Loading...
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-~