FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING. July 18, 2012

Transcription

1 FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING The Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mr. Terry Goodman, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum: Mr. Dave Janson, Vice Chair; Mr. Jim Hix; Mr. Curt Skoog; and Mr. Dan Stock. Mr. Paul Lyons sat in for Mrs. Donna Owens, who was absent (excused). Also present were: Mr. Bill Ebel, City Manager; Mrs. Kristy Stallings, Deputy City Manager; Mr. Mike Santos, City Attorney; Mr. David Scott, Chief Financial Officer; Ms. Marian Cook, City Clerk; Mr. Ryan Dixon, Acting Presiding Judge; Ms. Cynthia Cornwell, Municipal Court Judge; Ms. Robin Barnard, Court Administrator; Mr. Mike Garcia, Chief Human Resources Officer; Mrs. Janet Ezell, Senior Compensation Specialist; Mr. Lloyd Nichols, Senior Help Desk Support Specialist; and Ms. Pamela Blaszyk, Recording Secretary. PRESENTATION OF 2011 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Chief Financial Officer Dave Scott introduced Ms. Kristen Hughes, who would be making a presentation on behalf of McGladrey, LLP. This presentation is a required communication that the auditors have in their standards to review with the Governing Body the results of the audit. Ms. Hughes was the manager during the entire engagement. Mr. Kevin Smith, a partner in the firm of McGladrey, LLP, was scheduled to be present, but he was unable to attend the meeting. Ms. Kristen Hughes, McGladrey, LLP, stated that she would provide an overview of the three documents that were provided to the Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee. The first document was the Report to the Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee, which is a part of the required communications that the auditors present at the completion of the audit. Ms. Hughes noted that there were no disagreements with management. If that had been the case, that would have been brought to the attention of the Committee before this meeting. The City staff was responsive to their requests throughout the process, and there were no difficulties encountered in performing the audit. During Fiscal Year 2011, there were no significant or unusual transactions noted or reflected in the financials. This year the City adopted a new accounting standard, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 54, which is reflected in the financials and the change it had on the presentation of the fund balance in the governmental funds. On page Nos. 3 and 4 of the report were management s judgments and accounting estimates. They look at those areas to make sure that the factors that management is including in the process appear to be reasonable as they pertain to the accounts or transactions reflected in the financials. This report also includes the management report letter, which is a list of the audit adjustments that were recorded during the audit from the original financials they received. On page No. 5 is the schedule of uncorrected misstatements.

2 Page 2 This is a summary of the items that were noted, and they are immaterial to the financials, which is why they have not been recorded. Management and the auditors go through those items together, and they are provided as a summary for review. The last item in the report is the controlled efficiency letter. The items in this letter are not considered to be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. They are just areas of improvement for the City that they reviewed with management. With regard to the internal control issue, Mr. Dave Janson asked if they could compare this year s audit to last year s audit. He recalled that they had an issue last year. Ms. Hughes replied that the first item that is noted, the general ledger entries, basically regards a segregation of duties where a couple of people can post journal entries. That issue is a repeat item from the prior year. The City has compensating controls in place based on reviews that they do. However, because people have access within the system to do that, there is somewhat of a risk if the City was failing to perform those compensating controls. Mr. Janson asked why it is a repeat issue. Mr. Scott replied that this was due to the lack of personnel to properly segregate the duties at this time. He does review the monthly journal entries after the fact. They anticipate that when a vacant position is filled, they will be able to segregate the duties, and this issue could be addressed. Mr. Janson asked if there were other issues from last year that were not addressed that are listed again this year. Ms. Hughes replied that in terms of the control efficiency letter, there are no other repeat issues. The other two items are new this year. Mr. Janson asked if there is any material weakness. Ms. Hughes replied that will be disclosed in the Compliance Report, but there was no material weakness this year. Mr. Janson asked if there was a material weakness last year. Ms. Hughes replied that there was a weakness due to the restatement with the Transportation Development District (TDD) transactions. Mr. Paul Lyons asked if they could document that they know there is an issue that they will be cited on and say that it is an exception. Ms. Hughes replied that they have identified compensating controls with the City. The main thing that they want to segregate is someone having access to the general ledger and cash. There are no concerns with independence as far as cash. Those duties are properly segregated. If they think about it from a fraud perspective, there is no one at the City who has access to both the general ledger and cash. That is always a key compensating control, and that is something they discussed with management. Mr. Lyons assumed that they know they will have the same problem next year because of the staffing situation. Mr. Scott replied that they fully anticipate that they will be filling the vacant position. That will allow them to separate the duties. Ms. Hughes indicated that the second document for review was the Compliance Report, which included a summary of their internal control work over financial reporting as well as the work done on the compliance side with the City s federal grants in accordance with the Single Audit Act. On page No. 8 is one of the required schedules that was disclosed in the compliance report, and it is a Summary Schedule of the Prior Audit Findings. It includes both the deficiencies in the internal control they reported last year as well as any instances of noncompliance over the federal awards. From a financial statement perspective, two deficiencies were reported last year. The first was a material weakness, which was corrected in the current year. The second item regarded significant deficiencies reported last year over journal entries

3 Page 3 that were recorded due to the dollar amount involved. There was a similar finding reported in that area again this year. They evaluate the audit adjustments recorded and consider both the qualitative and quantitative materiality and if those had not been identified during the audit, what would have been the impact on the financials. On page No. 8 two instances of noncompliance were reported. They were specific to the federal awards last year. One issue was corrected relating to subrecipient monitoring. The other issue was repeated, although with a different grant, as it pertained to suspension and debarments and whether the City had properly looked up each vendor to ensure that they were not suspended and debarred before providing them with federal funds. In the current year there were no material weaknesses reported. There were two significant deficiencies reported with one regarding journal entries and the other regarding the overall tracking of capital assets. The City does share a number of projects with the State, and this was to ensure, from a financial reporting perspective, who owns the asset and whether it is properly recorded in the financial statements. They had a few adjustments in that area. The Compliance Report also summarized the results of the single audit, which was tested in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133. The City had six major programs that were tested this year, which is a few more than they usually have. It is done based on risk, and it is also dictated by when the last time a grant was picked for selection. Although six programs are more than they have usually done, it did result in 91 percent of the total expenditures being audited this year. One instance of non-compliance was reported. It was specific to the FEMA Firefighters grant, and it involved verifying that vendors are not suspended and debarred. The City did ultimately check, and those parties were not suspended or debarred, which is a key point to note. That was not an instance of significant deficiency or material weakness over the federal awards. Chair Goodman assumed that there was a book published or a Web site that would indicate whether someone has been suspended or debarred. Ms. Hughes replied that the OMB provides three ways to discover whether someone has been suspended or debarred. There is the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) Web site that the federal government puts out, and they summarize what they call excluded parties. Another option would be to include a clause in their contracts to indicate that when that party signs the contract, they are disclosing and confirming that they are not suspended or debarred. The third option is to provide the City with a certification that they are not suspended or debarred. Chair Goodman asked if it would help the City to have a form which had to be signed to confirm that the party had not been suspended or debarred. Ms. Hughes replied that it was her understanding that the clause is included in a lot of the City contracts. There was just something unique about this grant, and it was not included. Mr. Scott added that it is a standard provision with 90 percent of the City contracts. However, with these two contracts, it was an exception, and the clause was not included. Chair Goodman asked if is sufficient if the signatory to the contract makes a proactive declaration in the contract, that they are not suspended or debarred. Ms. Hughes replied that the OMB has indicated that is an acceptable option.

4 Page 4 Ms. Hughes added that the third document was the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). She wanted to note that the City received an unqualified clean opinion on the financial statements, which is the highest level opinion that auditors can give. They had full cooperation from Mr. Scott, the Finance, Budget and Administration Department and other City departments in working on the audit. In the CAFR, the City received the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the 2010 CAFR. In terms of the financial results, management s discussion and analysis in front of the report is a good source to review for significant changes year-over-year in the financial results. Mr. Janson asked what happened to the three paragraph opinion that was used in the past. Ms. Hughes replied that because this is an audit in accordance with Government Auditing standards, that results in two additional paragraphs that are unique to government audits. There was an additional paragraph this year that was a result of adopting a new standard that impacts the financials. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) updated the references to required supplementary information, which has expanded into the last three paragraphs. Mr. Scott added that with the accounting profession and GASB, the entity that sets the standards, any change in the opinion is to require more information. Mr. Jim Hix clarified that after the first 15 pages of the CAFR, they basically have the financial statements. He suggested that next year they receive the financial statement portion of the CAFR on-line and only have the first 15 pages in print. MUNICIPAL COURT Organizational Structure. City Manager Bill Ebel stated that the organizational structure of the Municipal Court first came to his attention during his initial assessment of the organization when he assumed the responsibilities of City Manager. Based on his background, he pays attention to organizational structure and operations. He noticed that there was some awkwardness and issues in how their court structure related to the rest of the organization primarily in the areas of administration, personnel, logistics and budget. Nothing was broken, but he saw an opportunity for improvements and enhancements for the future. When he started vetting this issue throughout the organization and talking with the Presiding Judge at that time, Keith Taylor, the City Attorney, the Deputy City Manager, the Police Chief, the Court Administrator, and Acting Presiding Judge Ryan Dixon, when he became a Municipal Judge for the City, it became clear that there was support from the organization as a whole to make a change. However, there were also some concerns expressed from the Judges. What they are proposing is not going to be a significant change or detriment to the way that things will be in the Court, but it will provide them with a clearer picture for actions related to personnel, administration, budget and logistics. Should staff be directed to go forward with this change, in the future, the Court administration will be under the operational day-to-day control of the Presiding Judge. It has to work that way because of the unique relationship that they have in the administration of the Court and the judicial system within the City. It was important to former Presiding Judge Taylor and Acting Presiding Judge Dixon for that part of the operation to remain unchanged, and Mr. Ebel made it clear to them that would not change. The Municipal Court Judges also expressed a concern about the position of Court Administrator, which is important to them. They have to be directly involved in

5 Page 5 the selection of the individual to fill that position. Mr. Ebel agreed with them that the Judges should be involved in that selection process. However, if they made the structural change, there would be improvements in providing a clear chain of command. By authority of City statutes, the City Manager has direct responsibility for the hiring of employees. Because of that, the charter ordinance, if approved, would reflect both the issue of operational control and the selection of the Court Administrator as an assurance to the Judges that the relationship will be there in the future. At some point in the future, there will be a different presiding judge and a different city manager, so they want to make sure that they document and solidify the relationships that would occur within this structure. Mr. Ebel, along with City Attorney Mike Santos, were both recommending approval of the proposed organizational structure. He believed that it would be an improvement of the process and provide for future enhancements in the operation of court services in the City. Mr. Santos added that he and Mr. Ebel have agreed that if they have direction to move forward with the charter ordinance, they would work closely with the Municipal Court Presiding Judge to make sure that they are all comfortable with the language and that they transition in a fashion that makes the Court administration seamless over the next several months. If this recommendation is approved, the proposed change will probably be effective January 1, Mr. Lyons noted that when they review the budget every year, it is presented by the City Manager, but that includes the Court budget. He asked if the Municipal Court has an independent budget. Mr. Ebel replied that the Municipal Judges are not under the purview of the City Manager. That means that the employees of that organization work directly for the judges, who work directly for the Council. That results from their democratic way of the government having a separation of powers. They accept the Municipal Court budget. Although the execution of the budget has never been an issue, it could be an issue in the future where there may be discrepancies between the Judge and the City Manager. He would not anticipate a discrepancy, but it could occur. The idea was to have the budget under the purview of the City Manager. Another example is in the area of personnel and where this structure can become complicated and awkward. By City statute, the only person who has the authority to fire or hire an employee falls within the position of the City Manager. It does not fall within the position of the Presiding Judge. By cleaning up the organizational structure, those issues in the future would be more easily addressed than they have been in the past. Mr. Lyons clarified that in the current environment there has been cooperation between the City Manager and the Presiding Judge in terms of the budget and the number of employees. Mr. Ebel agreed that it has been through a period of cooperation. They have had great success with that structure during his tenure as the City Manager, and that process has worked. However, the structural change would make the relationship more clear, and they would not necessarily have to rely on people to make that work, because the personnel will change in the future. To avoid any problems that could arise, the proposed change would result in a more clear structure. Mr. Lyons clarified that the proposal would be that the Court Administrator would report to the City Manager. Mr. Ebel replied that if the recommendation is fully implemented, the Court Administrator would report directly to the City Manager. He would view the Court as an operating department. The way they are structured now, the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager share the responsibility of having

6 Page 6 direct oversight in managing department directors. It is ultimately the responsibility of the City Manager. With the proposed change, the Court Administrator would report directly to the City Manager. Mr. Lyons clarified that when issues arise such as a request for more resources or another employee, those determinations would be made by the City Manager and the Court Administrator. Mr. Lyons asked if the Presiding Judge would be involved in those discussions in the future. Mr. Ebel replied that in the areas of personnel, administration and budget, this structure would allow for the City Manager to work directly with the Court Administrator. The responsibilities that pertain to judicial proceedings, judicial review and the way the court system works to facilitate the judicial process, would be the role of the Court Administrator by working directly with the Presiding Judge. The day-to-day operations are under the Court organization. The back office support comes from another organization, and it is organic to that organization. The Court administration would be organic in reporting to the City Manager, but would be under the operational control of the Presiding Judge. Mr. Lyons understood that by changing the Court as proposed, it would no longer be dependent upon a cooperative relationship between the City Manager and the Presiding Judge, although that would be a benefit. In the event that there are different personalities in the future with two different people filling the positions of City Manager and Presiding Judge, this change would allow them to reduce or eliminate potential disagreements. Mr. Ebel agreed that this change would address potential conflicts in the future. Mr. Santos added that the City Manager would direct the Court Administrator to work directly with the Presiding Judge, so if the Presiding Judge should indicate a need for another Court Clerk, the Presiding Judge would work through the Court Administrator with the City Manager to meet that need. Chair Goodman referred to the comment that the day-to-day operational control would be under the purview of the Judges. Mr. Ebel replied that the Court Administrator would work for the Judges on the day-to-day implementation of the judicial processes. Chair Goodman asked what are the day-to-day operations, and what controls would the Judges forego with the proposed change. Mr. Ebel replied that the day-to-day operations involve how the dockets are processed and the timing of the dockets. That must be a collaborative effort between the Presiding Judge and the Court Administrator. It would be preferable for the Court Administrator to be under the operational control of the Presiding Judge. Court Administrators Robin Barnard explained court administrators do not make the determinations for the day-to-day operations of the Court that are case related. The judges set the dockets. The judges decide what docket needs to be where for what reason. The judges oversee the management of 40,000 plus cases moving through the Court system. An example of the division of day-to-day responsibilities would be how they would deal with an employee who is having a serious performance problem. In the past, the employee issue would eventually trickle up to the Presiding Judge to deal with through the Court Administrator. With what is being proposed, this type of issue would not go through that same process. In the past, the judges have retained ultimate control of the budget. It would be possible at the end of the budgetary year for a judge to decide to spend funds on some equipment that was not in the budget. There was no impropriety. However, the proposed change would involve the

7 Page 7 separation of human resources and finances. In other respects, the judge has to maintain control over the day-to-day operations, since the court administrator does not know about the case management. The role of the court administrator would be to carry out the directions of the judge. For example, Presiding Judge Dixon would tell Ms. Barnard to implement the docket change, and she would go to the necessary clerks to make that happen. She would not question the Judge, because she does not know as much as he does. She is not in the courtroom. If the Judge has problems in the courtroom with the flow of activities, it is the staff who reports to her to fix it, so the systems may need to be changed. Ms. Barnard would have to be accountable to two different people on a daily basis with the proposed change. In her world it seems to be easy to separate the responsibilities and to see how that would work, although it may be difficult to explain. Under the proposed change, Mr. Goodman asked whether the Court Administrator could decide that they had spent too much money on pro-tem judges and refuse to allow them to serve. Ms. Barnard replied that is an area that would not be within the authority of the Court Administrator. The current City ordinances require the Presiding Judge to create a list of the pro-tem judges and determine when they are to be used. She contacts the pro-tem judges and she keeps track of them, but she would not presume to the tell the Court that they should or should not use a pro-tem judge. Chair Goodman asked if there is equipment that the Judge has identified as being beneficial to have, would the Court Administrator be in a position to say that they are not going to make that purchase, or would the Judge have an ability to express to the City Manager that he was having a disagreement with the Court Administrator. Mr. Ebel replied that the Judge would have the ability to come to the City Manager beyond the Court Administrator, since the Judge works directly for the Council. That would be a discussion and a negotiated process. If there was a disagreement, there would be opportunities to address that situation. In the future, this new system could also possibly prevent expenditures that might not fit into the overall alignment of the City s financial picture or the budgetary process, since that would fall under the full authority of the City Manager. If there was such a request, Ms. Barnard noted that a good Court Administrator would sit down with the Judge and say let s look at the budget and see how they can possibly make this purchase in this year s budget, rather than unilaterally saying that they cannot afford it. Mr. Ebel noted that it was his professional judgment that by making this change, they would prevent personalities from creating those issues. It would become a cleaner process. This type of structure is not implemented everywhere. However, it was his professional opinion that this would be the preferred organizational structure. Chair Goodman noted that, historically, the Presiding Judge was always compensated more for this position. He asked what percentage of time does the Presiding Judge currently spend on administrative duties, and what would be the decrease in time that is spent on administrative duties with the proposed change. Mr. Ebel replied that there is a compensation difference that should be provided to the Presiding Judge. There are duties that the Presiding Judge will do in this arrangement that are outside of the responsibility and authority of the City Manager. Some of those duties were listed in the packet materials. He would be hesitant to say that the administrative responsibilities of the Presiding Judge, in terms of the operation and direction of the department, is going to change by a certain percentage. He believed that the responsibilities of the Presiding Judge are worthy of some additional compensation. He would leave the determination of the exact percentage up to the judgment of the

8 Page 8 Council. Perhaps that is a conversation that should occur between the Committee and the Presiding Judge. Mr. Santos added that is what the resolution provides for. Mr. Hix stated that under either scenario, cooperation among the parties is necessary for an effective operation. That is true throughout the organization at all times. If they have a situation where there is not good cooperation between the Court and the City Manager, then the City Manager needs to talk to the Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee, and something needs to be done to correct the problem. He had no concerns about that type of situation arising with the current people in those positions; however, he agreed that it would be possible for conflicts to arise in the future. This is a $2.7 million department for which the City Manager is directly responsible. It makes sense to put the $2.7 million expenditure under the direct control of the person who is responsible for the actions. Mr. Hix moved to recommend to the Council to direct staff to prepare a charter ordinance and modifications to Resolution No in order to implement the structural changes that were outlined by staff in the packet materials. The motion was seconded by Mr. Curt Skoog. Mr. Hix commented that he chaired the Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee for a number of years. During those years, the Presiding Judge, the Municipal Court Judge and the Court Administrator have performed their tasks in such a way that they have made this responsibility easy for the Committee. He has never received complaints about the Court from people who might be expected to complain. He expressed appreciation for the fact that this system has worked well in the past. That is because of the people who are involved, such as Ms. Robin Barnard and Acting Presiding Judge Dixon. He believed that the system would continue to work well in the future. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 to 0. APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING JUDGE Deputy City Manager Kristy Stallings stated that in May, the Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee designated Judge Ryan Dixon as the Acting Presiding Judge effective June 30, Following Judge Taylor s June 29, 2012, retirement, Mr. Dixon was appointed to be the Acting Presiding Judge with direction that following the selection of a judge and the retirement of Judge Taylor, the Committee would take up the matter once again. They took that action in May because there was not enough time for the change to be effective after Judge Taylor s resignation prior to the next meeting. Mr. Hix moved to recommend to the Council the designation of Judge Ryan Dixon as the Presiding Judge effective on approval by the full Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skoog and carried with a vote of 6 to 0. Chair Goodman indicated that he had heard nothing negative since Judge Dixon began his tenure with the Municipal Court one and a half years ago. He felt that Judge Dixon would continue to perform at the same high level. He was also glad to have Municipal Court Judge Cynthia Cornwell serving in the Municipal Court.

9 Page 9 REVIEW OF COMPENSATION FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGES Chief Human Resources Officer Mike Garcia presented for consideration the review of compensation for the Municipal Court Judge and the Presiding Judge. The timeframe and formula related to the judges compensation is outlined in Sections 10 (d) and (e) of Resolution No. 3945, which indicates that the salary of each judge shall be increased by an amount equal to the average salary increase percentage given to all full-time City employees covered by the City s salary band system as of the most recent annual review. For 2012, the salaries were frozen for the employees covered by the City s band compensation system. Following that formula, the salary of each judge would remain unchanged for Attached for review was Exhibit A, which showed the computation method that was used as outlined in Resolution No Chair Goodman supported the practice of keeping the increases for the judges the same as the increases received by other City employees. This practice raises the question in going forward of what the Presiding Judge s differential should be. That is something that may be more appropriately addressed one year from now when they have seen how the new legislative scheme works and if the duties have changed. They could get input from Acting Presiding Judge Dixon as well as the City Manager s Office. Mr. Hix moved to follow the existing policy for compensation of the Municipal Court Judges, which is to match the average increase given to all City employees, which would result in no change in the salaries at this time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Janson and carried with a vote of 6 to ICMA CONFERENCE Funding Request. Mr. Ebel indicated that the funding amount that he would be requesting typically falls within the funding authority of the City Manager. However, he wanted to bring this item to the Committee s attention to ask for direction, and he would also give his recommendation. In 2016, the International City/County Manager s Association (ICMA) is coming to the Kansas City area. This is a large convention of city managers from around the world. He believed that the ICMA convention was hosted by Kansas City in the late 1980s. Most of these types of conventions require that a host committee be created. There has been a call for cities to participate on the host committee. When this conference previously came to the Kansas City region, the City, the Overland Park Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB), and the Overland Park Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) participated in providing a contribution to help fund this committee. Mr. Ebel spoke with Ms. Tracey Osborne, president, Overland Park Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Jerry Cook, president, Overland Park Convention and Visitors Bureau, and they are willing to participate in this effort. They have not determined any particular number. A funding formula was sent to different cities based on the budget and population and it was included in the packet materials. He wanted to present this funding request to the Finance, Administration and Economic Development Committee without making the decision unilaterally. Mr. Ebel was of the opinion that they should sponsor this convention. It would bring great attention to Overland Park as a host committee member, which could result in some indirect benefits. The convention is being held in Kansas City, Missouri; however, some attendees may decide to stay in Overland Park, since it will be a large

10 Page 10 convention. Mr. Ebel was recommending that their donation not exceed $15,000. He asked for the approval of the Committee in working with Ms. Osborne and Mr. Cook to ensure that the funding occurs at an equitable formula. Chair Goodman asked if the proposal was that the $15,000 would be from the three entities including the City, the CVB and the Chamber. Mr. Ebel replied in the affirmative. Mr. Dan Stock got the impression that this was a request from the City. He asked if they would be making up the difference. Mr. Ebel explained that his recommendation was that the total funding be $15,000. He assumed that the CVB and the Chamber s contribution combined would provide approximately one third of that amount, and the City would provide two thirds, which is a reasonable expectation. He believed that all three entities would help to provide the $15,000. They have not settled on an exact amount because it is so far in the future. However, he wanted the authority to make a commitment this year to the host committee, although the expenditure would not be funded until Mr. Lyons clarified that the total amount is $15,000, but the City would pay less than that amount, since the Chamber and the CVB would also contribute some funds. Mr. Ebel replied that the Chamber and the CVB would have to go through their board processes and budgetary processes to get the funding approval. Mr. Lyons asked if Mr. Ebel was asking for authorization up to $15,000. Mr. Ebel replied that he was of the opinion that the requested amount was appropriate. Mr. Lyons asked if they are planning to take a more active role with the conference by hosting any activities or meetings in Overland Park. Mr. Ebel replied that they are having conversations with Ms. Osborne and Mr. Cook. This is a great opportunity to possibly showcase some of the City to the city managers and elected officials who attend the conference. He was not sure what part the City would play in terms of the activities, but he was sure that they would be involved in the planning process. A staff member would participate in a committee to help to plan the convention. They are just starting the planning process. Mr. Janson asked if a motion was needed since the City Manager is authorized with the fiscal authority to spend up to $50,000. Mr. Ebel replied that he wanted to have a motion because of the importance of this event and the unusual nature of the request because it involves the CVB, the Chamber and the City. Chair Goodman asked why they would participate in the funding unless they were firmly convinced that it would result in a compression of the hotel rooms so that many of the attendees would stay in Overland Park and use their restaurants and shops. In terms of a direct financial impact, Mr. Ebel noted that there is no guarantee that there will be spillover benefits to the City from this convention. Because of Overland Park s significance in the region, their participation in this type of a convention is viewed as being cooperative, and it is expected that they will contribute to the process. The question is if it is worth $15,000 to be viewed as being cooperative. Mr. Ebel was of the opinion that because of the people who will be attending the convention and viewing the area, it would be worth the contribution.

11 Page 11 Mr. Hix considered this participation to be an economic development opportunity on an indirect basis. City leaders from all over the United States will be attending the convention. The overall impression of Overland Park throughout the nation impacts their economic development activities. Beyond that factor, a number of employees are going to retire in the next several years, and they may want to recruit some employees. Often a city manager will be supportive of the career advancement of their staff, and if the city managers have a good image of Overland Park, they might be more likely to recommend the City as a good place to work. There are several indirect potential benefits from participating with the convention. It is hard to measure the benefits. He was supportive of the request because of the potential of economic development and because general public relations on a national level has value. Mr. Skoog added that this effort involves other city representatives coming to their community. As a community, they should support the convention even if they receive no financial benefit. As they display the metropolitan area to their peers, they will show that they know how to operate cities to the best advantage in the Midwest. Regardless of the financial benefit, they should partner with their neighboring cities to support this event. Mr. Janson moved to recommend to the Council approval of an expenditure up to $15,000 from the Contingency Fund for the 2016 ICMA Conference. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hix and carried with a vote of 6 to 0. At 8 p.m., Chair Goodman declared the meeting adjourned. Minutes transcribed by Pamela Blaszyk. Terry Goodman, Chair