REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Tuesday May 17, 2022
ALL PRESENT: Commissioner Jones, Chair; Commissioners Ostlund and Pitman; Board Clerk Teri Reitz; Clerk and Recorder Jeff Martin.
PLEDGE.
MINUTES – March 22, 2022, March 29, 2022, April 5, 2022, April 12, 2022, April 19, 2022, April 26, 2022, May 3, 2022. Commissioner Ostlund made a MOTION to approve the Minutes, Commissioner Pitman seconded. Passed Unanimous.
Commissioner Jones made a MOTION to switch around Regular Agenda Items 1A and 1B. Motion died for lack of a second.
9:30 a.m. BID OPENING – Open Request for Proposals for Audit Services.
|
Vendor Name |
FY 2023 |
FY 2024 |
FY 2025 |
FY 2026 |
FY 2027 |
|
Anderson Zurmuehlen |
$50,000 |
$52,000 |
$53,000 |
$54,000 |
$55,000 |
|
WIPFLI |
$80,000 |
$88,500 |
$97,000 |
$105,500 |
$114,000 |
Commissioner Ostlund made a MOTION to refer the bids to staff for recommendation, Commissioner Pitman seconded. Passed Unanimous.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON REGULAR, CONSENT AND FILED AGENDA ITEMS – Hearing no comments Commissioner Jones continued the Board Meeting.
COMMISSIONERS – A.) Notification of Public Discussion on Recommendation for MetraPark’s Management and Future – Setting the Public Discussion for Tuesday May 24, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m. Commissioner Ostlund made a MOTION to set the Public Discussion, Commissioner Jones seconded the MOTION for discussion purposes. Commissioner Pitman made a substitute MOTION that could address both 1A and 1B on the Regular Agenda, that we bring in both ASM and Oakview for interviews based on the answers to the RFQI. During this time, I would also ask those involved with the internal scoring be available to ask questions and seek information as well. I would set this for June 2nd at 3:00PM where the public can attend and participate. It is a day we have scheduled for a MetraPark Management meeting already and would ask that this be the only topic for that day. Commissioner Pitman’s substitute motion died due to a lack of a second.
Commissioner Jones stated he is going to make a statement about this and then he will have a substitute motion himself. I am not sure why this on the agenda. We are in the process of looking at what will be the best way to proceed with management of MetraPark. To continue to throw public hearings into the process that are not warranted is at best just another way to slow the process down. We are on a course to conclude this process and do not need additional public hearings. The end goal of this process is to determine which method brings us the best management we can have for both the benefit of MetraPark and the citizens of Yellowstone County. MetraPark staff is doing a great job with all the activities going on. The interim management team is also doing a great job of making strides in the right direction but have a long way to go due to past management. We still need to address the items that were presented in the Venue Solutions Management report. The interim management did put together a draft policies and procedures manual although it needs a lot of work. Implementing those policies and procedures is when management really comes into play. We still do not have Key Performance Indicators, commonly referred to as KPI’s, that should have been set a longtime ago. We need to set goals to thrive to get better. If we don’t meet them then we know we need to do something different. I attempted to have Metra set goals over a year ago, but management and Commissioner Ostlund stopped the process. As a commissioner, my fiduciary responsibility is to attempt to make things run as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the taxpayers and users. One of things that is out there right now is the $1 million dollar profit, there is a major disconnect between reality and hype. That is a made-up number. If you delete the $2 million dollars of taxpayer’s money this is included as revenue, we are still losing $1 million a year. This million- dollars actually ends up being over $2 million when you add in capital improvement projects. I think we need to continue with this process of going through the Request for Qualifications process and do it the way it is really set up to happen, which would be the next step. I am going to vote against scheduling a public hearing. We have had plenty of public hearings and we need to finish the process that we are doing and look at these proposals and see if they make sense and if they don’t, we will actually move on to public management or whatever is next in line.
Commissioner Ostlund stated it is not a public hearing, it is simply a public meeting and we have said over and over again that we are going to keep this process open and transparent, we appear to be doing everything except that. The public meeting is so that our professionals, vendors, promoters, and public can come in and look at the recommendations that were made from the committee that we approved and evaluated and talk back to this board about what they think.
Commissioner Pitman, this goes back to my motion that was just defeated by lack of a second, it is hard to have a conversation if we are not going to invite the two organizations to the table. I don’t think there is enough time to make arrangements to get here. That is why I suggested that we move this to a time that we could actually focus on this and have this full discussion. I am not opposed to participation, I think we just need to dedicate a time to bring everybody to the table. I am disappointed that we are not going to move forward that way. I don’t see what good a public discussion would have if we don’t have the right people at the table.
Commissioner Ostlund stated the discussion with the public, vendors and promoters about the recommendation in my mind is separate from negotiations with the committee’s recommendation. To move forward with negotiations, the recommendation says, if we chose to move forward. Public management was the preferred method, not by the committee but by our Finance Director, the guy that we should listen to if we are going to have good input about the county. The guy who has the most knowledge about the county’s finances and Metra’s finances. If we choose not to do that and move forward, then there was a selection process made by the committee to negotiate with ASM first. Does this board now want to change the whole process? You don’t blend the two companies that are competing together, you take the one that was recommended and negotiate with them if you are going to negotiate at all.
Commissioner Jones stated which is exactly my point. You just summarized it perfectly. The way this process works is we take a look at it, the committee’s role was to designate who was the most qualified. Commissioner Ostlund and Commissioner Jones both responded that they did that. The comments from the Finance Director were totally out of line and that was not his job. Our job is to make that next decision. Commissioner Jones stated that you (Commissioner Ostlund) wanted to have a company come in and tell us whether we should go private or public. That was not acceptable to me either. That’s not our decision making. We don’t take the Finance Director’s position to say this is all garbage, throw it out, and we are going to go a different direction. The Finance Director was totally out of line, and it was reckless on his part to make that recommendation. We did not ask him for that, his job was to tell us who is the most qualified. We have that information, and this process should move on to where we actually, and this was laid out in the beginning, that we will negotiate, and we put it everywhere that the negotiation may not end up as a contract. It is everywhere in that RFQI, and I have stated it multiple times. The next step is to talk to the highest qualified firm. That is the reason I wanted to switch these two items around because that is going to be my next motion on 1B is to set up a negotiation with the top ranked firm and go through it. Our Finance Director does not know what they are willing to negotiate. He took the prerogative to say, oh there is no way they will negotiate this. The other step of this is if we can’t negotiate an agreement then we go to the next highest qualified firm and negotiate with them. The next highest qualified was considered highly qualified by the committee. The committee’s recommendation was ASM and that’s who we should give the opportunity to and see if we can come up with an agreement.
Commissioner Ostlund stated Commissioner Pitman wanted to bring them in at the same time, and I think you are putting a lot of words in our Finance Director’s mouth, and I completely disagree on the role of the Finance Director. There is a good reason that you have a Finance Director and that is so the board gets good financial input and so his role, which the committee did extremely well and recommended who we should negotiate with, if we continue, was not only done satisfactorily but I think very well done. Now the second recommendation came from just the Finance Director, in which he said given the outlook and given the fact that OVG was awarded a booking agreement and has an unfair advantage and a lot of other things in the scoring process didn’t make it even. The recommendation of the committee was well founded, I think it is a good recommendation. I fail to understand why we wouldn’t take it one step at a time. We have a recommendation made on who we should negotiate with if we go on and we have a separate recommendation from the Finance Director, and you apparently don’t want to hear from the public about that.
Commissioner Jones stated every time we do a solicitation or proposal, we don’t get public comment every step of the way. That would bog down every solicitation. So, what you are saying is that for every step of the way we should have public comments on what is going on with all of these. That would slow our process on every one of our solicitations. The committee made the recommendation, the Finance Director went beyond what I would consider, but that’s fine he did that. It is our job to make that determination, and you just said that, and I want to continue to negotiations. The Finance Director does not know what can come from negotiating, he looked at what was there and the way the qualifications work is you are supposed to negotiate on the price, he does not know what they are willing to negotiate. The Finance Director jumped way ahead of the process and said, “oh this is their proposal, let’s throw it out,” that’s not the way this process works. The process should be to have these guys come in and we can talk to them, if we can’t work out an agreement we will talk to the next highest qualified. It’s almost like you guys were working together because the comment came out which is going right along with what you’ve tried to accomplish the whole time is to stop this process.
Commissioner Ostlund stated, I am not trying to stop this process.
Commissioner Jones stated you are.
Commissioner Ostlund stated I am just trying to have a process. We’ve got the selection committees recommendation of ASM, where was that on discussion? We don’t follow any processes anymore, there is no open and public process. Everything that goes on this agenda is supposed to go on discussion first, where was that? Why didn’t we have that?
Commissioner Jones stated he was trying to find that policy, and you he stated I haven’t been able to find that policy anywhere, because we don’t have any policies. We are as bad as the Metra is and the board. The policies are whatever you decide to make up as the policy. There is no written policy that says that. That is the problem this body does not even go with “Roberts Rules of Order,” or anything else. I have never seen anything like this, every board I have been on has either had, “Roberts Rules of Order,” or some other one. We don’t even have a “Roberts Rules of Orders,” on how this meeting is to take place and that gives the advantage to the person that has been here for 50 years, 20 as a commissioner to make up the rules as we go. That’s what we keep running into and I don’t know how many times I’ve said this.
Commissioner Ostlund stated that has been the process.
Commissioner Jones stated hold on, I don’t know how many times I have run into that, all of a sudden you are making up a rule and I didn’t know the rule existed. It’s crazy that we don’t have a “Roberts Rules of Order,” or Mason or something like that, that we go by in this thing.
Commissioner Ostlund stated that it is interesting that you bring that up after we went through this process of putting everything that belongs in the public on our discussion agenda prior to putting it on this formal agenda and now all of sudden you want to change that process, why don’t we talk about that.
Commissioner Jones stated we don’t have rules, you actually pulled one out of the air on the first meeting when you said I didn’t allow public comment. You didn’t comment during that and say this is the rule that we do allow public comment, and then you write it in the paper saying, oh we didn’t go by the rules. There are no set standard or rules that I could have looked at and said that should have been the way it happened.
Commissioner Pitman stated I am just going to keep going back to my original motion and basically my statement is going to be, my perspective of this whole process has been just as much as advertising for a position. We set out the proposals, go the applications, we have applicants now. I don’t understand why we won’t bring them in and talk to them. Every time we have these, we bring in not only just the top candidate, we pick the top three and we bring them in, and we interview them and look them straight in eye and we have a conversation with them. Because, what’s on paper and what’s presented, and we see this in every one of our departments, you have an application, somebody sometimes looks great on paper and in person doesn’t. Having that conversation, we get to the negotiations after we have sat down with both groups and talk to them and see them face to face and then we get together again as a governing body. It is our job, not a subcommittee, not our Finance Director’s, not MetraPark’s. This is our job to do so, so why wouldn’t we bring both of the companies in. If it is a matter of you don’t want them in at the same time then we break it up, but I think bringing them both in and having a conversation and then having a discussion as the board after we have sat down with both of them, here is what we saw this is what we liked and didn’t like. This is how the process would work if we were hiring our managers. Then we would bring them in and we as a board would have a discussion, ok we have gotten input from our committees from our staff, we have gotten input from just about everybody, but we haven’t sat down and talked face to face with both of these entities, with their proposals and that’s what I am asking for. I am not going to support any of these motions at this point or any of these options until we have an honest conversation with both of these entities. We know staff wise we know where the Finance Department is coming from as far as the status quo goes. Unless we can sit down and have a visit with both of these groups, the evaluation process didn’t lay out a clear winner, it showed two organizations, as much as I read through the documents, I am assuming you’ve read through the documents I think they both have plusses and minuses and I think we need have a conversation with both of them before we move forward. Can that be done fairly quickly, I think so. The only reason I put June 2nd is because of the timelines that we are at, you were proposing a May 24th idea, which I’m sure is what we would talk about there. I don’t want to get into negotiations until I can actually talk to both of these groups, and I think all three of us need to be at the table. I guess I could go talk to them by myself but that would probably get into some problems as well. I think having them both come in and talk to the three of us, as the Board of County Commissioners, is appropriate.
Commissioner Ostlund stated that he hopes that the Commissioner knows the difference between hiring an employee and selecting a contractor to manage our facility because they are nothing like the same process. I don’t think the board has any business negotiating. We hire or appoint people with knowledge to negotiate contracts and come back with an unbiased recommendation.
Commissioner Pitman stated the difference being, we are the Metra Board, you changed that methodology a long time ago.
Commissioner Ostlund stated we are the Commissioners.
Commissioner Pitman stated that there used to be a governing board at Metra, then there used to be a liaison process, then that ended, and we became the governing board for MetraPark.
Commissioner Ostlund noted, hence we have no business negotiating with the committee we want to select.
Commissioner Jones stated we have a motion on the floor to approve the Notification of Public Discussion on Recommendation for MetraPark’s Management and Future – Setting the Public Discussion for Tuesday May 24, 2022 @ 9:30 a.m., all in favor say aye, Motion failed on a 1-2 vote. B.) Negotiation Committee Selection for ASM Private Management. Commissioner Jones made a MOTION to negotiate with the ASM since they were the highest ranked firm by the selection committee. Set the negotiating team as the three commissioners and the finance director and schedule the negotiation within the next two weeks depending on when ASM is available.
Commissioner Ostlund asked legal counsel a question. I’ve never seen it appropriate that the board negotiates that contract, and I don’t think that we have the tools to do that.
Ms. Jeana Lervick, Chief Deputy County Attorney stated she has not experienced that.
Commissioner Ostlund stated that these are some serious financial proposals. We have negotiated a booking contract and we got out gunned on the booking contract, I don’t want to see this end up like that. We are going to negotiate with ASM Global, the company that was recommended we need a committee put together that can evaluate the criteria properly, it’s not us.
Commissioner Jones stated, I assumed you seconded that because we are in discussion now so, as long as we are in discussion.
Commissioner Pitman asked if Commissioner Ostlund seconded the motion.
Commissioner Jones stated well he started discussion, I am assuming he seconded to do discussion. This is the normal process on a RFQI because you base it on the qualifications, you take the highest ranked qualified firm, and you negotiate with them to see if you can come up with an agreement or not. That is the normal process on an RFQ. You are saying as far as the negotiating team the three commissioners and the Finance Director. The commissioners should be involved and if you can’t read the proposals and figure out what it is then we’ve got a problem. The other part of that is we have negotiated with the firm that helped the selection committee. Venue Solutions helped guide us so that we can have a good negotiation. We are looking at costs that are going in as far as what they have, and we can figure out the percentage of costs. The proposal is not brain surgery. We do have a consultant that will help us out and we have the Finance Director that will be right along there. We can try not to step on any issues that we aren’t looking at. I think it is the way to do it, we don’t ruin the normal process of RFQ as you negotiate with the highest qualified firm. That’s the way, if you read anything about Request for Qualifications that’s the normal process. If you can’t come to an agreement there is still another firm that is qualified, then you move on to the next firm. So, we would start with them, they knew what they proposed on, and we can sit down and talk to them and figure out if they are willing to negotiate and then we move to the next firm and find out if they are willing to negotiate. I said this from the very beginning that it has got to be a deal that makes sense to Yellowstone County and to the taxpayers otherwise we are not going to do it. It’s that simple. We don’t know if we can work something out with them or not. That’s part of the qualifications and that is why the cost was not the major factor in this otherwise we would have said lowest bidder, we are going to do it and we don’t want to do that.
Commissioner Ostlund stated he is very concerned with all of the previous communication with OVG and this board leaning towards hiring them regardless. Gives me concern not to have an unbiased committee.
Commissioner Pitman made a substitute MOTION to bring in both ASM and Oakview for interview based on the answers to the RFQI and set this for June 2nd at 3PM in this room. Motion dies on a lack of a second. Commissioner Jones motion died 1-2.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT - A.) Lipp Subdivision, 2nd Filing – Preliminary Major Plat. Mr. Dave Green, Planner stated the proposed subdivision creates 13 lots for commercial development. The subject property is generally located on the southwest corner of 88th Street West and Lipp Road. Mr. Green went through the proposed conditions. Mr. Green noted that the applicant requested a variance. The specific request is to use an existing nearby hydrant in the Brey Subdivision rather than installing one for this development. Mr. Green noted that the Planning recommends conditionally approval, including Findings of Fact as presented in the staff report and denial of the variance request. Commissioner Ostlund made a MOTION to conditionally approve Preliminary Major Plat – Lipp Subdivision, 2nd Filing with the SIA and the Findings of Fact and denial of the variance request, Commissioner Pitman seconded. Passed Unanimous. B.) Creekside Estate Subdivision, 2nd Filing – Preliminary Major Plat. Mr. Dave Green, Planner stated the property is generally located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Grand Avenue, and 62nd Street West. This subdivision would create 8 lots from a 17.55-acre parcel of land. Mr. Green went through the proposed conditions. The applicant has requested a variance from Yellowstone County Subdivision Regulations Section 4.14.C.2, Major, Commercial and Subsequent Minor Subdivision. The regulations require that the subdivider shall provide an approved, single, minimum thirty thousand (30,000) gallon underground water storage tank for fire suppression. Per the regulations, developers are able to use tanks located within ½ road mile. When a County subdivision is within one half road mile of a pressurized municipal hydrant the developer shall pay a fee in lieu of hydrant installation to the Fire Department serving the proposed subdivision. This development is further than ½ road mile, it is .58 road miles, therefore the variance is requesting that the distance of ½ road mile be waived to allow use of the pressurized hydrant .58 miles away. If the variance is approved the required fee to the Billings Fire Department shall be paid. The Planning Board recommends to conditionally approve the preliminary plat of Creekside Estates Subdivision with the SIA and the Findings of fact and approve the variance request, Commissioner Pitman seconded. Passed Unanimous.
CLAIMS – Batches 22-171, 22-172, 22-173 and 22-174. Commissioner Pitman made a MOTION to approve the Claims, Commissioner Ostlund seconded. Passed Unanimous.
CONSENT AGENDA – 1. COMMISSIONERS – A.) Health Insurance Rate Recommendation for FY23. B.) Board Openings – Updated List. C.) Board Thank You Letters – Kelli Skaggs – Adult Resource Alliance/ Lisa Von Laven & Roger Boss – Park Board. 2. EMERGENCY AND GENERAL SERVICES – 2022 Rural Fire Capacity Grant Application. 3. FINANCE – A.) Public Works Request to Expend for Slide-In Sand Spreaders. B.) Facilities Contract Addendum with Pride of Montana for Janitorial Services Miller Building. C.) Facilities Contract with Guardian Security Addendum #1 Courthouse Security Services. D.) Bond for Lost Warrant. E.) Disposition of Assets by Finance Department – Miscellaneous Old Computer Equipment. F.) Facilities Contract with T.W. Clark Construction for Metal Siding on South Wall of YCDF. G.) MetraPark Premium Parking Lot Reconstruction Recommendation of Award to Askin Construction, LLC. H.) Communication Tower Lease – Musselshell County. I.) Budget Transfer Request – Metra CIP. 4. METRAPARK – MetraPark In House Custodial Class Specification. 5. PUBLIC WORKS- A.) Noxious Weed Control Agreement – Montana Department of Transportation – Fiscal Year 22-23. B.) Invitation for Bid Asphaltic Mix for 2022 – 2023. 6. TREASURER- Bond for Lost Warrant. 7. HUMAN RESOURCES – A.) PERSONNEL ACTION REPORTS – Motor Vehicle- 1 Appointment; Detention Facility – 2 Appointments; Youth Services Center – 1 Appointment; Finance – 1 Salary & Other. B.) Letter from Alliant Regarding Mental Health Parity Audit.
FILE ITEMS – 1. Auditor- Payroll Audit April 16 to April 30, 2022. 2. Clerk and Recorder – Board Minutes – County Water District of Billings Heights. 3. COMMISSIONERS – Support Letter – Inner Belt Loop. 4. County Attorney – Release of All Claims. 5. FACILITIES – Application to Use Courthouse Lawn. 6. Human Resources – April 16 through 30 Payroll Audit. 7. Treasurer – Treasurer’s Disbursements and Checks for April 2022. Commissioner Ostlund made a MOTION to approve the Consent Agenda and place the File Items to file, Commissioner Pitman seconded. Commissioner Pitman asked if on the Consent Agenda Item 4 – MetraPark Custodians, if we were ready to approve these positions. Commissioner Pitman stated he was asking for clarification. Mr. Tim Goodridge, General Manager stated according to everything he understood we are at a position now where we are deciding if we are going to go ahead and add these FTE’s to MetraPark. Commissioner Jones stated that is the next step, not this step. Commissioner Pitman stated this is designated the position not actually approving the funding of the positions. Commissioner Jones stated we are not funding the positions at this point. Commissioner Pitman stated this is just putting the position together. Mr. Tim Goodridge asked if next step is funding? Commissioner Jones replied, yes. Passed Unanimous.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON COUNTY BUSINESS – Hearing no comments Commissioner Jones adjourned the meeting at 10:11 a.m.
APPROVE ATTEST
DATE