HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP April 23, 1981
~ 01 ANDOVER
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 23, 1981
MINUTES
A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry
Windschit1 on April 23, 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 Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist,
and others
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve the Agenda as presented with
the addition of 2a, John Shuster/Mobile Home Permit. Motion carried unanimously.
JOHN SHUSTER/MOBILE HOME PERMIT
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that a temporary Mobile Home Permit that will
a 11 ow two mobi 1e homes to house the f ami 1y of John Shuster at 3932 172nd Lane NW, that
we approve a permit for that individual at that address to include two mobile homes for
a period of 90 days subject to their being hooked up to adequate water and sewer
supplies. Motion carried unanimously.
CHANGE ORDER/AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 82
MOTION by Jacboson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we change the Agenda to include 2b,
Change Order/Auditor's Subdivision 82. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion noted that since the streets have been cut for the improvement project,
the water from the yards in question drains to the street and there is no standing
or flooding water in any of the yards. Mr. Schumacher, TKDA Engineer, explained that
the Change Order approved on April 21 for $5,500 worth of storm sewer pipe in Auditor's
Sub. 82 is no longer necessary. It is the feeling of those in the field, however, that
if a very small amount of grading was done to widen the ditch and tip the swale, it
would positively drain toward Woodbine. Mayor Windschitl stated the property owner
has stated he would be willing to let the contractor do the necessary grading. The
area is very flat with presently only a slight tip toward the back.
John Barry - stated the only reason for standing water before was because the property
was lower than the road level at the time. In looking at it last night with the Mayor
and others, there is a slight difference of grade going to the culvert from about 10
feet out from the culvert. There was no water standing anywhere last night except in
the road area, and it has been raining for three days now. He didn't feel it would take
much to correct the grade. He also didn't feel there would be a problem once the curbing
is put in, especially if the culvert remains plugged. Mayor Windschit1 felt that
the plugged culvert should stay plugged so the water can go down Xenia. Then all
that would have to be carried with the swa1e is the two back yards and a slope to
the third house.
Rosella Sonsteby - read several quotes from past Minutes of TKOA Engineer Dewey
Kasma relative to the initial installation of the storm sewer system, noting that the
ditches could be filled when the road improvement is done and the water would run to
the street. She also stated that "we" plugged up the culvert because they had sewer
water running through it.
-~ - .-~.-
Special City Council Meeting
April 23, 1981 - Minutes
Page 2
(Change Order/Auditor's Sub. 82, Continued)
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we rescind action taken by the City
Councl1 at its normal meeting on April 21, 1981, pertaining to the installation of
culverts to drain water in Auditor's Sub. 82, and currently authorize the Engineer to
expend the money necessary to adequately grade said portion of property to make sure
that the water drains to the proper direction and put in sod, maximum of $500. Motion
carried unanimously.
Steve Wood, 3723 145th - questioned the logic of establishing a precedent of grading
two private individuals' properties when the affect is only on those individual
properties. The drainage on those two lots does not affect drainage on any of the
surrounding lots in the Subdivision. He asked the justification of this expense, or
the $5,500 that was previously authorized but now rescinded, if the problem only
involves an individual lot. Why isn't it the indiviua1's expense?
0s. Sonsteby - again quoted Mr. Kasma from past Minutes that any more work done would
not be assessed to the taxpayers. She asked who is going to pay for this.
Other residents in the audience stated that it has been raining for three days and
there is no standing water at all, feeling the grading is not needed because of the
construction in the area. Council discussion was that the grading is simply to
correct one high spot in the swa1e and is not a significant amount; that it is not
reasonable to expect one individual to pay for the correction; it is an existing
drainage area; that the swa1e carries water from four or five lots; and the decision
has yet to be made as to whether this drainage correction will be included in the
- area's assessment of the project.
Discussion with the residents in the audience was also that the City has had the
existing storm sewer system cleaned, and it is the contractor's rnsJfnsib11ity to keep
them clean until the project is completed. The residents also vo u eere heir help if
some minor work needs to be done to save money. Council suggested the Engineers
establish a time and place to meet with the residents if they are willing to do some
of the work; if the residents don't do it, then the City will.
Doug Nelson, 14388 Woodbine - felt the reason for the confusion before was because of
the snow and raln early ln the month before the road was graded.
Ken Ebert, 14309 Woodbine - (resident in audience participating in the discussion)
Bill Goudy, 14319 Woodbine - asked if the City is going to pay for this, what happens
If the person behind him who has a water problem wants his solved too. Mayor
Windschit1 explained under normal conditions the City will not go on private property.
This particular swale was part of the old storm sewer system, and the intent is to
make sure that system continues to function. Discussion with members of the audience
was also on statements as to how the old system was designed to function, with Ms.
Sonsteby stating they put in the culverts to help the two property owners. Mayor
Windschit1 then asked that Attorney Hawkins research as to whether there would be a
problem making the improvement on private property prior to making this expenditure.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve that part of Change Order
No. 5 for the Southwest Area Improvement Project which applied to Quickstrom Addition
in an amount not to exceed $3,000. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Wood - expressed concern that the residents in Auditor's Sub. 82 were not informed
that there was to be additional charges on the assessment for the project. They had
not petitioned for storm sewer work and felt the Council's action the previous meeting
to expend an additional $5,500 for storm sewer was disconcerting. Council discussion
was that the motion contained nothing relative to assessing the cost against the project.
The assessments are considered only at an assessment hearing when everyone is notified
Special City Council Meeting
April 23, 1981 - Minutes
Page 3
(Change Order/Auditor's Sub. 82, Continued)
of all charges. Also, the Engineers were directed to research the alternatives to
the problem. Council then explained that during the construction phase of any
project, there are always unanticipated changes that are dealt with by change orders
such as what was acted on at the previous meeting. The price estimated for the
residents at the public hearing included a 10 percent overage for these types of
things. It was also noted that before an assessment could have been proposed in
Auditor's Sub. 82 for storm sewer, there is a question if additional assessment can
be charged against it since there was a storm sewer assessment in the past.
DISCUSSION WITH GOOD VALUE HOMES/NORTHGLEN II
Frank Voth and John Peterson were present from Good Value Homes, along with John
Uban from the Planning Consultants of Howard Dahlgren Associates.
Mr. Voth asked the Council's reaction to their development ideas for the 80 acres
west of Round Lake Boulevard. Because they are concerned with the unusual character-
istics of that land and providing marketable, affordable housing, they hired the firm
of Howard Dahlgren Associates. Mr. Voth then presented a brief slide presentation
of a simi1iar-type development, noting their proposal is for a series of 8-unit
buildings, two halves of a four-p1ex with four garages oneither side, lending them-
selves with a variety of architecture, traffic flow from the front and living in the
back, intending to retain as much of the natural feastures of the land as possible.
He estimated the price of each unit to be from the mid-$40,000 to mid-$50,000, for
1100 to 1300 square feet and two to three bedrooms per unit. It is intended that each
unit will be privately owned, administered through a homeowner's association.
Mr. Uban reviewed an aerial photo of the site, noting they have attempted to work
with the natural features of the land, that the wetland area is a Type II wetland,
drained to the north to Round Lake by two ditches, and reviewed the slopes, tree
line, etc. He also reviewed a photograph of a typical 8-p1ex and the project sketch
plan. The sketch plan proposes over 300 units, placing them in clusters, attempting
to work with the land forms, all with front driveways. They are proposing to do some
enhancing of the wetland by pulling out some of the material and lifting the
elevation surrounding the pond to use the area effectively for recreational purposes.
Ms. Sonsteby - stated the water does not run into Round Lake. She had those ditches
dug and the water flows to her private property.
Council discussion with Mr. Voth and Mr. Uban covered several areas of concern:
1. Park Dedication: Council stated it has not been accepting parkland that is below
the flood plain elevation, and that area proposed in the sketch plan is below the 100-
year flood plain. Mr. Uban stated they are proposing to raise that level by dredging
and felt enough of the parkland could be raised above the flood plain.. The specifies
have not yet been studied. Other Council discussion was that consideration be given
to waiving the cash dedication if the developer provides a private park or a per-
centage be compromised. Mr. Voth felt it should be either all public or all private,
feeling it would be better to have a public park. Council again stressed that
land below the 100-year flood plain will not be accepted as parkland.
2. Pond: The pond would be used as part of their drainage runoff, but Mr. Uban didn't
feel there would be any stagnation problem creating an undesirable situation. Mr.
Uban stated they could place devices in the piping to siphon off certan sediments.
The main pollutants ,are fertilizers, and sedimentation ponds can be placed in the
outlets to control this. Mr. Schumacher stated it would be a permanent water area;
and as long as it is maintained along the bank, it should not become stagnant or un-
desirable. Mr. Uban stated it would also have an emergency overflow outlet, but the
specifics have not yet been determined. He also stated the pond would increase the
Special City Council Meeting
April 23, 1981 - Minutes
Page 4
(Discussion with Good Value Homes/Northg1en II, Continued)
diversity of habitat and wildlife in the area. Mr. Voth stated that it is their
desire that the project be insurable through FHA and VA, which is very concerned about
drainage. They would like to be able to get an agreement with Ms. Sonsteby to obtain
an emergency overflow out to Round Lake; and they would like the City to accept the
park and pond areas. Mr. Uban stated the pond is basically designed for this develop-
ment, but the engineering considerations have not yet been dealt with.
Ms. Sonsteby - was in favor of developing a pond as proposed.
Mr. Wood - asked to see the elevation map of the area. He asked if it would be
necessary to substantially elevate any of the areas where building units are proposed,
which would in turn affect drainage in a neighboring area. Mr. Uban stated the land
would drain back to the pond; the buildings are proposed to be on top of the ridge;
and all streets will drain into the storm sewer system and into the ponding area.
3. Traffic Flow: Mr. Uban stated that it is anticipated most of the traffic will
flow to the east out to Round Lake Boulevard, which has the capacity to handle it.
Of the 300 units, it is anticipated each unit will generate 5.1 trips per day,
equalling approximately 1500 trips. All the streets are well within that capacity.
Ms. Sonsteby noted that Anoka County has plans for 141st to run to Round Lake Boulevard
whlch would affect this property. Council discussion noted that was a proposal for
a previous Rum River Bridge crossing location, and it is now questionable whether
the bridge is going to be built there and uncertain as to where the tie-in roads will
be located.
4. The 8-P1ex Units: Mr. Voth stated that they would be willing to specify an
agreement as to the outside appearance of the building; however, they are anxious as
to what is asthetica11y pleasing, noting that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
4. Garages: It was asked where cars are parked if a family has more than one
vehicle. Mr. Uban stated it is much like a single-family house and there is room
to park in front of the garage, plus there will be parking pads for three or four
cars off each building to allow for extra cars, guests, etc. They have generally
found that the purchaser of these units generally do not own many large vehicles,
boats, trailer homes, etc., that would need to be parked. But such items would be
covered in the homeowner's agreement and are discouraged from having them parked in
the street.
6. Street Standards: It was noted the street standard is 32 feet with concrete curb
and gutter. Mr. Schumacher asked that the intersection to Round Lake Boulevard
be considered in excess of 32 feet to allow for turn lanes since it is going to be
the primary ingress and egress. Mr. Voth also noted that the buildings are
clustered to provide a lot more open space among the buildings, so there is room to
provide adequate services for the area.
7. Construction Phasing: Mr. Voth stated their thought would be to construct the
lmmediate eastern por~ion of the area as the first stage. Council discussion was
on the procedure that would be required, questioning if a preliminary would have to
be on the entire area, noting it would be easiest to put in all utilities at one time
rather than to piecemeal them, and that it would be difficult to evaluate the storm
water runoff, parkland, etc., if filed in stages. Council also reviewed portions of
the ordinances relative to staged development and what has been done in the past.
Mr. Voth asked if there was some way to come in with a plat and have the utilities
and streets phased in, as the costs are prohibitive to complete the entire plat at
once. Councilman Ortte1 suggested putting it under a PUD-type zoning, which utilizes
a special use permit tying the entire development to a specific program, rather than
staging a preliminary plat. Ur. Uban stated that each building would be a platted
Special City Council Meeting
April 23, 1981 - Minutes
Page 5
(Discussion with Good Value Homes/Northg1en II, Continued)
area, with the association responsible for the maintenance of all the land. Mr.
Voth stated they try to develop only enough land for one year's inventory at a time,
estimating this project will be completed in two to three years.
8. Buffer: Council addressed the type of buffering when the development abuts up
agalnst slng1e-family residential homes. Mr. Voth stated they are planning to buffer
the areas with the natural amenities, leaving the open space width of a single-
family lot as the additional setback for the units. Council noted that if the City
of Anoka objects to that buffering, they will have an opportunity to express their
opinion when they review the plat. Ms. Sonsteby stated the City of Anoka has a park
abutting this property to the west. Mr. Uban stated there will be landscaping with
this, and they have found that people enjoy distances as a buffer more than fences,
etc. Also, there are many trees that will act as a natural buffering.
9. Water: Because of the limited water capacity until a second well is constructed,
lt would be necessary to know the phasing to resolve the water consideration. The
City must service on a first-come, first-serve basis.
10. Sanitary Sewer: Mr. Schumacher stated that Good Value has added dirt to the
back of the area. Mr. Voth stated their engineers feel that the entire area can be
serviced by gravity. Mayor Windschit1 also stated he will be working with Metro
Council relative to the dispute of the City's pre-1990 development in the City's
urban service area.
Recess at 9:08; reconvene at 9:22 p.m.
DISCUSSION/PERFORMANCE/LARRY WINNER
Also present: Public Works Employees, Ray Sowada, Frank Stone, and Kevin Starr;
and Building Inspector, Dave Almgren
A lengthy discussion of approximately 2~ hours was on the problems of Mr. Winner's
performance as seen by various staff members and Councilmen, and suggestions for
possible solutions.
Ms. Lindquist began by stating most of her comments have been made in writing to the
Council; with the biggest problem being in getting work done, directions not being
followed, and no explanations or reasons why. She asked that the Council provide her
some direction as to whether or not Mr. Winner is to be treated as the other employees
relative to getting his work done, meeting deadlines, etc. Mr. Winner stated he has
a list of approximately 80 items to be done, of which he has completed approximately
20 items, stating he is trying to do the most important ones first.
Discussion was on secretarial help for Mr. Winner. Mr. Winner stated he writes all
correspondence, reports, etc., by hand and Ms. Vo1k then types it for him. He felt
a lot of it could be done by secretarial help to save his time, but he also stated
that he has never asked Ms. Vo1k to take dictation or to compose letters, etc., for
him. Councilman Ortte1 felt that Mr. Winner has been doing a lot of clerical-type
work, which could be done by the office help. Councilman Peach explained that he
has asked the staff to write the memos received lately because every time he talks
to a staff member, probably several times a week, he receives a complaint about the
City Engineer. So he has asked the staff to write the memos for the entire Council's
information.
During the course of discussion, Councilman Ortte1 expressed the opinion that Mr.
Winner was hired for basically engineering functions, but almost as a matter of
convenience, Public Works was included, even knowing that Mr. Winner had little
knowledge of public works. He also anticipated personnel problems with Mr, Winner
Special City Council Meeting
April 23, 1981 - Minutes
Page 6
(Discussion/Performance/Larry Winner, Continued)
suddenly becoming Director of a previously unsupervised Department. Councilman
Ortte1 felt that some of the shortfall on completion times by the Engineer had to do
with the Council changing its priorities quite often and that it would take Mr.
Winner some time to adjust to the Council's actions and intentions and to learn
about the City. He also felt the problem is 10 to 20 percent in the promptness of
his engineering work and the other 80 percent is personnel problems, believing that
Mr. Winner has had no support from the staff or from the Council. And that type of
problem should be solved in-house, not on the Council level.
Councilman Lachinski generally felt that one of Mr. Winner's problem is that he should
be more assertive in his role to gain the necessary respect. Mr. Winner agreed with
Councilman Lachinski that he didn't feel he had the support when first hired, but
didn't want to be too hard on his subordinates then; but he now thinks there should
definitely be something done in that area.
Discussion was on the memos written recently. Mr. Winner stated he does not know
anything about the item until he receives the memo. Councilman Peach felt something
was amiss, stating he often knows about the problem before a memo is written, that the
staff does inform Mr. Winner of the problem, he doesn't respond, they bring it up
again, he still doesn't respond, and they then come to Councilman Peach asking why
they can't get a response. Councilman Lachinski felt that the items are minor ones,
being very picky. Ms. Lindquist stated it is the point that is being made, that when
Mr. Winner was first hired the staff was looking forward to having him in house,
that the staff did try to help in the beginning, and that there were no resentments
on the part of the staff. But Mr. Winner has never responded to those offers, and
the situation has become very frustrating for the staff.
When discussing the amount of work assigned to Mr. Winner, Mayor Windschit1 stated
he has repeatedly asked Mr. Winner if he has enough time to do the work, a project,
etc., and Mr. Winner has always answered affirmatively. The Mayor then asked Mr.
Winner if he had even begun the plans and specifications for White Oaks Country
Estates which is due next Tuesday; Mr. Winner answered no. Councilmen Lachinski and
Ortte1 both felt that those specifications would be relatively easy and defended Mr.
Winner's action to hire an outside firm to do the surveying, feeling it could be done
for less money by an outside firm than by having the Engineer doing the surveying
himself. Councilman Lachinski wondered if the Council is unanimous in its perception
of the direction it is providing the Engineer, feeling that the large work load and
the lack of support puts Mr. Winner in an extremely difficult position. Councilman
Lachinski asked how can Mr. Winner be expected to do all the work and where is the
time. Mayor Windschit1 stated that there is an enormous personnel problem right now
and something has to be done so it doesn't continue any longer, that it can no longer
continue.
Ms. Lindquist stated that since Mr. Winner has been hired, she has had many more prob-
lems because the work isn't getting done and residents are complaining about jobs not
getting done, the way something is handled, etc. Councilman Ortte1 felt that
complaints on projects should be directed to the contractor, that public works
complaints should be directed to Public Works staff, and that the Engineer should not
be acting as the complaint department. There was also disagreement among the Council
as to what Mr. Winner's role is on major construction proejcts such as the Southwest
Area project where there is a consulting engineering firm in charge. The incident of
Mr. Winner allowing the contractor to change a particular road spec in the contract
was discussed, with the Mayor, the Council, Mr. Winner, and Mr. Almgren all expressing
their opinion as to what did or should have happened. Councilman Ortte1 also felt the
Council has not been consistent in its direction to Mr. Winner, feeling that Mr.
Winner is reprimanded not only if he gets involved and makes a decision on some problem,
but also when he doesn't make such decisions, noting the incidences with the removal of
Special City Council Meeting
April 23, 1981 - Minutes
Page 7
(Discussion/Performance/Larry Winner, Continued)
the pea rock and street sweeping. He felt Mr. Winner should be making more of those
types of decisions. Councilman Lachinski felt a weak point of Mr. Winner may be that
he hasn't asked for more support and suggested one of the secretaries be made available
to Mr. Winner whenever he needs her to be writing reports, composing corresondence, etc.
Discussion was then on some of the items that Mr. Winner has been assigned and
reasons why those incomp1eted items have not yet been done (reference April 23, 1981,
memo from Mr. Winner, Progress Report - March, April To-Date). Councilmen Lachinski
and Ortte1 argued that obviously some of the items are not a high priority and have
not yet been done.
Mr. Sowada and Mr. Stone also presented instances when they have asked for guidance
or assistance from Mr. Winner, but felt their requests were ignored, citing instances
when they have notifed Mr. Winner of problems but Mr. Winner never followed through,
such as the pea rock on private property, the bird baths on Smith's Road, asking
Kraabel to grade the roads, safety equipment not yet ordered, information about the
well, stockpiling of Class 5, dirt dumped in Hartfie1'~ etc.; and feeling that Mr.
Winner as supervisor is in charge of the Department and should be making the decisions.
The question was often asked as to who should be taking care of these problems --
Public Works or Mr. Winner. Councilman Lachinski felt that Mr. Sowada should be
making as many decisions, making recommendations, and solving as many problems as he
can rather than bringing these items to Mr. Winner, that Mr. Winnershourct not be
running the day-to-day operations of Public Works, but delegating more authority.
Councilman Peach stated that the first major project Mr. Wlnner had in the City was
the sea1coating project last year, which he felt was poorly handled from the beginning
and still isn't completely resolved.
Councilman Lachinski and Ortte1 felt that Mr. Winner may have too much work to do and
also has the problem of having so many different bosses, the Council, P & Z, Park Board,
etc. Ms. Lindquist felt that if one has an important job or deadline to meet, he
would work overtime to get it completed; but Mr. Winner does not do so. Mr. Winner
stated he does write down all time spent for the City, estimating he works 43 to 48
hours a week. Counc1man Ortte1 also felt that what the Public Works staff are saying
is that Mr. Winner is not familiar with Public Works, which he felt was known when
Mr. Winner was hired, and that it was intended that there not be direct supervision of
Public Works but general administration. And he felt that misunderstanding is the
greatest cause of the problem.
In further discussion, Mr. Winner felt that to solve some of the problems, Mr. Sowada
sho1d be given the authority to conduct the day-to-day operations of Public Works, and
his supervision be only general overview. He also stated he does have all the
equipment he needs or has the capacity to purchase the rest; however, many of the things
on his list could be done faster if he had an engineering technician doing the drafting
or research. Councilman Lachinski suggested that Mr. Winner prioritize the items
left to do, and to keep the Council informed of those priorities on a monthly basis,
that it is Mr. Winner's responsibility to keep the Council informed as to when projects
are going to be completed. Councilman Jacobson also suggested that any problems
should first be addressed by the Personnel Committee; then brought to the Council if
it cannot be resolved on that level.
Discussion continued with Ms. Lindquist and Public Works presenting the problems they
are encountering with Mr. Winner, such as not communicating, repeatedly not meeting
deadlines, not providing support to his subordinates" having to continually remind
him of information needed and sometimes never getting it, continually putting things
off, etc., also noting the incident of slow response at a fire call as indicated by
memo from the Fire Chief. Public Works again asked who should be doing some of these
tasks, feeling that because Mr. Winner is by a phone more of the time, he should be
- -,
Special City Council Meeting
April 23, 1981 - Minutes
Page 8
(Discussion/Performance/Larry Winner, Continued)
able to do the work that involves contacting others. Mayor Windschit1 felt that the
situation between Mr. Winner and the other staff is an almost impossible situation with
no respect for him at all, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to get it back to
even, feeling that the same situation would not have resulted if the engineering
position were filled with a different individual. If a person is overloaded, as has
been alluded to this evening, that person is the only one who knows and that person
has to let this Council know and to make recommendations as to what should be done.
But the Mayor stated he has repeatedly asked if Mr. Winner has the time to do a project,
and the answer is always yes. He also felt the biggest problems have been some of
Mr. Winner's personal habits and his procrastination on work.
Councilman Lachinski felt that Mr. Winner does need to prioritize his work, adjusting
the schedule as more projects are added, that the Council should be kept aware of
that schedule, and that he delegate more authority. He didn't want to get another
engineer until all the problems are identified and the methods to solve those problems
known. Councilman Peach felt that the basic difference between what he thought and
what Councilman Lachinski thought is that Councilman Lachinski feels Mr. Winner has
so much work to do he can't get everything done and Councilman Peach thinks he just
doesn't do any work, that's why he doesn't get anything done; other than that they
probably agree on most of the points.
Discussion continued as to speculation on what may happen if a different individual
were in the engineering position, on the work remaining for preparing of the final
plans and specifications for White Oaks project, and on the time put into the proposed
water ordinance andthe,prob1ems encountered because that ordinance has not yet been
approved Mr. Winner stated he should be receiving the surveying information back on
Wednesday, that it would take approximately three days to complete the final plans
and specifications for White Oaks area project, and that they would be ready in time.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Windschit1, that the position of Public Works Director
be deleted from the duties and responsibilities of the City Engineer, that the
position of Engineer be made a technical position without supervisory authority of
itself and under the direct supervision of the City Administrator, and with these
diminished responsibilities, a compensating reduction in salary of 25 percent to
approximately $20,000, and extension of six months past the original 12-month
probation period be established for the City Engineer.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, to delete the portion which
refers to the reduction in salary. DISCUSSION: was that the reason for the reduction
in pay was because of the dimished responsibilities, but some feeling that additional
secretarial help should be provided.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1; NO-Peach, Windschit1
Amendment carried.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the portion of the extension of
S1X months be changed to three months from today. DISCUSSION: Councilman Ortte1
stated that puts the time in the middle of the construction projects, which he felt
is foolish. Councilman Jacobson felt that there has been a strong indication that
something needs to change on both sides; but feeling that Mr. Winner has been remiss
- in not doing things or not in a timely fashion, and that three months is enough time
to see those changes occur. Councilman Ortte1 felt there will be problems with re-
moving the responsibility of Public Works Director from the position, especially
making decisions as to what is public works and what is engineering.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Ortte1
Amendment carried.
Special City Council Meeting
April 23, 1981 - Minutes
Page 9
(Discussion/Performance/Larry Winner, Continued)
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, which would have the Acting
Administrator allocate one of the individuals in the secretarial pool as the prime
responsibility to the engineering position.. DISCUSSION: Councilman Peach stated
that he made a motion because he didn't feel Mr. Winner is doing the job and the
parts of the job he is incapable of doing should be removed and his pay for those
responsibi1tiies should also be removed. What it has now been turned into is he's
been given a huge raise, cut in responsibility, and somebody else to help him not do
his work. Ms. Lindquist stated that all her secretaries carry a full workload and
asked which Department the time should be taken from and who is going to make that
determination. Mr. Winner is already allowed 10 percent of a secretary's time, which
she doubted he even utilizes that much time to date. Councilman Jacboson called the
question.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Lachinski, Orttel; NO-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1
Amendment failed.
In answer to the Mayor's question, Mr. Winner stated he has never been denied the
secretarial help if he asked for it. Councilman Lachinski suggested that Mr. Winner
not compose all his material but utilize the secretarial help more effectively.
Councilman Peach stated that his intention with the motion was to allow the City
Administrator to tell Mr. Winner when things have to be done; and if he can't get
them done in that time, he has to tell her why, feeling that Mr. Winner hasn't been
able to supervise himself. Councilman Lachinski stated that the motion does not
provide for additional secretarial assistance; the Mayor noted that Mr. Winner has
never asked for additional secretarial assistance nor has he been denied use of such
assistance. Ms. Lindquist stated that not only has typing assistance been provided,
but various research has been done as well. She felt secretarial help could be
provided to Mr. Winner, but not on a primary basis.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that for this three-month
probationary perlod from today that we cut the salary 10 percent to reflect the
difference in his duties for that three-month period. DISCUSSION: Councilman
Lachinski stated that is asking the man to leave and strongly felt that that is not
going to solve the problems.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski,Ortte1
Amendment carried.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Peach, Windschit1; NO-Lachinski, Ortte1
Motion carried.
MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the matter of the Public Works
dlrection to the Personnel Committee for appropriate action. Motion carried unanimously.
WATER ORDINANCE
A majority of the Counci1mem were not prepared to discuss the proposed ordinance and
because of the lateness of the meeting, it was agreed to discuss this item plus the
fee charges for the trunk assessment policy at a special meeting.
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, to set a Special City Council Meeting for
Tuesday, April 28, at 8 o'clock.
VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Jacobson, Lachinski, Peach, Windschitl; NO-Orttel
Motion carried.
Special City Council Meeting
April 23, 1981 - Minutes
Page 10
APPROVAL OF CLAIM #461
MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Claim No. 461 for $1,365 to
Flrst National Bank of Anoka for interest on Improvement Bond 76-1. Motion
carried unanimously.
MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ ~~~~ (\ \;=t_
Marcella A. Peach
Recording Secretary
-, -- -I-~