IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING LAW_ by fionan

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 9

									S.C.C. Meeting of 7/8/96 page1
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING LAW,
THE AGENDA WAS POSTED JULY 5, 1996
IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AT 723 S. LEWIS

                                          Study Session, July 8, 1996
                                                  6:30 p.m.

PRESENT: MAYOR TERRY MILLER, VICE MAYOR DAVE HESSEL, COMMISSIONERS RAY
SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY
CITY MANAGER CARL WEINAUG, ASST. CITY MANAGER MARY RUPP, PARKS & REC. DIR.
BILL NELSON, MARY NOLAN, GUESTS HUGH KIERIG, NEWSPRESS REP. CRAIG FUQUA

1. Evaluation of the Stillwater Mini-Bus Program by Hugh Kierig, AICP, of Metro Transit.

HUGH KIERIG met with city staff last week and corrections were made to the report presented tonight. He
recalled having performed a similar study for the city about 20 years ago when Brad Gambill was Director of
Community Development. Overall, after reviewing historic data as well as daily service logs, Stillwater's
mini-bus service exceeds most performance criteria used to evaluate both national averages for demand
response and peer cities with similar services. (This study did not reflect the taxi service).

He based his comparisons on FY 94/95, the last full year of available data with other cities with some
commonalties to Stillwater, such as Fayetteville, AR., Iowa City, IA., Los Cruces, NM, and Lincoln, NE. and
He also made a national comparison with other transit systems of populations less than 200,000. Performance
comparisons were made in the following six categories: (1) passenger trips per hour; (2) operating costs per
passenger trip; (3) operating cost per revenue hour; (4) fare recovery; (5) revenue miles per passenger trip;
and (6) operating deficit per passenger trip. In the case of Stillwater, there are no state or federal moneys
involved in the transit program.

In response to questions, MR. KIERIG explained a portion of Fayetteville, AR.'s costs are covered by the
federal government and University fees charged to students for operation of their service. There are several
other areas in which government costs and the passenger fares do not add up;, some are covered by other
sources such as vehicle advertising. In fact Norman's university provides all local funding for their transit
system, not only for paratransit, but for fixed route service and for purchase of vehicles. That comes from
student fees. The University of Central Oklahoma provided $25,000 in contributions to Edmond's transit
system, of which the university students ride free. It's not uncommon for universities to provide some level of
funding for a transit. In their case the federal government provides 80% - the local source is providing 20%
funding. The City of Norman picks up about $60,000.

In reviewing the performance criteria, it became clear Stillwater's performance in relation to peer
communities in most categories is quite good in almost all phases.
. Passenger trips per revenue hour - Stillwater provides 3.1 trips per hour, compared to national avg. of 3.4,
but exceeds afore-mentioned peer cities.
. Operating costs per passenger trip - $5.77 - significantly lower than national avg. is $8.44, and lower than
peer cities by a large margin except for Iowa City.
. Operating costs per revenue hour - $17.98/hour, compared to $28.23/hour nationally and also lower than
peer cities;
. Fare recovery - There is not a transit in the U.S. that operates at a 100% fare recovery. National average
is 17.9% compared to Stillwater's 34.6%, a good indicator that passengers are paying large proportion of the
service cost. This also has some down sides. While the fare is not prohibitive the city might want to create
some incentives for reducing fare rate during specific times of the day during the week to increase ridership,
especially in relationship to large living groups. Target Roxy Weber Plaza. (e.g. - 11:a.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
. Revenue mile per passenger trip - Stillwater is 3.44 per trip compared to national average of 4.1. This is
Indicative of geographical area served - somewhat smaller than peer cities.
. Operating deficit per passenger trip - Operating deficit $3.78. Mr. Kierig had no explanation why it is
higher than the national average but it is lower than peer cities. In the midwest and western part of the U.S.
the density and concentrations of people is less so the cost of providing the service appears to be greater. The
federal operating assistance constitutes 19% of the $41,300,000 on the national average. Since Stillwater
does not receive any assistance, this is strictly a city burdened cost.

In response to questions, MR. KIERIG said he had calculated 17.5 hours per day combined with the two
operating vehicles, or three one way trips for passengers boarding per hour. Oklahoma City has two
S.C.C. Meeting of 7/8/96 page2
passenger per hours. There was some discussion regarding the time and service provided to those clients
who require the wheel chair lift, or assistance in getting in and out of the vehicles. From an observational
standpoint Stillwater provides a very user friendly service and meets the criteria of reliability and safety. It is
a good program for the elderly and disabled and creates a solid clientele who are very comfortable with the
service. On the other hand if you take efforts to increase ridership you put more demands or reliance on
performance, and thereby lose some of that friendliness.

He found certain areas in which we might increase ridership. Those promotions were to increase ridership
and service efficient through the grouping of same direction trips such as to nursing homes, group homes,
public housing setting, where large concentrations of elderly and disabled citizens can be found. This could
be done gradually - promote a certain day in a specific location - going to a shopping center, or the medical
center - incremental service to increase ridership but at the same time doesn't deter from the current service.
Advertising this service will enhance its success. However, if a mass promotion is done there will be a lot of
people who are accustomed to driving a vehicle their entire adult life, and if the service is stretched beyond
what it is capable of carrying in meeting the safety and reliability criteria those people will become
disillusioned with the service and won't ride it again. So it is important to create an incremental promotion.
Secondly staff has taken efforts to promote increases in the number of same direction trips as much as
possible, again, as with the incremental promotion, one of the factors you must understand that if the demand
is not there currently for two people to go from northeast Stillwater to the downtown area at the same time
and you attempt to coincide the two at the same time, it reduces the reliability factor associated with the
service. So those issues must also be weighed when considering same direction scheduling v. the issues of
reliability that currently exist.

Another issue was the idea of fare reduction or incentives. Two dollars per trip or $4.00 round trip is
somewhat excessive considering the geographic size of the community. He suggested looking at possible non-
peak reduced fares. A promotion of $5.00 to make unlimited trips within a specific time frame when demand
is not quite up to the level it could be, is an incentive for people to ride the system on a trip planned activity.

A final point made by Mr. Kierig was that the city has two vehicles in operation, there are no spares - and one
of those vehicles was made in 1990, and one has about 75,000 miles on it. The reliability factor is reduced as
the vehicle accrues miles. He felt the need for a coordinated or planned effort towards replacement of
vehicles as they wear out, and suggested that be taken into consideration. He offered funding options with
state or federal assistance that could be used for purchase of vehicles on an 80-20% match basis. Staff would
need to be careful to present performance data annually to the federal government to show the number of
miles and numbers of passengers carried, and cost involved in service. There are implications regarding the
Americans w/Disabilities Act, and those costs would have to be taken into consideration. As we have a para-
transit service they would not be as strict as if we had only a fixed route service. He pointed out if the city
wished to pursue those, funding sources were included in his report. Regarding the Public Transit revolving
fund sets aside $850,000 annually, 20% to Oklahoma City, 20% to Tulsa, 5% for new start up programs.
The balance is distributed to 13 rural systems. Three more, Garber, Purcell-Paul's Valley, and Claremore
will be coming on line in the next 6 months.

In response to questions , MR. NELSON said if we were to purchase a different type of vehicle, it would
require changing the age structure and expanding the service to a much larger group. We would probably
be spending significantly more for the whole program because of the additional riders. MAYOR MILLER
explained this had been thoroughly explored when we were looking at a fixed route system.

Regarding better utilization of the mini-bus, MR. NELSON said we try to line up our riders to a degree now.
We have applied for a route structure on specific days from scattered site housing and Roxy Weber, and take
them to the pharmacies, Walmart, etc. to allow them to do all their shopping in a centered area. A subsidy
would be provided for us to do that particular service and we would do that with a part-time driver on
specific days. We do not know if those funds will be allocated yet or not. Two hot points where seniors collect
are the Life Center and the hospital. We have done some combined riding, but with Alzhimer's patients, it
was not an acceptable situation. There are other things being considered, and we have been able to combine
some dialysis patients who are more mobile. The idea of Roxy Weber's clientele might be worthwhile. The
program we're working on is one we like because we're not placed under any federal requirements.
S.C.C. Meeting of 7/8/96 page3
VICE MAYOR HESSEL praised the efficient and effective transportation service offered when compared to
the national average, but as he has seen the mini bus service on the street, he rarely has seen more than one
passenger riding. Although he recognized both vehicles have a wheel chair lift, he asked why we could not
have a smaller vehicle to operate more efficiently than the 3/4 ton bus. MR. NELSON explained we
downsized to an econoline van with an extension, primarily for ambulatory passengers. The lift takes up the
main portion of the body. There may be an individual in the van but they cannot be seen due to the van's
proportions. If more people are forced in at the same time, they will have to ride longer unless you can pick
up people from the Walmart or the University. Our situation is different from Oklahoma City, for example -
our whole city is the size of one zone there. You have to think of our whole city being the area you would pick
up people for a point to point delivery service. He did not feel there would be a significant difference
between MR. KIERIG said if we attempt to maximize the trips by attempting to coincide two or more citizens
in the same area, then we get into the issue of whether that meets the passenger's needs.

MR. NELSON sought the Commission's guidance on what they hoped to achieve. MAYOR MILLER
responded the purpose of this study was to determine how we could run the service more efficiently. Mr.
Kierig has brought back a very positive report. We had money in the budget to replace one of the vans but
before we replace the van, we wanted to have the study done to see if it was needed.

COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE asked what the primary objective had been when the service was
initially started. Staff recalled the original service was begun at least 15 years ago. Its' initial purpose was to
serve the elderly and handicapped. That has been the mandate. MULLENDORE said the needs of the riders
should then take precedence. She suggested having a portion of the program for working with those
individuals, and then offer an incentive program on the other.

MAYOR MILLER believed this was what Mr. Kierig's suggestion had been, to try to offer an incentive to
increase ridership. COMMISSIONER LACY suggested a reallocation of money, to have the minibus for the
handicapped, and offer the taxi services to those who are not handicapped.

Forty percent of the handicapped require a wheel chair, so if they are disabled, you're dealing with an
increased activity. Based on service performance and the potential for it, those who are non disabled could be
satisfied with another vehicle.

It was determined another study session was needed to consider this issue further, and a tentative date was
set in two weeks. MAYOR MILLER adjourned the Study Session at 7:30 p.m.
S.C.C. Meeting of 7/8/96 page4
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING LAW,
THE AGENDA WAS POSTED JULY 5, 1996
IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AT 723 S. LEWIS


                                  STILLWATER CITY COMMISSION
                                        REGULAR MEETING
                                     STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA
                                           JULY 8, 1996


PRESENT: MAYOR TERRY MILLER, VICE MAYOR DAVE HESSEL, COMMISSIONERS RAY
SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY


1. MAYOR MILLER called the Regular meeting of the City Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. The
Commissioners stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.

3.      NO PROCLAMATIONS or PRESENTATIONS WERE MADE.

4.      APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MOTION BY BUD LACY, SECOND BY DAVE HESSEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 1, 1996 AS WRITTEN.

ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

5.       CONSENT DOCKET
a. Claims in the amount of $81,219.40, Special Claims for $16,504.16, Payrolls for FY ending 95/96 in the
amount of $426,431.73, and FY beginning 96/97 of $190,611.56 were presented for approval.
b. Sanitation staff recommended a rate change for the public schools to cover actual landfill costs.
Residential and commercial rate structures remain at the current level for FY 96/97. CC-96-145
c. Engineering staff recommended the contract for handicap ramps and sidewalk installation be extended for
a six month period with No. Central Construction at current bid prices. CC-96-149,
d. A bargaining agreement with the Frat. Order of Police, Lodge 102 was presented for approval.
e. The YMCA's April, May and June, 1996 activities report was presented for approval.
f. A sidewalk covenant from Benjamin D. and M. Suzanne Frits for Lot 7, Blk 2, Lakeside Addition was
presented for acknowledgment.

MOTION BY DAVE HESSEL, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
DOCKET, INCLUDING SPECIAL CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS.

ROLL CALL VOTE:  TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

6.       PUBLIC APPEARANCES, PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS
a.       Miscellaneous items from the audience.
BILL ADLER, 1111 N. Hester, expressed displeasure with the various noise mechanisms used to discourage
birds from roosting in nearby neighborhoods. He advised this effort has driven good birds, such as the
Purple Martins away and affects his dogs, too. When a large flock of these "nuisance"birds are chased from
one tree, they end up on someone else's property so the end result is the same. CITY MANAGER CARL
WEINAUG explained the city has participated for some years now in a joint effort with property owners in
this endeavor to discourage large numbers of these birds from gathering in concentrated areas. The birds
have been attributed to causing health problems, such as Lyme's disease. He believed this effort has
succeeded to a degree. He would visit Mr. Adler's area to see where the birds are now roosting.


7.      GENERAL ORDERS
a. Consider changes to proposed Drainage Ordinance. CC-96-148
S.C.C. Meeting of 7/8/96 page5
PUBLIC WORKS DIR. JEFF HOUGH explained this is the first step to implement a wide range of
recommendations made by the Task Force to Chapter 9 of the City Code. It was not rewritten but updated
and expanded to provide better protection for the community. Major sections such as 9-2, 9-16, 9-21, 9-33
have the majority of changes.

Changes to the proposed ordinance were as follows:
It will create a stormwater management fund;
Section 9-7 will prohibit dumping of materials in stream beds and drainage channels; and it will require
property owners that have drainage facilities to maintain those and keep them in a good state of repair.
Section 9-16 creates a Board of Drainage Appeals, comprised of individuals with special expertise in
hydraulics/hydrology in drainage related problems.
Section 9-17 adds a formal complaint process to allow citizens to file complaints with the City Engineer;
Section 9-21 - design policies and standards has been rewritten to define adverse effects we're trying to
eliminate, particularly increased flood levels; erosion and sediment control.
Section 9-22 will provide for cash payments in lieu of requiring on-site detention, and as such, the final
decision on whether to accept such a payment belongs with the Commission.
Sections 9-30 and 9-31 are combined, requiring a drainage plan which must be completed prior to submission
to the City and Planning Commissions for consideration.
Section 9-32 - inclusion of grandfather clause, (essentially the same as in the ordinance of Feb. 12, 1985). It
provides for grandfathering of pre-existing development plans from 1985.
Section 9-33 - adding language to current section re. temporary drainage structures are an option that can be
utilized. Special consideration is allowed if there are technical reasons incorporation of this provision are not
possible. The Board of Drainage Appeals can be utilized in the event a developer feels the City Engineer's
ruling is inappropriate.
Section 9-34 Fee Schedule. To be developed under separate issue.
Sections requiring drainage to be designed to pass the fully urbanized runoff was not changed. Once a
regional detention structure is in place, it could be accounted for in the fully urbanized flows; also the section
on "as built" drawing has been expanded to charge the City Engineer with review and providing written
reason for rejection (if they are unacceptable).
Section 9-46 - Language to be modified removing the reference to a one foot change of elevation, and to
replace it with adjusted language that requires a permit only when grade changes will affect storm water
drainage entering or leaving both public and private property, including drainage and utility easements. It
will still be necessary for this work to follow Best Management Practices for siltation/erosion control, but will
not be necessary to obtain an Earth Change permit if that is the only consideration.
Section 9-48 - A modification to language allows the City Engineer more authority to shut down a portion of
the work on the project site.

CITY ATTORNEY MARY ANN KARNS advised corrections were necessary on Page 3 of the report
regarding the amount of time for the appeals process. This will be amended prior to the second reading of the
ordinance (Section 3 a) to include a provision for emergency situations. It is 10 days for most things, but a
provision will be included to allow for special meetings.

MR. HOUGH explained the ordinance includes a provision for the grandfather provision. Essentially this is
identical to what was in the original ordinance adopted in 1985- The big change is the insertion of dates in
the grandfather clause. Previously it just referred to the date of the adoption and three years from the date
of adoption. Basically, if a subdivision received a final plat before Feb. 1985, under some conditions they do
not have to meet the drainage ordinance. If the subdivision gets started within a 3 year period of time after
the final plat, or after the Feb. 1985 date - as long as they have things started in that time period prior to
having to meet the first drainage ordinance, they still would not be required to meet the current drainage
ordinance. Anything that has occurred since that time will have to meet the new drainage requirements.
In response to concerns expressed by Commissioner Lacy regarding the "grandfather clause" language which
might allow certain developments that have not progressed to a stage where they could comply, MR. HOUGH
said he and the City Attorney had visited, and a fairly good compromise might be to have the grandfather
clause but to offer 2 options. One would require the developer to meet the conditions of the ordinance or pay
into the storm water management fund in an amount equivalent to what it would have cost to meet that.
There are pros and cons to this.
On one hand it gives us the ability to define and protect or to obtain funds that may be used to protect
properties that might be impacted by development that falls in this category but the definition tends to be all
encompassing. Not only would we be looking at developments that occurred right around 1985, but also at
those platted in original town in the late 1800's that aren't developed yet. This could be as extreme as some
one wanting to make a modification to a storage shed behind their home in an already developed area.
S.C.C. Meeting of 7/8/96 page6
Because of the changes, we would be getting rid of all those grandfathering options. At this point he was not
sure we could come up with the appropriate language to provide for that. There was one particular
development that could cause some problems.

COMMISSIONER LACY believed from earlier conversations the concern was about small lots that couldn't
comply with the detention v. larger developments that could comply. Under this language even those
properties are going to be grandfathered in. MR. HOUGH knew of only one that of substantial size that
would fall under this clause. An issue we run into is, even though they are undeveloped they may be under
multiple ownerships that make it impossible for any one drainage detention plan to be implemented so it may
be almost lot by lot or section by section. We recognize this may or may not be the best way to address some
of the drainage plans around town. Developers have expressed concern about changing the rules of the game,
changes their whole economic picture and may make it where that development is not competitive anymore.
So there is the concern that we may be going too far with it.

COMMISSIONER LACY asked if we are under any legal obligation to exempt properties under this
ordinance that we exempted under the prior ordinance. MS. KARNS said she had not researched this today,
but one of her concerns was the issue of when we accept a plat, it's signed and recorded - there is at least an
argument that the developer has a property interest at that point. When we talk about drainage, it
encompasses the layout of the streets so not only are we creating a new ordinance but if we remove a
grandfather clause on which they relied for 10-11 years, we put them in a position of having to replat. That
may call for total re-engineering in which they may lose lots. Her concern was whether that becomes a
"taking." Research would be needed in that regard. As Mr. Hough advised, there is only one really large
tract that is undeveloped and we don't know for sure if it is under single ownership. The majority of those we
know about are less than 1/4 acre, and should not have an adverse effect.

Interpretation of the three year "grandfather" clause discussion involved one large tract that has a flood
plain down stream. The impact this development may or may not be measurable. It is possible that it may
not be worse but may even be better that what is there now. It was included in the Cunningham Study.

DR SHELDON KATZ, 1609 Wildwood, was joined by Citizens Across Stillwater to encourage adoption of
the new proposed drainage ordinance as supported by City staff that the property owners be given protection
by requiring no increase in peak flow rates and or in flood levels. Concerns were expressed regarding the
revision of Section 9.21 (a) to allow increases in peak flow rates and flood levels in certain cases and Sec. 9-32,
the adding of the grandfather clause. Approximately 70% of the audience stood in support. DR. KATZ said
Sec. 9-21 permits increases in peak flow rates and flood level elevations in areas that do not currently have
structures. This is detrimental to the city as a whole. When those areas are developed in the future there will
be a cost associated, either public, private, or both. Increased flooding will also be allowed on parts of
existing subdivisions or lots that do not contain structures. This will make it expensive or impossible for the
property owner or developer on the flooded property to build more structures in the future. MAYOR
MILLER advised the wording would be checked to see if it could be made more clear.

CAROL MODER, 1512 Wildwood, presented a document requesting excluding the grandfather clause from
the ordinance and to amend Section 9-32 to include a sixth condition for granting an exception. This would
require 85% of the lots in a tract to have already been built upon before granting an exception. The main
concern of the development community appears to be that instituting the ordinance may cause undue
difficulties for some developments in which the building is largely complete. They indicated owners of
previously plattted lots might find themselves with unbuildable lots. Also the new ordinance could prohibit
infill of previously platted areas and may require individual lots to have detention facilities. A preliminary
search by city staff indicated there are at least 5 tracts of land that meet that criteria, two of which are in the
Tributary #3 drainage basin. Combined, they encompass over 51 acres, most of these yet to be developed. In
the larger 40 acre tract, approx. 20% of the lots are developed; and in the 11 acre tract, no lots have been
developed. It seemed unlikely exclusion of drainage facilities would create extreme difficulties for the
developer. While drainage facilities might render some lots unsaveable, the corresponding benefit to the
developer and downstream communities would be great.

MS. MODER noted the City of Stillwater Urban Drainage and Flood Control Criteria Manual and
Handbooks binds property owners by Oklahoma storm water law to the following: "New urban development
should be required to not materially increase the amount of storm runoff nor change the natural drainage
conditions. This will protect lower properties. It will also protect the developer from liability and not place
the city in a potential liability position for having permitted the development to alter drainage conditions
which result in injury." She urged consideration of the following options: (1) to eliminate the grandfather
S.C.C. Meeting of 7/8/96 page7
clause; and (2) to amend Section 9-32 to include a sixth condition for granting an exception to require that
85% of the lots in a tract have already been built upon. This would provide better protection for the
community than the current grandfather clause.

DR. ELLEN STEVENS, 2223 N. Glenwood, presented a hypothetical case, using the widely used SCS "Curve
Number" method of what occurs when a 50 acre piece of pasture land is changed to multiple family housing
development. They can be developed to a point where only 9% is green area, or open space. Using the 24
hour 100 year rainfall for Stillwater, 8.65 inches, there would be a run off volume that will not be able to sink
into the ground of 33.17acre ft. or a 29.4% increase. This water has to go somewhere else. Using the O.S.
football stadium for example, this would equate to a block of water over the entire field at 6.84 ft. high.
She was concerned about some of the proposed changes from the ordinance as proposed a week ago, because
this potential problem will occur if a large tract of undeveloped land is developed under the "grandfather
clause." She concluded, it should be as originally drafted to more closely resemble the original intent.

MAYOR MILLER said if the ordinance is approved on first reading tonight, we can certainly allow changes
to be made before second reading.

COMMISSIONER LACY asked the City Attorney to also research the notion that if we don't do anything,
we are condoning something that will allow a violation of at least common law principles referred to tonight.
MS. KARNS said she could look at that, and believed guidance from the Commission would be needed about
things such as the grandfather clause. More time may also be needed to research those tracts that would fall
under this clause.

b. Consider request to lower the driveway elevations/slope along Sangre Road. CC-96-150

CITY MANAGER CARL WEINAUG recommended the city to lower the water line on the Bruce property to
achieve no more than a 15% slope for each driveway, but the water lines on each of the other driveways but
the city will do what it needed on the design so the road was as low and close to the water line to allow the
least amount of slope on the east side. The City will also cooperate with the neighbors and the area from the
driveway back, after being provided the appropriate easements, to grade back their driveways as far back
into the property to achieve a 10% slope and continue to provide the amount of sod agreed to in their original
plan. However, the property owners would be responsible for all embankment stabilization the length of the
way and for replacement of the roadway behind the right-of-way line. He explained that staff did not
propose lowering the waterline due to the high expense but to maintain the existing design so the driveways
will not exceed 15%. It is unfortunate we are unable to give the property owners the slope desired,

MOTION BY DAVE HESSEL, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO ACCEPT STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION.

ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

c. Consider participation in the Ok. Municipal Retirement (OMRF) Loan Program. CC-96-147
PERSONNEL DIR. ANITA BREEN explained the proposed ordinance will allow municipalities in the State
of Oklahoma to establish a loan program with their employees. This was approved by a 2/3 majority on a
state wide vote. She requested the Commission to consider a new ordinance to amend the Trust Indenture
and allow employees of the City of Stillwater to participate in such a loan program. A number of employees
have voiced a serious interest in seeing this plan adopted. This was a primary consideration for the OMRF
Board in making the decision to make this program available. Another major consideration related to
making sure the OMRF program was competitive with other retirement programs that areavailable to
municipalities. Several documents were offered outlining the program's guidelines and function.

COMMISSIONER LACY shared some concerns regarding this program. He was told by a tax department
colleague in Tulsa that 90% of the loans were defaulted. Another concern was that this is meant to be a
retirement program, and if those savings are depleted, we may not be helping them, but end up hurting them
in the long run. In addition their interest rate will not yield as much as the current yield to the fund, and so
they are depleting long term growth in that account. Unless the plan permits security, if their account is used
as security for the loan, they will not be able to deduct the interest for home improvement or home loans.
OMRF Representatives, CINDY SHATTUCK and JODY DOLEHART presented the goals and intent of the
new program. In wanting to provide this program we have tried to set up conservation policies in order to
build in some the safeguards Commissioner Lacy was concerned about. With regard to the default, we have
S.C.C. Meeting of 7/8/96 page8
set up a requirement that those loans will be paid back through payroll deduction and the employee signs off
on that in the application process. The interest rate will be the CD rate + 2 percentage points, and will be
paid back to the employees account. If that loan is paid to a banking institution that money would go straight
to that institution, not themselves. So there is a savings there as well. Each employee needs to look at the loss
potential of earnings. The employee can apply for a second loan - and then the first loan will be rolled into it
so they will never be faced with two loan payments at one time. If the employee terminates employment, he
has the option of paying off that loan within 90 days, or it will automatically become a taxable distribution if
the employee is under age 55. This information will be explained many times in the application process to the
employee. The maximum amount of loan is 50% of the vested amount in their account, or $50,000 - the
lesser of those two.

VICE-MAYOR HESSEL had voted against this initially, but has found the safeguards built into this covered
those concerns he had, particularly the fair rate of interest, and would be in support of this ordinance. In
clarification of one point, COMMISSIONER LACY advised the interest is paid back into the employee's
account, while the OMRF only charges an administrative fee. If the program fails, the OMRF Trustees have
the option to stop further use of it. COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE also supported this. As long as the
employee understands all the wherefors, that employee deserves the right to make the decision. She
understood there is a potential for abuse on anything, but recognized the OMRF has gone out of their way to
minimize abuse.

Action taken under Ordinance 2542.

d. Consider contract with Stillwater Medical Center's Employee Assistance Program. CC-96-146

MRS. BREEN recommended approval of the renewal of the Employee's Assistance Program, which has been
providing services since 1992. Since that time there have been changes in that contract. The EAP provides
consultations, assessment, referral and follow up services for employees and their dependents. Those services
can be initiated by the employee, based on a supervisor referral, or in some cases, by the Personnel Director's
office. Employees are offered six free visits with the EAP counselor per problem. If additional services are
required, the counselor will explain the types of services available, will help the employee understand what
the costs are, and help them understand what the insurance benefits will be. The new contract will increase
the costs of the contract by $2,500 annually. The actual amount is a per employee per month charge.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION AS PROVIDED IN REPORT CC-96-146.
ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

e. Approval of contract for services for Stillwater Arts & Humanities Council, Inc. for FY 1996-97.

MS. KARNS advised this contract includes the $5,000 agreed upon during consideration of the budget.

MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY DAVE HESSEL TO APPROVE CONTRACT FOR
SERVICES WITH ARTS & HUMANITIES COUNCIL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000.

ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

8.     RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. CC-96-15 creating the garbage collection rate.
MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE TO APPROVE
RESOLUTION CC-96-15, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO SIGN.

ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

10.     ORDINANCES
        (first reading)
a. Ordinance No. 2540 relating to the lease of property to the Stillwater Humane Society.

MOTION BY DAVE HESSEL, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO APPROVE FIRST READING OF
S.C.C. Meeting of 7/8/96 page9
ORDINANCE 2540, AND TO ADVANCE IT TO SECOND READING.

ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, BUD LACY - YES.
KAREN KAY MULLENDORE - ABSTAINED. MOTION CARRIED WITH FOUR VOTES YES.

b. Ordinance No. 2541 relating to the Drainage Task Force recommendations.

MOTION BY BUD LACY, SECOND BY DAVE HESSEL TO APPROVE FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE 2541, AND ADVANCE IT TO SECOND READING.

ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

c. Ordinance No. 2542 amending the Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund (OMRF) Trust Indenture
document.

MOTION BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, SECOND BY DAVE HESSEL TO APPROVE FIRST
READING OF ORDINANCE 2542 AND ADVANCE IT TO SECOND READING.

ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

10.     REPORTS FROM OFFICERS AND BOARDS
a. Miscellaneous items from the City Attorney. No items presented.
b. Miscellaneous items from the City Manager.
c. Miscellaneous items f from the City Commission.
COMMISSIONER LACY said he had enjoyed the recent College Gardens Association block party , and
expressed appreciation to all city employees who were working out in the field during the extremely hot
temperatures last week.
MAYOR MILLER thanked the Fire Department for their efforts to abate a fire near his home during the 100
degree + temperatures. He also thanked Colonial Florist for their summer arrangement of roses and
assorted flowers.

11.    NEW BUSINESS No items.
12.    ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, QUESTIONS              No items.
13.    ADJOURNMENT

MOTION BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, SECOND BY DAVE HESSEL TO ADJOURN THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.

The Meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.

_______________________________________ __________________________________
MAYOR TERRY MILLER                      SYLVIA S. MALLETT, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

								
To top