HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP December 4, 1980
~ 01 ANDOVER
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 4, 1980
MINUTES
A Special Meeting of the Andover City Counci1 was called to order by Mayor Jerry
Windschit1 on December 2, 1980, 7:34 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota, for the purpose of discussing responsibilities of the
City Engineer position, other personnel matters, and the five-year capital improvements
program for the Parks Department.
Councilmen present: Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach
Councilman absent: Jacobson
Also present: City Engineer, Larry Winner; Building Inspector, Dave Almgren;
Public Works employees, Ray Sowada, Frenchie Stone, and Kevin
Starr; and City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist
CITY ENGINEER POSITION DISCUSSION
It is the Council's intent that some direction be provided to make the City Engineer
position a functional and economical program. Several suggestions were made relative
to the chain of command in the Public Works Department, the delegation of responsibilities,
and how to promote better communication between Mr. Winner and the Public Works staff,
noting that because of his professional expertise, Mr. Winner is the Public Works
Director but suggesting the possibility of delegating the Senior Public Works Person
to be responsible for the day to day operation of the Department.
It was generally felt that primarily, Public Works employees work for I~r. Winner, and
Mr. Winner's job is primarily overseen by the Acting Administrator, but ultimately
there must be a great deal of cooperation between the two positions. But for administra-
tive purposes, Ms. Lindquist is the head of the City.
Discussion began on the December 4, 1980, memo from Mr. Winner to the Acting Administrator
relative to the priorities of the City Engineer/Public Works Director position. Ms.
Lindquist disagreed with Item No.1 relative to arriving at the office at 8 a.m.,
explaining her position on the matter and noting that it is important that all employees
be treated alike in that respect and the importance of being in the office at
that time every day. It was generally felt that everyone in the city has an obligation
to be at work at 8 a.m. unless the Acting Administrator knows why not, but there may
be some flexibility in hours for those salaried positions due to attendance at late
meetings, etc. It was also suggested that if Mr. Winner plans to check projects, etc.,
before coming to the office that he check in first. Council also felt that many of
the problems may simply be resolved by more communication.
Mr. Almgren stated his position on Item No.2 relative to his working in the Public
Works area, explaining that he has been busy with commercial plans, etc.; that he
does not always know first thing in the morning whether he will have time to help
in Public Works that day; that for the most part inspections are done only in the
afternoons; and that he has no problem working in Public Works when he has time
available. Council suggested that Mr. Almgren contact the Public Works Department each
day as soon as he knows whether or not he will be able to work for them that day.
Discussion was also on the responsibi1itie'10f Mr. Winner as Public Works Director.
Council felt that the position does not/fß overseeing the day to day operations of
the Department, but rather acts as the general overseer, to set policy, to provide
direction and coordi:nation, to recommend improvements, etc., with the ultimate responsi-
bility of the Department. The daily supervision of the activities should be delegated,
suggesting Mr. Sowada as the Senior Public Works Person take on that responsibility.
Mr. Sowada questioned whether this responsibility falls within his job description.
The Clerk was asked to research the job description for the Senior Public Works Person.
Special City Council Meeting
December 4, 1980 - Minutes
Page 2
(City Engineer Position Discussion, Continued)
Several suggestions were made as to how to delegate the daily activities in the
Department such as posting the priority jobs to be done On a bulletin board in the
Public Works building and that Mr. Winner meet with either Mr. Sowada or the entire
public works staff on a weekly basis to cover the work being done, the work to be done,
establishing priorities, etc. -- mainly to keep open the channel of communication
between Mr. Winner and the other employees.
When discussing the problems encountered with grading the roads this summer, it was
generally felt by the Council that once a schedule has been established for road
grading, that it be adhered to except for emergencies. In the event that the graderr
falls behind schedule, the Council should be made aware of it so they can consider
hiring contract help, temporary help or whatever to get back on schedule.
Discussion continued on some of the specific problems relative to responsibilities of
Mr. Winner, Ms. Lindquist, and Public Works staff and how to best resolve them. It
was generally felt that better communicationrª~qe~iR~tter effort by all to be cooperative
would eliminate many of the problems. After evera1 of the problems that
the staff felt were the responsibility of Mr. Winner to resolve but which have not
been done or not done in a timely manner, it was stated that much of this may have been
due to the fact that he is new to the City; but it is expected that such conduct
will not be seen in the future. It was also suggested that Mr. Winner be delegating
authority to those on the staff that can resolve the problems that arise.
PARK BOARD/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Members of the Park Board that were present: Chairman Wes Mand, Glen Rogers, Bill
LeFebvre, Steve Nichols, and Gary Longbe11a.
Councilman Lachinski felt that the City would not get grant monies for parks unless
it has an overall project plan several years in advance of when that can happen. He
suggested the Park Board look into bonding for parks with matching grant monies
available. But his first recommendation would be that the Park Board make some
commitment as to where park facilities are needed in the City, what parks site plans
should be made for, have the specific plans drawn up, prioritize the remaining parks,
have an agressive plan for seeking grant funds for the top priority parks, and then
there may be a possibility that the City would bond for park improvements.
Discussion with Park Board members was on the funding for specific park site plans.
Council felt that monies from park dedication fees could be used for site plans, although
that should be verified with the Attorney. There was also a suggestion that the design
of the site plans should be done with resident input. Another suggestion was that a
determiniation for a priority park would be that it be where people are located.
It was Mr. Roger's opinion that park dedication fees should be spent within the area
of the City they were received from. He also stated that it would take two to three
years to prepare for a bond issue for parks, and that any preparation for a bond issue
should include parks from all areas of the City, not just the urban area. He felt the
only way to get some park development in the City would be to bond for it, as park
dedication fees are not enough money.
Various other Council suggestions for the Park Board's consideration were to develop
a park with versiti1ity to utilize every season; that consideration should be given
for additional playing fields for football, baseball, soccer, etc.; that the total
bonding limit for the City is $2.1 million of which approximately $600,000 has already
been bonded; that an updated site plan of the City Hall site should be considered and
to begin putting in some of the fields; that some time frame be established for the
development of the parks that site plans will be done for; that the Park Board make
Special City Council Meeting
December 4, 1980 - Minutes
Page 3
(Park Board/Capital Improvements Program, Continued)
their recommendations to the Council as to the order of development of the parks in
the City; also recommending providing a list that indicates what each of the parks can
be used for now and the amount of service they require so Public Works can address the
the maintenance of the parks and amount of manhours needed; that the Park Board look
into which parks have been dedicated as parkland and which the City has fee title to
and if any undesirable parkland could be returned to the original property owner; that
some consideration be given to developing one larger park rather than many smaller
parks keeping in mind that the City Hall site is along a major County road whereas
the Lakeridge area is not as accessible; and that many recreational facilities could
be created in the City with the existing park dedication funds if structures were
not built.
In summary, the Park Department should come back to the Council with an itemization of
which parks are priority for development, identify what parks are being used for now,
and estimate the amount of effort required to keep the park in operation at its current
level relative to maintenance. It was also felt that the parks can be both active and
passive parks depending On the parkland itself, that some land can be left for just
natural and environmental purposes. It was also noted that the entire capital improvements
program will need to be submitted around mid-1981 and that the Park Board should
initially look at developing a five- to six-year program. If the Park Board feels
it is important, they should also come to the Council with a recommended bonding
program with cost estimates and time frame of development.
Discussion was also on the practice of assessing parks for improvements. Mr. Rogers
strongly felt that an athletic facility or park where the City as a whole uses the
facility should come out of the bond issue for assessment or from general revenues.
But where a park is being developed for neighborhood use only, the assessments should
be picked up by the neighborhood when improvements are put in. Councilman Lachinski
agreed that assessments are becoming a burden to the City, and noted that these
assessments also deduct from the City's total bonded indebtedness capability. Council
asked Mr. Winner to make a study of neighboring cities as to their policy for assessing
improvements past a neighborhood park.
Mr. Nichols asked if something couldn't be put in construction contracts where fill
is put in City parks to have the contractor clean up the mess and level the park out.
He stated that the Northwoods park still has chunks of concrete and blacktop in the
piles. Mr. Winner stated that the City leveled out what has already been done in
Northwoods, but it will also be the City's responsibility to bury the remaining debris
since the contractor was allowed to remove his equipment because of what the City wanted
to do with the material. Mr. Winner stated he would check with TKDA to see if the
contractor can be required to come back to clean it up. Mayor Windschit1 also asked
that TKDA write a letter as to why the park was left in the present condition with
debris in the fill.
Recess at 9:25; reconvene at 9:37 p.m.
CITY ENGINEER POSITION, CONTINUED
Mr. Almgren related an incident relative to asking Mr. Winner to establish a format
for permit applications for water meters in the City, which has not yet been done. During
discussion on the problems and procedures for installation of City water, 1t was
generally agreed that the City should be furnishing all water meters for uniformity
and for control. Mr. Kogers explained the process of purchasing meters through the
Inspection Department in the City of Coon Rapids. Council felt that the money needed
initially to purchase some water meters to have on hand can come out of the general
Special City Council Meeting
December 4, 1980 - Minutes
Page 4
(City Engineer Position, Continued)
funds. The water meters would then be purchased by the user. Mr. Winner indicated
that water meters can be purchased in time for Boeh1and and others who will want them.
He also stated he will obtain ordinances from other cities on their procedures for
installation of city water, charges, etc., and make a draft ordinance for the Council.
Council also felt that the responsibility for the water lines from the main to the house
should lie with the property owner, just as it is with the sanitary sewer lines. ~.
Sowada stated that someone in the Public Works Department must go to school for running
the pumphouse, water treatment facilities, etc. Mr. Rogers stated that there is
generally water and sewer schools in March or April of every year. Mr. Winner will
research the times, lengths of schools, what schooling is necessary, etc.
Councilman Lachinski suggested that Mr. winner make a list of all the things he
needs to do and a time frmae of when they can be done for the Council's review.
Mr. Almgren also stated that the residents in his area asked Mr. Winner for an estimated
cost for street improvements, and Mr. Winner's recommendation was quite high. He
was asked to see if a better cost couldn't be arrived at two or three months ago, but
that has not been done to date. Mr. Winner stated a lower cost would mean the City
Engineer doing as much of the engineering work as possible; but from the feeling he
is getting now to be spending more time in Public Works, that might not be possible.
Discussion was that since the Council prefers the policy of holding public hearings in
the winter so projects can be bid for spring work, answers should be given to the
residents as soon as possible. It was agreed that this item be added to the list of
things Mr. Winner needs to do.
I
Council reviewed the job descriptions of the various positions, including that of the
Senior Public Works Person, which states "The Senior Public Works Person shall supervise
and perform duties in the field of public works. This may include jobs involving 1)
scheduling and coordination, 2) first-line supervision over a crew, 3) inspections,
4) record keeping, 5) simple maintenance, and 6) equipment operation." Council again
expressed the opinion that the general plan of operation, philosophy of operation,
should be the responsibility of Mr. Winner, and the day to day operation and scheduling
should be settled in-house within the Department itself by the Senior Public Works
Person. It was also agreed with the recommendation that Mr. Winner and Mr. Sowada,
and possiblY other staff members, meet weekly to discuss problems, etc.; that there
should be open communication between all staff members and Mr. Winner -- staff generally
performing as stated in the job descriptions.
Discussion continued on the responsibility of the Senior Public Works Person in that
if he knows of a problem and informs the City Engineer about it, possibly putting it
in writing, that ends his responsibility and puts it On the Engineer. Hopefully,
disputes can be settled in-house. Items that were normally given to TKDA, should now
go to the City Engineer and be his responsibility. It was again felt that better
communication will solve most of the problems.
Discussion continued on the items of the December 4 memo from Mr. Winner. Mayor
Windschit1 stated that in the future he will attempt to keep all items off the agenda
that material has not been provided to the Council on the Friday before a meeting;
and the Clerk should not put anything on the agenda that the Council does not have
material for unless it is of an emergency nature. Ms. Lindquist informed Mr. Winner
that she must have agenda items by Monday of the week before the regular meeting in
order to get it to the paper for publication that week. Mr. Winner also stated he
has talked to TKDA on the matter, and TKDA has agreed to send all material to him by
Wednesday of the week before the regular meeting.
Special City Council Meeting
December 4, 1980 - Minutes
Page 5
(City Engineer Position, Continued)
Item No.4, Equipment Purchase: It was agreed this should be added to the list of
things Mr. Winner needs to do, but feeling that the equipment should be purchased as
quickly as possible.
Item No.6, Completion of Work: Ms. Lindquist stated that the P & Z is extremely
frustrated because they are handed Mr. Winner's review on plats the night of their
meeting. Council suggested that Ms. Vo1k, the P & Z Secretary, maintain a log of when
plats come to the City, when the P & Z must hold the hearing, and when the material must
be sent to the Commissioners, with copies sent to the Council. It was generally felt
that receiving agenda material late is a valid complaint, and that priorities will
need to be re-estab1ished to prevent that from happening.
Discussion was on the breakdown of how Mr. Winner allocated his time since being hired
in June. Mayor Windschit1 expressed the opinion that the City will be billed the
same amount of money for improvement projects whether the City Engineer is on the job
or not. He questioned the City having 19 to 43 percent of the City Engineer's time on
projects when it is paying a consulting engineer to do the same thing. Mr. Winner
disagreed, feeling that the engineering costs have been reduced substantially. If
he wasn't doing this, TKDA people would be doing it and charging their time times the
multiplier. Councilmen Lachinski and Ortte1 felt that it is important to have the
City Engineer on projects as a 1iason between the public and the consultant and
the Council. Complaints on construction projects come to City Hall and are handled
by the City Engineer; however, it would be preferable to see some reduction in TKDA's
costs because they would handle that otherwise. Mr. Winner was hired to represent the
City on projects; he is doing that; and if fees are not being recovered as a result,
it has to be taken up with the consulting engineer. Councilman Lachinski suggested
that the percentage of the City Engineer's salary be built into the project and assessed.
Discussion was on engineering costs of the various projects in the City this year, and
the Council felt they needed to study the figures for the 1980-1 and 1980-2 projects
which were presented by TKDA. Council also asked that TKDA break down the figures for
the 1980-1 project explaining the increase in engineering costs for the project.
Discussion returned to the Engineer's breakdown of his time, noting that General
Engineering is not a recoverable cost. Mr. Rogers explained that Coon Rapids hires two
consulting engineers on staff, one on-site and one off-site; and if there are complaints
on the project, the consulting engineer on-site handles it. Council again stated that
it is intended to recover some of the engineering costs on projects, and suggested
Mr. Winner discuss this with TKDA as to the best way of recovering those costs and to
recommend a policy to the Council.
On the matter of priorities, Councilman Lachinski felt that if the Council sees the
list from Mr. Winner of work to be done, it will provide an opportunity to change
priorities if it is so desired.
PERSONNEL MATTER/J. EVELAND
Ms. Lindquist reviewed some of the requests she has made in recent weeks of Ms. Eveland
relative to reports, the general fund balance, etc., and described Ms. Eveland's
reaction to these requests. She also related some of the events that lead up to Ms.
Eveland walking out of the office today. Council discussion was on how to best resolve
the issue.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to refer the Janet Eveland responsibilities
problem to the Personnel Committee. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Ortte1
stated he would call a Personnel Committee meeting for Monday evening, asking that
Ms. Eveland and Ms. Lindquist be in attendance to try to resolve the problems.
Special City Council Meeting
December 4, 1980 - Minutes
Page 6
It was also agreed that the Personnel Committee should discuss the question of merit
raises for City employees at their meeting Monday evening.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
\~~~L
Mar 11a A. Peach
Recording Secretary