10/15/2002 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes 10/15!2002 was involved in some aspect of that work. They are currently reviewing the different options that are available. Regarding the two underground lines that need repair at the city Service Garage, discussion centered around the monies available for this project. Finance Director Copfer advised that the city currently has no money for this project. At the earliest, it will not be available until after January 1. Council member Gareau advised that we can pass the resolution to recommend the work and, when the money does become available, it can be appropriated at that time. A question was raised regarding not putting this up for public bidding. Director of Law Dubelko advised, since the amount of money needed is below $15,000, public bidding was not needed. The committee unanimously recommended passage of Resolution 2002-138. Councilman Gareau, member of the Recreation Commission: 1) The Recreation Commission met on October 15, at 7 p.m. in the administrative offices of the Recreation Center. Since the positions of Safety Director and Recreation Commissioner are vacant, two integral members of the commission were absent. However, Safety Director Thomas, before leaving her office, took steps to inswe that some member of the Recreation Department was there to see to it that things ran smoothly. Agenda items were as follows: The Recreation Center policy on related parties/relatives working in the same line of command. It was brought to the atterrtion of the commission that this situation had presented it~eif in the past and perhaps the commission under its Charter-based obligations would like to implement some sort of employment policy regarding the hiring of relatives and whether such persons, if they're able to be hired, should actually serve in the same line of command wherein a party would be answerable to a relative. The commission agreed that this was a matter that would require the Director of Law's input. The commission expressed a concern about that policy which they were not otherwise previously aware. That matter first will be referred to the Director of Law for further development. The "We Care" program at the Recreation Center. This is a program that has some history to it that allows family members of North Olmsted employees to receive discounted access to the programs available at the Rec Department. Numerous questions argse as to this program. There seems to be some discrepancy, at least in application, as to who is a family member who would be entitled to a discount. Is it a parent, a sibling or is it a cousin, or a grandmother or a grandchild and who is eligible to receive this discount? There is also the question of what is a discount? It appears that at times the discount has extended all the way to people not paying anything to be able to use the facilities at the City of North Olmsted Rec Center. That, of course, leads to the question, what is an employee? Does an employee extend to contract parties who provide services on a contract basis as independent contractors as there are quite a few programs at the Rec Center that are not administered by employees but are administered by people who just simply enter into the contract on a seasonal basis. Are those persons considered employees who are able to receive the discount? Another question was, does it extend to all North Olmsted employees or just Recreation Center employees? He believes that possibly the original justification for the program was the fact that this was some sort of a benefit or bonus for the part- 9