sent Ms. Rayman an email earlier. He asked if this wasn’t part of the Graham Road Project as a whole? Ms. Rayman stated that it was. It was just additional services that the State required, so there were additional funds. Mr. Lowdermilk asked if we didn’t know that at the time? Ms. Rayman stated no. It was additional testing for additional quantities of concrete that were added to the project. MOTION: Mr. Costello moved and Mr. Riehl seconded to assign a number to the sample legisla-tion and send it on to Council.




Continuation of Self-Insurance Program & Authorize Contracts – Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO) – Administrative Services & Aggregate & Specific Stop/Loss Insurance Mr. Earle stated there were three related pieces of legislation. He would explain all three at the same time. The first one was continuation of our self-insurance program for our health care bene-fits, which we have had for a number of years. We renew it one year at a time thru Council, so there is an exposure of the program to Council each year. The second one is to renew the administrative contract with Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO) or Medical Mutual Health Services (MHS), two companion companies, one owned by the other. MHS is owned by Medical Mutual of Ohio. We have to renew our contract. There will be no increase in the price for this year. The third one is to renew our stop/loss insurance. We insure our medical costs over $150,000 per individual and over a total group limit for the entire plan with stop/loss insurance so we do not incur catastrophic costs. The cost of that will not be able to be determined for another several months (probably sometime in November) as they get closer to the end of the year. However, they will have a fair cost when they get the quotes from Medical Mutual of Ohio. Mr. Rasor asked how frequently over the past five years have we hit our stop/loss on either an individual or aggregate basis? Mr. Earle stated we have never hit it on the aggregate basis because there is a large margin. It starts off at 25% in excess of expected claims. However, for individuals, we have hit that frequently. As a matter of fact, just over the period of time that Medical Mutual has been our insurer, which was five years, we have received back about $1,250,000 in reimbursements because we have had some rather large medical claims for individuals. That was the purpose of having the hospitalization – so they could be covered. We have had that amount of reimbursement just in the last five years and it has not had a major impact on our rates. That was why MMO was such a good company. They will continue to provide us with stop/loss insurance without a major increase. There was some increase, but not excessive.

Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting of 4. September 11, 2014 Mr. Rasor hoped MMO wasn’t listening at home but, over the last five years then, if we are paying about $250,000 for our…Mr. Earle stated they have lost money on us. Mr. Lowdermilk asked how long has Medical Mutual had the contract? Mr. Earle stated they had one contract, which has been a five-year contract. Mr. Lowdermilk asked when was the last time this was bid out? Mr. Earle stated it was bid out (formal bids) when they got it. MOTION: Mr. Costello moved and Mr. Riehl seconded to assign a number to the three pieces of sample legislation and send them on to Council.


No Votes: None. The motion carried

Authorize Contracts – a) Nike Golf, Inc. – Resale Merchandise for Pro Shop; & b) Taylormade Adidas Golf Company – Resale of Merchandise for Pro Shop__ Mr. Wren stated he would take both this items at once. The first one was for Nike Golf, Inc. to spend up to $25,000 on apparel and resale items. The second one was for Taylormade Adidas Golf Company to spend up to $35,000 on resale items and merchandise. Currently, to date, for Taylormade Adidas Golf Company we have sold $27,934.39 of product. This was to raise the limits that we had requested earlier this year because we have sold such a large amount. We are at a 22.7% profit margin with Taylormade Adidas, Ashworth and Adams, which fall under that umbrella. Regarding Nike Golf, Inc., we have sold $15,375.23 to date. Our profit margin on that is 24.4%. Mr. Costello thought they were doing well on their sales. Mr. Wren stated surprisingly yes. Honestly, they were trying to get out of the club and apparel business 5-6 years ago, but they had seen a large uptick in that.

Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting of 5. September 11, 2014 Joe, our new GM, was extremely knowledgeable on the club side. Really what they were looking at now were special orders. People will want a certain set of irons. We don’t have them in stock, but, obviously, we want them to order it thru us. Mr. Lowdermilk asked if this would backfill or replace stock? Mr. Wren stated some-what. It was mostly special orders. We get requests from companies to buy twelve dozen Taylormade golf balls with logos on them. That was to carry that. Mr. Lowdermilk stated so they weren’t getting ready to stock our club house. Mr. Wren stated no. This was just so they didn’t have to come back a third time. He didn’t expect to reach either of these numbers, but it was just so he wouldn’t have to come back a third time. MOTION: Mr. Costello moved and Mr. Riehl seconded to assign a number to the two pieces of sample legislation and send them on to Council.



Amend Code – Chapter 921 – Water System Fees & User Charges Mr. Wren stated Council should have received a letter from him concerning this item and a Version No. 2 of the legislation. In going over the legislation prior to the meeting, there were some discrepancies in Section 921.09, Water Service Fees. He planned to redo that section and bring it back at the next Council Meeting. However, they originally went down this path because of a request from a resident, thru Mr. Adaska, regarding private wells and putting meters on those so they could get a read for their sanitary sewer charges. People on private wells pay a flat rate right now. Metering that could lesson that fee for them when they were looking at actual uses in-stead of a flat rate applied by the County. That was why they originally went into Section 921 – to make those changes allowing for people with private wells to have City of Stow meters. They were amending two sections now in Version No. 2. The second one was Section 921.05, Hydrant Charges. When the City took over the water system, they adopted most if not all of the County’s legislation that was in-place. A lot of these items they never did or never will do or they don’t make sense in our current state.

Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting of 6. September 11, 2014 We don’t allow people to pull from a hydrant. This was basically a bulk water fee. Over the years, a bulk water rate was established by the administration but never adopted by Council. To make this memorialized, he brought this new bulk fee to Council. Obvious-ly, Council will have the final say over what that fee will be. Bulk water rates are currently set at $10.00 per thousand gallons. That put them well within line of other surrounding communities. We have one community as low as $4.00 and another community as high as $177.00. It was all over the map, but for the major-ity, it was a much lower rate like what they had here. Secondly, there were changes to Section 921.10, Miscellaneous Water Service Fees. We have not ever charged for any of those fees that are on that table since the City took over the water distributions system. This was where they inserted the portion for the private well users to be able to have their wells metered so they could then address their sanitary sewer bills. Mr. Adaska appreciated Mr. Wren and Mayor Drew looking into this for a few of the resi-dents. Currently they were paying a flat rate for their sewer, as Mr. Wren had indicated, which was the highest rate that the County can charge. Without this meter, there is no way the County can tell how much usage the resident used as far as sewer goes. This way, by adding a meter to their private water well, they will be able to indicate to the City how much water they use from the wells. That will dictate the amount of sewer they are being charged for. There were quite a few residents that were going to be affected by this. Mr. Wren stated 606. Mr. Adaska thought that was pretty significant. He wanted to thank the administration for looking into that. MOTION: Mr. Riehl moved and Mr. Costello seconded to assign a number to the sample legisla-tion and send it on to Council.



Authorize Bids – Miscellaneous Storm Sewer Repairs Ms. Rayman stated the engineering department is looking for authorization to solicit bids for miscellaneous storm sewer projects that are replacements of older sewers that have shown signs of failure. There were three separate jobs throughout the City.

Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting of 7. September 11, 2014 One is at 757 Graham Road, which is a large culvert that has failed and needs to be replaced. Another is Hammontree Circle, which is a residential roadway within Eastwicke Sub-division that is a sewer within an easement that also needs replaced. Another is Martinique Drive, which is a headwall replacement. We would like to solicit bids for these three items as one project. We feel we will get a better price if we do it that way, because they are relatively small. These were some-what of an emergency, so we would like to get them done this year. Mr. Lowdermilk asked if these projects were on the list that her and him had reviewed over the last several months? Ms. Rayman stated yes. They were probably considered the smaller projects. Mr. Lowdermilk stated but they weren’t new additions to the list. Ms. Rayman stated no. Mr. Lowdermilk stated they were on that list. Ms. Rayman stated Graham Road was probably the newest, only because they had just noticed the effect of that one. MOTION: Mr. Costello moved and Mr. Riehl seconded to assign a number to the sample legisla-tion and send it on to Council.



Adjournment

MOTION: Mr. Costello moved and Mr. Riehl seconded to adjourn.



The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. _________________________________ __________________________________ Bonnie J. Emahiser Mike Rasor Clerk of Council Chairman






Call to Order


Approval of Minutes









Business Items





Adjournment










Call to Order


Approval of Minutes









Business Items





Adjournment










Call to Order


Approval of Minutes









Business Items





Adjournment










Call to Order


Approval of Minutes









Business Items





Adjournment





minutes of the finance committee of stow city council...

Documents