Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/2014 Study Session MinutesNO *N 4 ��MARANA 7 STUDY SESSION MINUTES 11 555 W. Civic Center Drive, Marana, Arizona 55653 Boardroom, February 11, 2014, at or after 6:00 PM Ed Honea, Mayor Jon Post, Vice Mayor David Bowen, Council Member Patti Comerford, Council Member Herb Kai, Council Member Carol McGorray, Council Member Roxanne Ziegler, Council Member STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Mayor Honea called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Town Clerk Bronson called roll. Council Member Kai was excused; there was a quorum present. PLEDGE OF ALLEG /MOMENT of SILENCE. Led by Mayor Honea. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. .Motion to approve by Council .Member McGorra second by Council .Member .Bowen. Passed 6.0. CALL TO THE PUBLIC. No speaker cards were presented. DISCUSSION /DIRECTIONIPOSSIBLE ACTION D 1: Resolution No. 2014009 Relating to Boards, Commissions and Committees; selecting three potential topics for the Winter 2014 Marana Citizens' Forum. session, Mr. Davidson presented this item, noting that as part of the Forum process staff brings forward three topics that have received input from the citizen forum as a result of conversations in their communities. Three topics must be approved by Council and then the Forum will select one to discuss. The topics presented tonight at (1) expanding education opportunities; (2) marketing branding and tourism; February 11, 2014 Study Session Minutes 1 and (3) community emergency management. Motion to adopt the three topics as presented by Council Member Mc Gorray, second by Council Member Bowen. Passed 6-0. D2: Relating to Personnel; discussion and possible action regarding changing the Town's funding strategy for health insurance from fully- funded to self - funded. Presented by Suzanne Machain who introduced Don Heilman of Gallagher Benefit Services, the town's benefits consultant. She noted that in past years, self-funding has been touched on. This last year we saw a potential window of opportunity and our consultants conducted an analysis to see if we should move to a self - funded arrangement. We currently have our dental plan self-insured. Mr. Heilman started with an overview of self-funding, noting that self- - funding only changes the way the plan is funded. You are still hiring the administrator to do all of the things currently being done. The only thing that changes is that the town budgets what the claims might be. It's transparent to the employee. They are getting the sane plan of benefits. It's more of a risk transfer from the insurance company to the employer, and there is no need to do any plan design changes. Next he discussed why self-funding makes sense by providing an illustrative comparison using the same network and the same plan design. Claims expenses are the bulk of the costs. He explained what is built into fully funded protection. A fully funded plan uses a pooling arrangement to help mitigate the volatility of a group of our size from year to year. A. pooling charge is levied on the employer. The third piece is retention, which is the cost of doing business — paying people to manage claims and provide customer service to members. And they also have shareholders that they intend to return a profit to, and they build risk charges into their costs for this. With self-funding, there is the same claims class and you have to deal with the same volatility of managing large claims. You still have to pay your vendors to process claims, but your administrative fees are much smaller than with the fully funded plan. A new dynamic which makes it far more compelling for agencies to self-fund is a health insurer fee under the affordable healthcare care. This is about 2 percent of the premium. This is paid by the insurance company collected through their policyholders, and that is passed along and paid by the federal government to help subsidize insurance companies to the extent that they have an unfavorably bad exchange because they want to create some stability. it's basically a tax to employers to stabilize insurers, and it is only assessed by the federal government. By moving to self - funding, the town would be exempt from that health insurer fee. Under this scenario, cost savings could be as much as six to eight percent. Mr. Heilman discussed stop loss coverage. There are two fundamental mechanisms to achieve stop loss insurance. The first is individual stop loss. over the course of a 12- month period we are going to insulate the town's liability regardless of the condition or diagnosis. A. reasonable threshold for the town would be about $ l OOK. February 11, 2014 Study Session Minutes 2 The next level of stop loss is aggregate stop loss protection — which says it protects the town from a lot of adverse claimants. The individual stop loss can work in tandem with this. Individual stop loss limits plan claim costs paid on behalf of an individual during the plan year. The insurance carrier assumes the risk beyond the individual stop loss threshold. The premium is a function of risk per claim that is retained by the town. Aggregate stop loss protection limits plan claim costs paid for the overall group and the insurance carrier assumes the risk beyond the aggregate stop loss threshold. He then discussed the percentage of covered workers in partially or completely self funded plans by firm size, region and industry in 2013. Mr. Heilman reviewed the benefits of self = funding, primarily as it gives the employer more control and flexibility, better access to claims data and the cost and also mitigates marginal risk, improved cash flow and interest earnings and avoids the health insurer fee under the health care reform. He also talked about a synergistic arrangement with the Marana Health Center. Under a fully funded plan, Cigna said no, but if the town was self - funded, Cigna said yes, within reason. There are some risks, but with appropriate management, they can be mitigated. Questions from Council revolved around whether the plan can become political and some of the cautions to watch for. Mr. Heilman said that it's critical to the success of the plan to keep it consistent for employees with the same protocols used by Cigna for a fully funded plan. He then discussed the fiscal oversight and key considerations by using prudent oversight in establishing the reserves and medical fund reserve build up. Medical fund reserves are used to anticipate or fund unpaid claims and expenses in the event of plan termination or to offset unexpected claims fluctuation in a given year. In response to a question about HIPPA and confidentiality, Mr. Heilman responded that we will only see data which is a consistent theme across all self - funded plans. The regulations for a plan sponsor must be elevated for HIPPA. There are many layers of processes and oversight, but in his experience, it has never been a problem. The costs for a third party administrator for 300 employees are about 8 -10% of the premium or $4000 -5000K annually. Self-funded is about half of that because you're taking the risk and profit margin out of the equation. Self - funded costs would be somewhere in the low to mid $40's per employee compared to $1001month for fully funded. Suzanne Machaln concluded the presentation with the staff recommendation that Council direct staff to continue to pursue moving forward to arrange for self-funding. Motion to direct staff to proceed with the necessary work to implement self - funding for health insurance by Vice Mayor Post, second by Council Member Bowen. Passed 5-1 w tli Council Member .IVleGorray voting nay. February 11, 2014 Study Session Minutes 3 D3: Resolution No. 2014 -010 Relating to Development; pursuant to A.R.S. 9- 463.05(D), adoption of land use assumptions, street facilities infrastructure improvement plan, and parks and recreation infrastructure improvement plan related to the Town's 2014 development impact fees for roads, parks, water and wastewater. Keith Brann stated that the first publication of these reports was in September. Tonight staff is presenting the final reports and looking for formal adoption of the land use assumptions which is being used as the basis for both streets, parks & recreation and water and wastewater. The actual IIP's for water and wastewater are not being discussed tonight, but they do rely on the growth assumptions. We are also looking at the street facilities infrastructure improvement plan and the parks and recreation infrastructure improvement plan which have been introduced to Council and other entities over the past several months. We have had meetings with our most interested stakeholders — Southern Arizona Home Builders (SAHBA) and Metropolitan Pima Alliance (MPA). On the land assumption report, there has been very little change. Some additional focus data has been added to show comparison of our figures and projections versus Pima Association of Governments (PAC's) data. We are very close to the PAG regional projections; our projections may be a little higher as they are not based on increases for the entire region. We corrected the table for the San Lucas data, and at the request of the stakeholders we are adding a listing to all reports of preparers and their credentials. In terms of the street facilities infrastructure plan, there are more changes. Some of the categories have been modified as a result of some work on future fee reports. We want to make sure that we have categories that are varied enough so that they are representative of different fees for different uses. Mobile homes were removed from the report as there is no basis for a construction sales tax credit against them. In these reports and in future reports, mobile home fees will be based on how they're used. There were no discernible differences in industrial uses so they were condensed into one category, and retail was expanded to five categories. This will give developers better rates. In regard to a question about trip generation, Mr. Brann stated that trip generation is the number of trips generated by development; single family homes typically nearly generate at 10 trips per day, coming and going. They corrected the limits of Tangerine Farms based on a stakeholder concern from developers along Marana Road and expanded the construction sales tax methodology to be specific by category. There are still some questions by SAHBA as to how these trends may work. We can better explain that during the fee study. SAHBA questioned the slip on construction sales tax between parks and streets in regard to how we re- balanced the fee which is quite apparent in the parks fee, but not apparent in the roads fee how that re- balancing works because the fee is not necessarily listed. In the future report study it will be listed and will then show the net reduction. There was confusion by SAHBA on the numerical value of the $332 which is actually the HUFF credit, not the construction sales tax credit. We will continue to work with SAI -IBS. to make sure that the credits are transparent and clear. February 11, 2014 Study Session Minutes 4 At the last minute before publishing the Council packets, the International Code Council published new cost data in February, so we wanted to incorporate that. We got it in as an appendix to the new report, but in doing so, we failed to remove a conflicting part in the streets plan in Exhibit 6. The numbers had gotten better in the eyes of the developer in that the construction costs have risen over the years, so it's actually a better credit to a developer. Should Council adopt the assumptions tonight, Mr. Brann recommended an amended motion to remove the discrepancy to Exhibit 6. In explaining the expanded HURO definition, Mr. Brann stated: we take our current HURF allocation, divide it by our current population, to arrive at a per resident credit which we then multiply back out times the physical number of residents per home, which is 2.7 to come up with a home credit. And then we took that over 20 years for the life of a road project and then multiplied that by ten percent. The last few items were to deal with legacy roads, bringing forward the debt service for the outstanding credit balance and adding the listing of preparers' certifications and sealable documents. On the parks fee based on further discussions with SAHBA and MPA, there is still much contention. What has changed on the parks facilities IIP, like the streets fee, we removed the mobile home category and reduced the maximum actual park acreage to 30 acres. Ora Mae is right at about 30, as was Crossroads when we removed the cultural area. So it wasn't much of a stretch for us to cap it right about at 30 to appease SAHBA. There has been a question from SAHBA regarding bond funding for the SilverbelllCrossroads Park. It is an astute question if that park had received county bond funding, then that should have either reduced the valuation or been part of a credit basis moving forward. However, although it was a named bond item in the county bond series, those bond funds were used for bank protection along the park in the trail construction and were not used for the actual active park recreation component. That was all paid by the town using the park impact fees. SAHBA has continued to question various uses within the fee basis. In further discussions with them, staff conceded that we would remove the concession stand at their request. The main argument being that there is the possibility of it being a revenue component since they are not necessarily a necessary public service. Our parks director agreed to remove that from the basis so this fee does represent that modification. There was discussion among Council who disagreed about the removal of the concession stand. Mr. Brann said the fee could be included by retooling the report and adopting the fee when the water and wastewater fees are brought before Council next week so that we'd be on schedule. That could be disagreed upon and given authority to recalculate with the wastewater fees in another week. We could retool the report and adopt it at that time and remain on schedule. Mr. Brann continued by noting that there were other items SAHBA asked to be removed that staff felt were vital issues such as dog parks, handball courts and other items that we kept in. In working on fixing the math for the fee, we did remove paths and trails from the fee basis that were fees paid from grants and such, so that it's more in line with what impact fees have been used for in the past. We did add a table of trails within the town and their acreage. There was a February 11, 2014 Study Session Minutes 5 request by SAHBA to collect all the trails together and calculate what their overall acreage was and then cap the fee study at 30 acres of trails. We disagreed on that. We still don't believe that the statute precludes greater than 30 acres of parks, and we don't feel that taking all the trails and calling them one park was accurate. So we have not complied with that request. As we change and work with the mathematics of the fee, we re- balance the construction tax credit that we put toward the parks fee versus the streets fee. The total credit is the same. Again, we added the listing of preparers and their credentials. There is also one other major point of contention with SAHBA and that regards the parks fee being a single service benefit area versus multiple benefit areas. We think it's allowable under state law and the most appropriate way for the town to deal with our parks and recreation facilities. SAHBA is requesting that we carve the town up into multiple benefit areas similar to how the roads fee has been done, and assess possibly different fees with different levels of service in different areas of the town. Vice Mayor Post agreed with Mr. Brann, citing the splash park as one example and the ball fields at Crossroads Park as another. Mr. Brann continued with one of the major arguments for the single service benefit area programmatically how Parks & Recreation deals with individual events at multiple parks, or multiple events at a single park. Each park manages their assets. Those are the main things provided in the reports. Upon approval by Council, staff will go forward with next steps which are to publish draft reports with the actual fees. Those reports are tentatively ready to go with any changes that may occur with final adoption tonight, and we'll be publishing those this Friday, February 14, 2014. We are planning a study session on the final fees, including examples of how those fees will be assessed on February 25, the formal public hearing on March 18, and adoption of the fees on May 6. That would put them on schedule for the fee collection on August 1, 2014. Vice Mayor Post made a motion to continue moving forward resolution No. 2014 --010, the adoption of the impact fee schedule with the change to remove Exhibit 6 from the streets and adding back the concession stand item. Council Member Bowen seconded the motion. Mayor Honea called for discussion. Council Member Ziegler asked for clarification about the concession stand discussion. Vice Mayor Post said that concession stand would be paid for with general funds rather than impact fees. Gilbert Davidson explained based on SAHBA's reasoning, that when the town builds a new regional park, we wouldn't be able to fund the concession stand out the impact fees for new growth that everyone's paid for; we'd have to go to the town's general fund to pay for that specific item. Council Member Comerford said that if it comes out of the general fund staff can start charging fees for the use of the concession stand. Motion passed 6 -0. Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. §3$- 431.03 (A )(3), Council may ask for discussion or consultation for legal advice with the Town Attorney concerning any matter listed on this agenda. February 11, 2014 Study Session Minutes 6 A -4 FUTURF'. AGENDA ITEMS Notwithstandin the ma discretion re the items to be placed on the a ifthree or more Council members re that an item be placed on the a it must be placed on the a for the second re Town Council meetin after the date of the re pursuant to Marana Town Code Section 2-4-2(B). ADJOURNMENT. Upon motion b Vice Ma Post, second b Council Member McGorra the meetin was adjourned at 7:14 p.m. Passed 6-0. CERTIFICATION I hereb certif that the fore are the true and correct minutes of the Marana Town Council meetin held on Februar 11, 2014. 1 further certif that a q uorum was present. cel C Bronson, Town Clerk 9 �pWN N Februar 11, 2014 Stud Session Minutes