2015-10-01_HRA_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Agenda Item 3. HRA Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, August 18, 2015 Page 6 1 choice from the City Manager that they didn’t like, at which time they could end up with no 2 executive director and at that point may need to make a decision on a staffing option. 3 However, Mr. Bilotta stated that the Board should be confident that they are not, and this 4 agreement didn’t indicate, completely powerless in this situation, opining that it wasn’t clear to 5 him if individual or the collective Board members understood this completely. 6 7 Member Lee opined that if the HRA accepted and appointed the person nominated by the City 8 Manager and that person didn’t work out, it looked like they then reverted to Section 5 9 *Employment Status and Control of Work) of the agreement with the City. 10 11 While not an attorney, Mr. Bilotta responded that if something came up mid-year and the 12 Board decided to “un-appoint” the person serving in the role of executive director, that would 13 appear to be the case, if outside the annual appointment process. 14 15 In Section 4 of the agreement (Termination), Member Wall noted that this became a foggy area 16 when the Board was required to wait for the City Manager to nominate another person, or there 17 were changes in this agreement if the main issue is that person serving continued to sit in that 18 role. Member Wall opined this didn’t’ get the Board anywhere, and while the Board may not 19 have to accept a nominee, someone has to serve as the executive director; further opining that 20 the Board should not have to take only someone appointed by the City Manager. 21 22 Mr. Bilotta noted the Board could enact the 30-day termination clause and the agreement 23 ended; and they could choose to wait for another nominee/city employee or hire an outside 24 consultant short- or long-term, recognizing the ramifications in addition to just the position 25 itself. 26 27 Under this agreement, Member Wall reiterated that the HRA had no control other than taking 28 away the appointment. 29 30 Mr. Bilotta responded that the same was true with the City Council under the Statutory B form 31 of government operating in Roseville; noting that similar to his position, it takes the City 32 Manager to decide his termination. 33 34 Member Masche sought input on the specific benefits of this agreement to the HRA. 35 36 Mr. Bilotta noted the primary benefit to the Board was that it didn’t need to deal with the 37 overhead and extra costs it would experience with its own employee. Mr. Bilotta opined this 38 created a more efficient operation for the HRA, with the HRA and City Council all on the 39 same team and avoiding a duplication of efforts. Mr. Bilotta noted some of those additional 40 expenses would include if on their own would include an office, equipment, payroll, insurance 41 and other aspects that a Sole Proprietor would experience. 42 43 Member Wall noted the HRA may grow to be ten-person organization, and opined that other 44 organizations did their own management and fiscal management as well. 45 46 Member Masche thanked Mr. Bilotta for his response in looking at this from a practical 47 standpoint; opining that it makes no sense for the HRA to have 3-4 employees on its own; but 48 admitted the troubling part for him remained in understanding the benefits to the HRA from a 49 supervision standpoint. 50 51 Mr. Bilotta addressed the benefits of supervision were tied together, since the employee was 52 under the city’s umbrella of services, contracts and relationships, that was part of the package 53 in the Statutory B structure, not necessarily defined as a benefit. Mr. Bilotta noted this was the 54 purpose of the service agreement, and opined that without having that in place there was no 55 way to remove the position out of that structure and say for all other purposes the position was