Loading...
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