Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC July 28, 1981 , . - 01 ANDOVER ~ CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 28, 1981 MINUTES The Continued Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Win9schit1 on July 28, 1981, 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 Clerk, P. K. Lindquist. City Engineer, Larry Winner and Building Official, Dave Almgren, were also present during the discussion on Mr. Winner's Probation CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE REPORT Councilman Lachinski reported on the progress of the Capital Improvements Committee to date and the information that is still needed. The costs need to be determined for both sanitary sewer and water over the next six-year period, with those figures and suggested financing to be placed in the Plan. Discussion was that those figures should have been calculated in the past and simply need to be updated for the Plan. It was agreed to allow the CIP Committee to utilize the services of TKDA as needed in order to complete the financing portion of the Plan. The Clerk also noted that King Forness of Springsted can meet with the Council on the sewer trunk charges issue which should be determined prior to the assessment hearings in the Southwest Area project. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we hold a special City Council meeting for the purpose of determining policy for sewer trunk assessments on August 11. Motion carried unanimously. It was also agreed that Mr. Forness be at this meeting to discuss trunk charges and that TKDA also be present to discuss the per-acre charge for municipal water. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that the Capital Improvements Committee be authorized an expenditure of up to $1,000 to have TKDA assess cost estimates for development and potential development areas of sewer and water. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Lachinski stated that the Committee needs information from the Road Improvement Committee, especially in the area of the MSAH Program. Discussion was on what needs to be done before decisions can be made on the MSA system, that possibly soundings could be taken in the peat area of potential MSA routes if the equipment can be borrowed from the County, and questioning whether Mr. Winner would be able to gather the necessary information in a timely fashion because of the other projects in the City at this time. It was suggested that a consulting engineer be directed to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed MSA system. Councilman Lachinski was anxious to get something in the 165th area, to determine the feasibility of a road in that area. Discussion also noted that easement for the Hanson Boulevard extension is not yet acquired between Andover Boulevard and the City Hall area. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that Bonestroo, Rosene, and ·Ander1ik be authorized to prepare a cost estimate for a feasibility study of the planned MSA roads in the City. Motion carried unanimously. The intent is that Bonestroo will meet with the Road Improvement Committee to go over ideas and possibilities, after which they will prepare a cost estimate to do a feasibility study of those MSAH roads. Councilman Lachinski noted that the CIP Committee has asked the Road Improvement Committee to determine a policy for street lighting and sidewalk placement. It was noted that the ordinance addresses the sidewalk policy. The Road Committe will look at those items. It was also noted that the Council needs to establish an assessment policy on MSAH roads. , --~--. , ~. . Continued City Council Meeting July 28, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 2, July 16, June 30, and July 7, 1981: Correct as written. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the City Council Minutes of June 2, June 16, and June 30. Motion carried unanimously. . MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve the Minutes of July 7 as written. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach; PRESENT-Windschit1 Motion carried. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we approve Claims 4136 and 4160 through 4201 and Check 4203 in the total amount of $93,507.43. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Claims Number 488 and 490 through 496 in a total amount of $166,911.66. Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 8:32; reconvene at 8:44 p.m. LARRY WINNER'S PROBATIONARY STATUS (Reference the July 24, 1981, memo from Mr. Winner on overtime hours worked, and the July 24, 1981, memo from the Acting Administrator on the Aggregate Gradation Tests for the 1981-1 project.) There was some question as to the procedure followed by the Engineer relative to the gradation test on the White Oaks Country Estates Project. Mr. Winner stated he called Twin City Testing, who reported that the gradation tests were taken and had passed. He did not receive a written report of the tests. Mr. Winner stated he witnessed the taking of the samples from the trucks, but the contractor took the samples to Twin City Testing as per the specifications. Council noted that in the past samples have been taken to the lab by the inspector, that there have been test problems with H & S on their gravel in the past, and that Mr. Winner was aware of such problems. Mayor Windschit1 felt that the samples should have been taken to the lab by a City representative, and that the tests mean nothing if taken to the lab by the contractor. Mr. Winner explained that the road was not b1uetopp~d for gravel, but he inspected the work as it was done, telling the contractor how much to put down. He stated the gravel and blacktopping are done. There are a few areas of blacktop he has marked for the contractor to remove and replace, and they are supposed to come this week to do the driveways, to regrade the gravel shoulders, and to complete the restoration work. Mr. Winner also explained that on plats done in the City, he would take Twin City Testing to the site to take the gradation and density samples. Discussion was on what course of action, if any, should be taken relative to the gradation tests, suggesting core samples be taken to retest the Class 5, although that could become costly, or suggesting that lf Twin City Testing still has the sample in their lab that they run the gradation on that material. No action was taken by the Council on the matter. It was noted .hat the matter before the Council is Mr. Winner's probation, with Council action conceivably being to retain Mr. Winner as a permanent employee, to continue the probationary period, or to release him from his position with the City. A majority agreed that in all fairness to Mr. Winner, a decision should be made as to whether or not he will be kept on as a permanent employee. , Continued City Council Mee.lng July 28, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 (Larry Winner's Probationary Status, Continued) Discussion was then on Mr. Winner's memo noting the many hours of overtime put in during the last few months. In answer to Councilman Jacobson's questions, Mr. Winner explained it was necessary to put in so much overtime because he was working on the plans for the projects. He would spend the days doing the field work, leaving the night as the only time to work on the plans. Councilmen Jacobson and Peach noted that it amounts to approximately 426 hours in one month working on Smith's Rolling Oaks project, or 12 hours a day for every single day during that time period. Mr. Winner stated that the drafting took more time than he had estimated, his estimate being off because he hasn't had that much experience in drafting. Council discussion was then on the engineering costs for Smith's Rolling Oaks. The Clerk stated that slightly over 300 hours is being charged to the project at two times Mr. Winner's salary, of which 50 or 60 hours was for field work and the balance on the plans. Councilman Ortte1 felt that that factor should not be used for drafting, feeling it would be more economical to contract that out to a draftsman. Councilman Peach stated that Mr. Winner was hired because he had a great deal of drafting experience, questioning that experience if it took that long to complete the plans for this project. Councilman Jacobson stated his point is that to have to put in that amount of hours in one month, even though Mr. Winner completed the plans, seems to be a gross over-estimation that it could be done within a reasonable time period. Councilman Lachinski noted that other things were also done during that time period, noting that other agenda material was also done on time. Councilman Peach questioned anyone working that many hours and still being able to function adequately and with accuracy under those conditions. He also stated that from the time Mr. Winner was hired to the time his salary was reduced and responsibilities lessened, he had worked 14 hours of overtime; and there were many items that never got completed on time, which he felt indicates that Mr. Winner does as little as he can until he wants to impress somebody. Councioman Lachinski felt it indicated that Mr. Winner was proving to the Council that he was worth what he was making, stating there were no major projects until the last three months. Mr. Winner stated the other items were not high priority items to get them done. Councilman Orttel noted that Mr. Winner was doing the work in the same time frame comparable to what TKDA would do on a project using several other persons. He also felt that it doesn't make sense to pay an engineer to do drafting work when it could be done by outside help. Councilman Lachinski stated from what we. l~arned on this project, we could probably save even more on the next project by hlrlngout field work and drafting, with the engineer doing the design work and specifications. There was a short discussion on the engineering costs for the 1980-2 project, how they are calculated, noting a consulting engineering firm's curve for a project of this size would be approximately 10.25 percent. Councilman Ortte1 felt that the figures indicate that the amount of time Mr. Winner spent on the project were comparable to that spent by consulting firms on previous projects of a simi1iar size. Discussion continued on Mr. Winner's performance. Councilman Peach listed those areas where he felt Mr. Winner's performance was unacceptable -- his experience appears to be substantially less than what was told at the interview; that time estimates on some jobs have been over 200 percent wrong; that his dependability is unacceptable with three-fourths of the agenda items having to be tabled because they are not completed on time; numerous Council recommendations or suggestions ignored, forgotten, or not acted upon; that his ability to direct and supervise is unacceptable with complaints from virtually all staff members; that he had to be removed from Director of Public Works; that his inaccuracies in cost estimates are unacceptable; that his ability to set priorities is not acceptable with the Council holding several meetings in an attempt to improve this in the past; that time schedules are ignored and his punctuality has been a problem in the past; and that time is scheduled poorly with work often placed , Continued City Council Meeting July 28, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Larry Winner's Probationary Status, Contin~ed1 - on his secretary's desk late Fridays to bel é'R@doSEdwith Friday's agenda material to the Counci 1. Plus, he questioned how anyone can work that much overtime and still work efficiently and with accuracy. Councilman Peach felt that the City does need an engineer but that Mr. Winner's performance is not the standard he would prefer to see in the City. He felt a vote of confidence in the remainder of the staff is needed, as virtually all of the staff has expressed difficulty in working with or for Mr. Winner. Councilman Ortte1 argued some of the statements made by Councilman Peach, that cost estimates are never tied down by engineers until the bids are in and that Mr. Winner was relieved of the responsibilities of Public Works several months ago. Councilman Lachinski asked if Councilman Peach felt Mr. Winner's performance has improved since the last meeting. Councilman Peach stated he thought so, but he had no confidence that once Mr. Winner was made a permanent employee that he wouldn't revert back to his previous performance once the threat of dismissal is eliminated. He didn't feel Mr. Winner would do a credible job as a permanent employee. And he stated the City's history indicates that it is very unlikely Mr. Winner would be dismissed once he is made a permanent employee. Councilman Lachinski felt that many of the things brought out by Councilman Peach were petty, feeling there appears to be a substantial effort on Mr. Winner's part, and feeling Mr. Winner made a commitment to get the project done and did it. He also noted that engineering is very unscientific, with work not getting done on time quite often. The debate continued with differing interpretations of Mr. Winner's performance in specific instances. Mr. Winner stated he also felt that engineering was not very scientific, that drafting can be unpredictable depending on the quality of paper used. The paper used for the last project did not take ink well, which resulted in more time required to complete the plans. He stated he took on the project because he felt it was expected of him by the Counci 1. He also explained how he arrives at estimated costs, noting that he used the recent bid prices from the White Oaks project to arrive at an engineer's estimate for the Smith's Rolling Oaks project. In response to Councilman Jacobson's question of working under the conditions and criticisms noted this evening, Mr. Winner felt he would do the job and would continue to do what he felt needs to be done the way he feels it should be done. Though it is not a comfortable situation, he felt he wouldn't be bothered by it. There was then some Council discussion as to the reference checks done following Mr. Winner's employment in Andover, with differing' opinions as to the propriety of checking references after the fact and what those references really mean. Mr. Winner asked that the references from Port Orang~ F10rid~not be given much credibility, noting the FBI investigation into alleged illegalities on the part of some council and staff members in that city. Councilman Lachinski stated if Mr. Winner is removed from the position and if he were asked for a reference for Mr. Winner, knowing the the work being done by him, he would say that the Council is giving Mr. Winner a bad shake. He generally felt that there is simply too much engineering to do in the City, which goes a long way toward answering why things can't get done on time. He felt that evaluations are on-going and salaries can be cut any time. He didn't feel making Mr. Winner a permanent employee locks the City into keeping him under all conditions. Mayor Windschit1 stated he had no difficulty with Mr. Winner himself, but he is trying to look at what is best for the City of Andover. Is the City's money being spent wi se 1y? One of the key items of considering taking a person off probation is what do you estimate his ability is to conform to policy or to be productive in the future.. His opinion was that the greatest problem created was Mr. Winner's lack of adherence to the established pOlicies that are followed by the remainder of the staff. The Mayor asked Mr. Winner if he felt he has the ability to conform to Andover policies I " Continued City Council Meeting July 28, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 (Larry Winner's Probationary Status, Continued) and procedures and what is his feeling about working with the rest of the staff. Mr. Winner stated the only policy he was aware of that there were problems with was starting on time in the mornings, and during the last four months he estimated he has been late only after he worked late the night before. Mr. Winner also stated he felt he had the ability to work with the rest of the staff, that both sides must cooperate. Also, in answer to the Mayor's question on career goals, Mr. Winner stated this is the type of job that he likes to do, that he has had the most experience in, that he is the most comfortable with, and that he expects to continue doing this type of work in the future. Ms. Lindquist stated tbe màint~rob1ems she has encountered is the lack of dependability or credibility, citinglnCl en of ask,ing for information or times when tasks will be comp1eteQ, etc., but the information is not received or tasks not done when Mr. Winner states they will be done. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, that Mr. Winner's probationary period be terminated and that he not be offered a position as permanent City Engineer. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated the intent is that Mr. Winner not be allowed back into his office effective immediately for apparent reasons; however, he would have no trouble with offering some kind of severence pay. After further discussion, Councilman Peach agreed to ADD TO MOTION: effective as the 31st day of August, 1981. Second still stands. DISCUSSION: Councilman Lachinski suggested that this could do a lot of damage to Mr. Winner's reputation and future, that he has done a credible job for the City, suggesting that Mr. Winner be allowed to tender his resignation. After discussion, the following motions were made: MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Jacobson, to table the motion pending a motion by Mr. Lachinski. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski that we terminate Mr. Winner's position in the City of Andover as of August 31, 1981, pending acceptance of his resignation. Councilman Lachinski withdrew the Motion. MOTION by Jacobson that we terminate the temporary status of Mr. Larry Winner as City Englneer as of August 31, 1981, and that if a resignation from his present position is not tendered by Mr. Winner prior to August 31, 1981, the Council will on that date take final action. The Motion was not Seconded. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we terminate Mr. Winner's position in the City of Andover as of August 31, 1981, pending acceptance of his resignation. DISCUSSION: The intent is not to abolish the position of City Engineer, but to allow Mr. Winner slightly over a month to get things in order, to tender his resignation, and to look for other employment if he chooses to do so. Thi sallows Mr. Winner to resign, which may be more favorable for him in terms of future employment. VOTE ON MOT! ON; YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Ortte1 Motion carried. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. , Respectfully submitted, ..L 'r\~~. Marce A. Peach Recording Secretary 1·