Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Contracts Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council refers JCC Services management contract for review after questions about Development Association ties and contractor status
Summary
Councilors referred an amendment to the facility business management agreement with JCC Services and Jim Caesar to the Planning Department after members raised questions about the Development Association’s previous distancing from the business center, Caesar’s dual roles and whether his status as an independent contractor posed liability risks.
The City of Superior Common Council on Dec. 15 referred an amendment to the facility business management agreement between JCC Services (Jim Caesar) and the city to the Planning Department for further review after council members raised questions about governance and contractor status.
Councilor McDonough questioned how the Development Association had distanced itself from the business center while Jim Caesar remained as its director and would continue under a city contract. “How can your board distance themselves and the director not?” McDonough asked. Planning and Port Director Jason Sirk replied that keeping Caesar through the transition provided a “smoothness of transition” and that Caesar had helped bring additional revenue to the building: “he's done a good job. We've got our revenues up. We're trying to build those those reserves back up, and he's done a nice job. The folks...like him down there.”
Councilor Sweeney and others asked how the city arrived at the monthly payment to Caesar and whether hours or a public solicitation had been used. Sirk said Caesar had proposed hours and a proposal was approved at a prior meeting; Sirk estimated Caesar “probably spends...an hour to 2 hours a day.” Councilor Kinsey said Caesar is a contractor and free to hold multiple contracts and that the Development Association is not tied to the city decision.
Councilors also raised concerns about potential IRS tests for independent‑contractor status and whether the city could be liable if a contractor were later reclassified as an employee. The city attorney (Jean) suggested referring technical questions to Human Resources and noted the city tracks contractor/employee classification. Councilor Olson asked why the contract renewal had not been put out for public solicitation; Sirk said the renewal was intended to be a smooth transition and that revenues had improved under Caesar’s management.
Because councilors said several questions remained about board relationships, hours and procurement, a motion to refer the contract amendment to the Planning Department for report back passed by voice vote.
