Laserfiche WebLink
reviewing the Medical Insurance Fund for future stability and to see if there are changesCouncil <br />should be looking at. City Manager Corby Alexander responded, as discussed during the budget <br />process, due to the rise in health care cost, there will need to be means of identifying how the fund <br />will be able to sustain itself over time; but the issue being discussed is a separate issue. <br />Councilmember Engelken moved to direct staff to have retiree dependent health care coverage <br />remain the same as before “the letter went out,” andbased on what current employees pay for <br />dependent health care coverage; and if the numbers change in the future, retirees’ numbers will <br />MOTION PASSED. <br />also change.Councilmember Kaminski seconded. <br />Ayes: Mayor Rigby, Councilmembers Engelken, Leonard, Zemanek, <br />Kaminski, Clausen, Martin and Moser <br /> Nays: None <br /> Absent:Councilmember Mosteit <br />City Manager Corby Alexander advised Council the city would communicate with all of the affected <br />retirees and assure they know the outcome as well as communicate with all retirees that they will <br />pay the active employee rate for dependent coverage. <br />City Attorney Clark Askins commented an ordinance to amendthat chapter of the Personnel <br />Manual will be presented in January to provide clarificationin the Manual. <br />(c) <br />Discussion or other action regarding Planning Department Audit – C. Alexander <br />City Manager Corby Alexander introduced Consultants Alan Mueller and Ron Cox; and they <br />provided an update on the operational audit of the Planning Department. <br />Mr. Muellerdiscussed the Organizational Culture/Mission & Goals, and the methodology used.A <br />final report will be in January or February 2013.Tonight’s report is an interim report; and, overall, <br />they are on schedule. <br />Mr.Coxcommented it is common tofocus on the negative aspects with these types of reports, but <br />henotedthere were many positive comments provided by the focus groups, and working with staff <br />has been a pleasure. Staff was very receptive to the process and eager to determine areas where <br />customer service may be enhanced. In analysis, they separate the causes from the symptoms, and <br />are cautious to not rush to conclusions. They determined if there is an external negative <br />conception, what is the internal cause? <br />From a findings and observations perspective, there are Process themes and also Organizational <br />themes. There are quite a lot of processing steps to get from the application through final permit <br />issuance. Software Naviline is very cumbersome to use with notmany efficiencies of process; but <br />there may be some fixes or alternatives to implement in order to lessen cumbersome processes. <br />Regarding site plan review, they heard from most customers that it is very frustrating. They did a <br />flow chart review on steps for a site plan review. They were able to analyze the process and <br />believe there are some efficiencies that canbeinstituted to help with this. Regarding the general <br />permitting process, there are many redundancies; and the Naviline system is a part of the burden. <br />Contractors had some great ideas on how to streamline the process, and they believe many of <br />these can be implemented. <br />Regarding Code Enforcement, what they heard was really on a policy level. There were a couple of <br />competing concepts – thatlaws should be enforced equally vs. implementing a plan to focus more <br />onselected hot spots. <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />December 10, 2012, City Council Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />