Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC December 16, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 18, 1980 AGENDA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Resident Forum 3. Agenda Approval 4. Discussion Items a. I979-2/Final Acceptance/Xenia Street Area b. 1980-1/Fina1 Acceptance/133rd Avenue Area c. 1980-2/Final Acceptance/138th Avenue Area d. Pumphouse No.1-Change Order No.1 e. DNR Public Waters Report/Meeting f. Dog Ordinance g. 5. Non-Discussion Items a. Appointment-Steering Committee/Block Grants b. Appointment-Liquor Study Committee c. Kennel License-Prior d. Power Sweeper Purchase e. 6. Reports of Commissions, Committees, Boards a. Planning & Zoning Commission 1) Attorney position b. Personnel Committee c. Volunteer Fire Department 7. Approval of Minutes 8. Approval of Claims 9. Adjournment I , ~ ~ 01 ANDOVER REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 16, 1980 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Month1y Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on December 16, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Attorney, William G. Hawkins; TKDA Engineers, John Davidson and Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, the adoption of the Agenda as printed with the addition of Item 4g, Liquor License and Cigarette License approval. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; ABSENT-Ortte1 Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, suspension of the rules. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; ABSENT-Orttel rqotion carried. 1979-2, 1980-I, and 1980-2/FINAL ACCEPTANCE Mr. Davidson referenced the December 9, 1980, Engineering Report of Final Acceptance for the 1979 Street and Drainage Improvement No.2 project. He also pointed out that as an agent of the City for this project, he has negotiated a settlement with the contractor subject to the Council's approval, noting that the point of issue with the contractor is a basic change in the work scope. He, as the consulting engineer, made a series of judgements, one of which was not to redraw the 17 pages of cross sections of the Xenia Street project to be furnished with the bid specs for the contractor's inspection. This led the contractor to believe it was a self-propelled scraper job, when it actually turned out requiring excavating up to 6 inches over the center line and up to 10 inches at the gutter in order to get a crown on the road. In the negotiation process, the contractor showed his actual costs to be an additional $47,951. The total he could be paid under unit prices for measured quantities was $26,826, for a difference of $19,125. The contractor has agreed to split that additional cost. This wasn't brought to the Council's attention earlier because Mr. Davidson didn't want to stop the project at that point in time, which was a judgement call on his part. The overage in excavation amounted to over one-half of the overrun, and the additional black dirt and sodding to control erosion was the remainder. Discussion was over the concern expressed by the Mayor as to what can be expected from an Engineering firm, upset by the large overruns of the 1979-2 and 1980-1 projects yet there are large engineering fees on these projects as well, questioning if overruns could have been avoided if plans were drawn correctly, and questioning the validity of cost figures presented to residents from the feasibility reports. Concern was also that these projects have already been assessed, and these overruns indicate that the residents wi 11 have to be reassessed at a much higher rate than what they were told at the public hearings. The Mayor also questioned at what point is there some liability on the part of the engineering firm in such instances. Mr. Davidson argued that only work spent by TKDA staff On Andover projects is charged back to the City and noted that on both projects, the street standards were changed and specs had to be redesigned involving twice the work, meetings, etc. For the 1980-1 and 1980-2 projects done by the same contractor, TKDA kept all their time records under the 1980-1 project, and the City can distribute that time within those projects -- the two will balance if the engineering figures are redistributed. Normally the engineering costs are then prorated against the individual projects based on project costs. ~- Re9u1ar City Council Meeting December 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 (1979-2, 1980-1, and 1980-2/Fina1 Acceptance, Continued) Council discussion with the consulting engineers was also on the 1980-1 and 1980-2 projects, the TKDA letter dated December 12. 1980, relative to Final Acceptance, 1980 Street and Drainage Improvement No.1 and on the Clerk's summary sheet of figures for the three projects. Mr. Schumacher stated that the reason for the overage for gravel and bituminous on 1980-1 is because the short stretch of Eide1weiss north of 135th was not included in the original contract award. Also, the reason the curb and gutter On 138th Avenue and Xavis was assessed so reasonably was because the total assessable frontage was more than doube the actual street length because of Bunker Lake Estates and the Moore's property not actually fronting on the road. Discussion continued on the Clerk's recap sheet, noting that it appears that the 1980-1 project was underassessed by 13 percent, approximately $2 per front foot, and the 1980-2 project was overassessed by 10 percent. It was also noted that the funds for the 1979-2 and 1980-1 projects are from one bOnd issue, and the funds for the 1980-2 project was secured locally but is approximately $42,560 over actual costs of the project. Mr. Hawkins stated that it is his opinion that the $98,000 for the 1980-2 project was borrowed in good faith and without the purpose of generating extra revenues from the interest, so there should be no problem. Secondly, Statutes indicate that as long as the construction account has not been closed out, the City has the right to fund other projects out of this construction account if there are excess funds. It would be appropriate to use excess funds from the 1980-2 project to offset the deficit in the bond issue for the 1979-2 project. On the 1979-2 project, Councilman Lachinski stated that it was bid in the spring, work was done in the summer, and the assessment hearings held in the fall. He questioned why, with all that time, a more accurate figure wasn't used for assessment purposes to avoid having to reassess at what appears to be approximately an additional $1 per front foot. And he strongly felt that in this project, there should have been better communication between the City Engineer and/or Council and TKDA as to the more accurate figures for assessing. Councilman Lachinski expected that in the future Mr. Winner and Mr. Schumacher be in contact on projects relative to what is taking place, noting any possibility of overruns, etc. Mr. Winner stated that over half the difference on the overage on this project is the result of the overrun on the excavation. Mr. Schumacher stated at the time of the assessment hearing, he was aware that the contractor was making a claim for additional compensation, but he provided Mr. Winner with what he felt would be the final payment to the contractor. Mr. Davidson also stated that the engineering costs are high, much of it being for work that was done from previous years that was never used. Ms. Lindquist also noted that those engineering costs from previous years for work done on this area, previous hearings, specs, etc., were not used in the engineering cost estimate presented the residents at the public hearing. Discussion was again on the 1980-1 and 1980-2 projects, the legal, engineering, and administrative costs of each, and distributing the engineering costs between the two projects. Councilman Lachinski felt that there was justification for looking at these two projects as one, as they were done by the same contractor, Eide1weiss north of Bunker Lake Boulevard was assessed at the same rate as the 1980-1 project, and the assessment for the curb and gutter streets on 138th and Xavis was very reasonable. By looking at the two projects as one, the total assessment would only be underassessed by approximately $7.000. He felt it would be unrealistic to reduce the already low assessment for 138th and Xavis and Eide1weiss in the 1980-2 project, and increase the assessment for the 1980-1 project. He argued that that would mean that those On Eide1weiss in 1980-2 would be paying 23 percent less than those in the 1980-1 project for the same street done by the same contractor at the same time. If a reduction is given for the curbed streets on 138th and Xavis, they would be paying less for a curbed street than those uncurbed streets in the remainder of the project. . t . . ~ ----. .-0-" -. ~ Regular City Council Meeting December 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 (1979-2, 1980-1, and 1980-2/Fina1 Acceptance, Continued) Council deliberated on what course of action should be taken at this time, suggesting the engineers give a more exact accounting of the costs of the two different street sections in projects 1980-1 and -2 to determine if the distribution of the figures are accurate or could be changed, thereby eliminating the large disparity between what was assessed and those costs shown on the Clerk's recap sheet making the two projects as equitable as possible, but realizing that there would still be approximately $7,000 overrun for the two projects. It was also suggested that because of the events of the project, that TKDA assume some liability for the overrun and split the costs of the overrun with the City. Council felt that in the future, feasibility reports should be presented to residents with a greater degree of accuracy at the public hearings. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that based upon documentation from the engineering flrm of TKDA that Thomas Montgomery Construction, Inc., has completed all the work on 1979 street and drainage improvement project Number 2 in conformance with the City standards and recommend final payment in the amount of $29,289.08 as final payment for construction cost of $263,547.11, and authorize the payment of the above amount. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; NO-Windschit1 Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we authorize a payment to Central Landscaping, Inc., for the 1980 Street and drainage improvement project Numbers 1 and 2, payment in the amount of $26,777.20, minus $1,500, total amount, $25,277.20; the $1,500 to be payable to the contractor in the spring of 1981 when the undesirable material buried in the Northwoods park is removed, the $1,500 not be paid until that time. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Ortte1 as he lives in the project area. Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the transfer of funds from ProJect Number 1980-2 to pay for project costs of the 1980-1 and 1979-2 as per advice by legal counsel that such transfer of funds is legal. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we ask TKDA to recompute the figures for the 1980-1 and 1980-2 projects as per the distribution of costs within the projects. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Orttel Motion carried. Recess at 9:12; reconvene at 9:30 p.m. PUMP HOUSE NO. 1 - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 It was generally agreed that to have the po1yphosphate equipment installed in the pumphouse at this time would be good insurance in the event it is needed in the future; although it would not have to be used if it is not necessary. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, the approval of Pumphouse No. 1 Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $2,476 for a total contract revised amount of $152,437.95. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve a $750 deduct from the well bld for salvaged casing. Motion carried unanimously. DNR PUBLIC WATERS REPORT/MEETING Mr. Winner reviewed the revised map of the City showing waters falling within the DNR types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands of five acres or more, which has been based on the ASCS map. Regular City Council Meeting December 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 (DNR Public Waters Report/Meeting, Continued) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that the City wetlands map prepared by the Englneer showing those areas which correlate to wetlands type 3, 4, and 5 and public lakes according to the DNR Public Waters Designations Act, with the exception that our map is showing wetlands five acres in size and larger, be adopted as the official City's DNR Public Waters Map and present it to the DNR as the amended map of the City along with all supporting data as to why we amended the map. Motion carried unanimously. It was agreed that Mr. Winner would be the City's spokesman at the public meeting on this matter on December 22. DOG ORDINANCE Council discussed the proposed ordinance to replace the existing ordinance as presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 2, Section 4, add at the end: "...or place of business except pursuant to Section 19." Page 2, Second line, change to: " ...may be issued during any licensing period upon payment... " Page 3, Section 9, change to: "Upon taking up and impounding any dog, the Poundmaster shall within 1 day thereafter have posted in City Hall notice of impounding in substantially the following form:" In the first line of the form, change to: "We have this day taken up and impounded..." Signed by: "Poundmaster or City OfficiaL" Page 4, Section 12, third line: "...need not be impounded but may, instead,..." Page 3, second line: "...to molest, defile, or destroy any property..." Page 3, fourth line: " ...or custodian to prevent his/her animals from..." Page 5, top line: Delete "veterinary hospitaL" The Clerk was asked to review the ordinance, suggesting appropraite changes relative to prorating the licensing fee, but for not less than one year. Councilman Peach expressed concern about Section 17. The reason this was brought up was to provide a means of controlling dangerous dogs in the City, and he felt that section is not as effective as what is used in the biting portion of the Ham Lake ordi nance. He also felt that a dog should be declared a public nuisance after less than three bites. Chairman Bose11 stated the language in Section 17 comes from the League of Minnesota Cities, stating that some Commissioners had some real problems with the Ham Lake ordinance. Discussion was on what would happen theoretically if someone reported a biting dog to the City as per the recommended ordinance. A suggestion was made that the ordinance should have the ability to declare a dog a public nuisance and to put the burden upon the owner to have the dog removed from the City or destroyed. According to the ordinance, it would be the ~oundmaster or patrol officer who would declare a dog a public nuisance. Mr. Hawkins felt that in both this proposed ordinance and in the Ham Lake ordinance there is control of biting dogs. It is a question of how involved the City Council wants to become involved in the matter. Councilman Peach preferred to have each Counci1member read Section 17 and the Ham Lake ordinance to determine which one they feel would provide the most control. This item will be on the Agenda for the January 20, 1981, meeting. CIGARETTE AND NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE/RADEMACHER MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we issue a retail cigarette license for William Rademacher at 14041 Round Lake Boulevard, Andover, Minnesota, from a period of 12/21/80 through 12/31/81. Regular City Council Meeting December 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 (Cigarette and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License/Rademacher, Continued) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschitl; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. The Clerk stated that she has checked with the police departments in Brooklyn Park and Champlin where Rademacher's other stores are and there have been no complaints. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that the 30-day waiting period to allow the City time to investigate applications for beer licenses be waived in the case of William C. Rademacher due to the reason that all the investigative checking has been done in less than that period of time, and move that the City issue an Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License to William Rademacher, 14041 Round Lake Boulevard, until 12/31/81. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson Motion carried. APPOINTMENT-STEERING COMMITTEE/BLOCK GRANTS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we appoint Mr. Dick Schneider and Ken Ortte1 to represent us in the Anoka County Community Block Grant Steering Committee, and authorize the Clerk to write a letter to Mr. Schneider asking if he would be willing to be on the Committee. Motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENT-LIQUOR STUDY COMMITTEE MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that Colleen Wehling and Ray M. Freeman be appolnted to the Liquor Study Committee. Motion carried unanimously. KENNEL LICENSE - PRIOR The Clerk stated that the City has received no complaints since Mr. Prior has been operating the kennel. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve a Kennel License for Prior for the year 1981. Motion carried unanimously. POWER SWEEPER PURCHASE (Reference December 12, 1980, memo from Mr. Winner relative to Power Sweeper Purchase.) Mr. Winner stated he has received one more quote from Valley Equipment Company, which was for $2,174 including the manual option. He recommended purchasing from the lowest quote, with funds coming from the 1980 Park Board budget. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the purchase of a power sweeper; note the receipt of bids from Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc., for $2,054 and Ruffridge- Johnson Equipment Company in the amount of $2,074, and that of Valley Equipment Company in the total amount of $2,174, and purchase equipment from Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc., for $2,054 with funds to come from the Park Board 1980 Budget. Motion carried unanimously. VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief Bob Palmer reiterated his concerns and that of the Fire Department on insurance coverage of the fire fighters while at the fire station (Reference December 11, 1980, memo on Insurance Coverage). MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to authorize three hours of Mr. John Burke's time at a Fire Department meeting for the purpose of clarifying Workmen's Comp and other insurance questions. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Ortte1 stated he would also attend that meeting, would ask the City's insurance carrier to be present as well, and will coordinate the meeting. Regular City Council Meeting December 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 (Volunteer Fire Department, Continued) Discussion continued on some of the questions and concerns of the firefighters on this issue. Assistant Chief Tom May - felt there was a basic dilemma of what is covered by Workmen's Comp and what isn't. He felt when a firefighter comes into the building, signs in, and is there on Fire Department business, then whatever happens should be covered either by Workmen's Camp, out of the City budget, City insurance, or whatever. Chief Palmer also requested that Workmen's Comp be requested to put their denials of claims in writing. Paul Gengler, Firefighter - stated he has talked with several knowledgable people on the question of lnsurance coverage and has been told that Workmen's Comp covers strictly when a person is working. He was told that Workmen's Comp would not cover claims such as that of Mr. Sowada and Mr. Kreutter, that the City would have to have special medical insurance coverage, which is very expensive. But maybe the City will have to have it. There are some firefighters who at some point do not have personal insurance coverage and who may get hurt while at the Fire Station. Councilman Ortte1 stated there may be some possibility of obtaining insurance for accidental I medical expenses in some small amount. Mr. Gengler continued that the firefighters put in a lot of time at the station and are afraid of what may happen if they are hurt while volunteering their time for the City and which is not covered by insurance. And the firefighters are becoming disgruntled over those claims that haven't been covered. Councilman Peach stated a question that should be answered is what isn't covered by the insurance we have now and how can we get it covered. Bill Bush, Firefighter - stated that he has talked to Mr. Kreutter, who has talked to the Attorney General's office. Mr. Kreutter was told that he has a case, but it is a question of paying an Attorney for legal action or simply paying the medical bills that were denied by Workmen's Compo Mr. Bush suggested that the City insure itself for smaller claims such as Mr. Kreutter's. Chief Palmer asked if it would be possible to have a small amount of petty cash at the fire station to be paying for small items immediately. Mr. Hawkins saw no problem with the Clerk delegating custody of some petty cash funds. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we authorize the City Clerk to distribute up to $30 in Petty Cash to the Fire Department for their use with accounting by the Fire Department every calendar month on the disbursements of the money. Motion carried unanimously. Assistant Chief May reviewed the December 12, 1980, memo from the Fire Department Equip- ment Committee on the trading of the high pressure pump system from Truck 4891 for items of equipment, and he provided a list of equipment they would be getting in its place. Other requests are the purchase of pagers for the EMS vehicle and the purchase of radios for the Chief's vehicle and the EMS vehicle. Discussion was on the reasons for the recommendation to trade in the high pressure pump system from Truck 4891, that there is not much use for the pump as part of the present fire fighting plan, that it is felt the Department would get more benefit out of the equipment being traded for than having the pump system, and that the pump system is designed to provide maximum fog pattern in a totally engulfed room but they presently have the fog stream nozzles on the l~ inch lines that are used instead. MOTION byOrttel, Seconded by Peach, that the Council approve the Agreement with General Safety Corporation to trade the high pressure pump system to the General Safety Corporation for materials of like value as noted by the Fire Department in an amount of approximately $3,200. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting December 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 (Volunteer Fire Department, Continued) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of $804 for the purchase of special pagers for the EMS system in the Fire Department to be paid out of 1981 funds. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, the approval of $3,000 for the purchase of two 110 watt VHF radios for the EMS truck and the Fire Chief's vehicle, the money to come out of the 1981 budgeted funds. Motion carried unanimously. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT Chairman Bose11 reported that there is some concern on the part of the Commissioners relative to obtaining the desired information from the City Attorney. Especially in instances of discussing ordinance revisions, she asked if it would be possible to have the Attorney attend the meeting to answer questions. Council suggested the Chairman correspond directly with the Attorney if possible and agreed to allow the Attorney to attend Commission meetings at the Chairman's discretion. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the Planning Commission Chalrman to request the presence of the City Attorney at Planning and Zoning Commission meetings as required contingent upon P & Z Chairman watching the budget and not exceeding the legal fees in 1981. Motion carried unanimously. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that the City Council accept the resignation of JanettEve1and effective the 8th of December, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. Council also directed the Clerk to write a letter of appreciation for her years of service to Ms. Eveland to be signed by the entire Council. Councilman Ortte1 reviewed the Personnel Committee's recommendations for several personnel matters discussed at their meetings. One of the recommendations received by the Committee was to grant Kevin Starr a probationary increase to $6 an hour, and on January 1 to receive another 8 percent increase plus 5 percent merit increase, for a total increase to $6.50 an hour. The Committee felt that Mr. Starr was originally hired as a laborer but has since gone into light equipment operation. Councilman Ortte1 stated he has talked with other cities, and he reviewed their pay scales for light equipment operators. Mr. Winner is investigating various job descriptions and will draft a description for Mr. Starr's position. The Personnel Committee's recommendation is to reduce the budget for the fourth public works person and apply those funds toward a pay raise to Mr. Starr, that raise recommended to be $6 an hour effective 1/1/81 and would include the cost of living and merit raises as well. There was a very lengthy discussion relative to the recommendation; questioning if such a large increase in salary is considered a promotion and should be advertised for; questioned that if a light equipment operator is desired, such a position should be advertised for and someone hired with more eXPBRience; and that Mr. Starr has advanced since being hired and is more than willing to/w atever he can. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that effective January 1, 1981, that Kevin Starr's salary be $5.25 an hour, which is approximately a 20 percent increase over what he was hired at. DISCUSSION: continued on the position itself; that it would be a combination of laborer and light equipment operator; that the City still needs someone to do the $3 an hour work; that this position has suddenly been upgraded; and that with this increase, the fourth position may have to be only a part-time position as needed. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Peach, Windschit1; NO-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1 Motion failed. Regular City Council Meeting December 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 (Personnel Committee, Continued) Discussion: Councilman Lachinski stated his reason for voting no is apparently Mr. Starr is thought of by the people working with him as being well worth the additional money they are asking for. He'd like to go as much as what the Personnel Committee recommended, but suggested that maybe some additional consideration should be given in this case to receiving a salary adjustment in six months. Mayor Windschit1 questioned if such a large increase is given now, what happens in the future. He also felt that if it is a promotion, the City has an obligation to advertise the position. Discussion continued on the union scale for light equipment operators; raising the salary to $6 would mean there may not be funds for the fourth position; that no one in the City has ever received such a large pay raise; with some feeling in view of the tight budget there must be some semblance of order on the wages in the City. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we increase Kevin Starr's salary to $5.50 an hour effective January 1, 1981. DISCUSSION: Mayor Windschit1 felt for that salary, the position should be advertised, as it is considered a promotion. And if people are going to advance that quickly, the jobs should be advertised differently to reflect that. He also felt someone with more experience could have been hired if the job had been at a higher salary initially, and ~his is just doing a shuffle here. Councilman Lachinski felt it should be increased at that rate based on Mr. Starr's own achievements and that he is considered to be in a training environment. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1; NO-Peach, Windschitl Motion carried. Discussion continued on this position, the salary range, what is expected, and on a City policy for the rate of wage increases, etc. Councilman Ortte1 asked the record to show that this is contemplating that Mr. Starr will be working aggressively in the snow removal for the City. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that the salary previously set for Kevin (Starr) be contingent upon his being available for nighttime snowp10wing and other work as directed by the Public Works Director. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Ortte1 suggested that a job description should be drawn for an interim position between laborer and light equipment operator. Councilman Orttel also stated a recommendation has been that part of Mr. Stone's salary in public works be transferred to the Water department. A water department needs to be established and to have someone trained for it. Another suggestion was that Mr. Sowada and Mr. Stone's positions are simi1iar but provide no promotion incentive. They would like to change their responsibility by departmentalizing. Water and Sewer would be headed by Mr. Stone and Streets and Parks would be headed by Mr. Sowada. They would not work exclusively in these areas but would be responsible for the day-to-day operations in those departments. It was felt that Mr. Winner has the authority to delegate that responsibility at this time, which will allow him time to observe the situation before it comes back to the Council. Councilman Ortte1 also stated that there is $4,100 remaining for step/merit raises for employees in the 1981 budget, and the Personnel Committee's recommendation was basically to provide a 3 percent increase for everyone except Keller, Bakke, and Lindquist as Clerk/Treasurer. But an increased stipend for Acting Administrator should be considered. Council again discussed the fourth public works position at which Mr. Keller has been working for approximately a year, as to whether the position is or is not necessary and whether it should become permanent or remain temporary. No Council action was taken on this matter at this time. Regular City Council Meeting December 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 (Personnel Committee, Continued) Council discussion returned to the merit/step raises for City employees. Because the Council had not received copies of the Personnel Committee's recommendations for merit/step increases, it was agreed that this would be discussed again at a special meeting. Discusion was also on the question of paying overtime to Dave Almgren for overtime work done for public works, such as plowing snow. It was the Personnel Committee's recommendation that Mr. Almgren be paid overtime only when doing public works functions after the 43-hour normal work week, and that the overtime rate be the same as what is paid the public works employees. Mr. Almgren's salary as Building Inspector is a salaried position, but snowp10wing would be work which is outside of his field. Mr. Almgren - stated he averaged about 42 hours a week this summer. He also explained that hlS salaried rate, when figured on a 43-hour workweek, works out to be less on an hourly rate than what public works is making. He had no problems working one, two, or three hours over the regular 40-hour workweek; but when it becomes mandatory and the rate of pay isn't compensating and the people in public works work 40 hours, it doesn't come out. Council questioned whether the understanding at the time the position became salaried was for 42 or 43 hours a week. Council generally agreed to pay Mr. Almgren overtime for any time over 43 hours a week Whgtðerl{~oR10wing snow. It was also suggested that it is up to the Public Works Director's/ a ow comp time during the week for any snowp10wing done after hours if there isn't work in public works to be done, realizing that there are very little monies in the budget available for overtime pay. Another suggestion was to provide the Council with the number of hours of overtime worked on a monthly basis to keep control over the situation. The Personnel Committee was also directed to provide the Council with a written proposal on Mr. Almgren's salary. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we have a Special City Council Meeting on January 13, 1981, for the purposes of discussing the Transportation portion of the five-year Capital Improvements Program. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 2, 1980, and December 4, 1980: Correct as written. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of December 2 be approved as written. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that the Minutes for the Special City Council Meetlng on December 4 be approved as written. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach, Windschit1; PRESENT-Jacobson Motion carried. YEAR-END MEETING - INTERVIEWS MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Peach, that we set the 29th at 7:30 as the evening to lnterview the applications for the Senior Accounting Clerk position, and also as the meeting to discuss merit and/or step increases for City employees. DISCUSSION: Council agreed that the Clerk will send those applications received for the position to the Council, and each Councilperson will inform the Clerk of their choices of five applicants they wish to interview. The Clerk will then arrange interviews for up to five applicants on December 29. The Clerk felt that. the position will require 40 hours in the beginning, may then slow down to 32 hours a week, but will return to full-time work as the volume of accounts increases. Motion carried unanimously. Regular City Council Meeting December 16, 1980 - Minutes Page 10 Council discussion was also on the question of hiring another consulting engineering firm for the City; that after the interviews last year, the idea was to go on a job by job basis trying several different engineering firms; on some of the practices of TKDA on the projects done for the City; and on suggestions for reducing the price of projects to the residents. No decision was made as to whether or not this should be placed on the Agenda of the Organizational I~eeting in January. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we accept Checks Numbered 3650 through 3662, with 3650 void, in the amount of $2,806.66. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we accept Checks 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 422, 420, and 421 with Checks 414 and 420 voided, in the total amount of $926.448.35. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:18 a.m. Respectfully submitted. "\~~~-- (~--~>·L Mar 1a A. Peach Recording Secretary