Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP September 18, 1985 ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 18, 1985 ~1I NUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on September 18, 1985, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1b85 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota, for the purpose of discussing the Comparable Worth Study and the Coon Creek Watershed Lltigation. Councllmen present: Elling, Knight, Lachinski, Orttel Councilmen absent: None Also present: City Engineer; James Schrantz; and City Clerk/A. Administrator, P. K. Lindquist COMPARABLE WORTH The evening was spent discussing the point system for the comparable worth study. It was noted the comparable worth among the employees needs to be with the City itself, not as it compares to other cities. The positions being compared were those in the City as of July, 1984. Councilman Knight indicated the Personnel Committee has assigned points based on jOb descriptions for all the employees except the City Engineer and City Clerk/A. Administrator. They were not able to find descriptions given in the "Local Government Equlties Supplement for Cities" booklet that closely match the duties of those two employees. Councllman Elling also noted the Personnel Committee had looked at assigning points to those positions that may be opening up within the next five years, the intent being that the plan should work for five years without having to make any adjustments to it. The Mayor was concerned that the City can't continue to build two or three positions to the equivalent of having two or three administrators. He felt a decision should be made as to whether or not the City should hire a full-time administrator. No decision was made on this matter at this time. There was also some discussion on the points raised by the Clerk/A. Administator as to the specific duties of her position. Again, no specific decisions were made on the matter, suggesting the job descriptions be reviewed and revised if needed. when discussing the duties Of the City Engineer/Publlc Works Director, it was suggested the points applicable to a County tnglneer would be the closest match to the duties of that position. The Hayes pOlnt ran~e would be from 551 to 631. There were some questions raised as to whether that job description was a close enough match to what Mr. Schrantz does; but it was finally agreed to establish the range of points for the City Engineer/Public Works uirector at 551-631. There was also considerable discussion as to which job description in the booklet most closely matches the duties of the City Clerk/A. Administrator. It was suggested the "Administrative ~1anager" used in the booklet was the closest, which carried a point range of 451-496. Although it was also brought out tnat this does not include the preparation of the budget, which Ms. Lindquist does. Councilman Orttel ar9ued the points for the positions should be separated in this instance--separate points assigned for the Clerk/Treasurer and for the Acting Administrator. However, at this time there was no support from the remaining Councilmembers to do so. There were questions as to just what the points mean and whether those points can be changed once they have been submitted to the State should the city find there are some descrepancies. Councilman Elling stated he would call the State to find out, but he didn't think changes could be made once the point values were determined. He thought the only way the pOint values could change were if the job descriptions changed. Special City Council Meeting September 18, 1985 Page 2 (Comparable Worth, Continued) There were concerns raised about the job descriptions provided in the booklet, that they really do not reflect what is being done in the City. Some felt the City could assign its own range of points for the positions; however, at this time only point ranges from a matching State classification in the booklet were used. It was asked what would happen it the City did not submit the data required by October 1 but waited for the studies that are being conducted by,CDO on comparable worth. Councilman Knight did not know the penalties but noted it is a State mandate that this be done with specific deadlines to be met. He thought the biggest problem would be if the City didn't comply and one of the employees decided to sue. The Council then spent a great deal of time assigning a single point value for each of the positions from the range that had been assigned. The Clerk disagreed with the recommendations for the office staff, stating the duties of the Clerk Typists carry ·over to the next category, except for the supervision of other employees, which has a greater range of points. She had suggested the top of the range. Council decision was to take the midrange point. The Clerk also argued the duties of the Accountant are similiar to Account Technican because she has greater responsibilities than the Accounting Clerk listed in the booklet. The Council felt the duties more closely resembled the Accounting Clerk description and agreed to a mld-range point value for that position. They also agreed to a mid-range point value for the Clerk/Treasurer/A. Administrator position. The pOint value established for the remaining employees was based on duties and responsibilities of each position. It was brought out the point values do not necessarily reflect the same wage for the same point value because of the many variables that can be consiaered for each employee. However, some predicted that in reality the point value is directly related to wages. The following points were finally agreed to: Public Works III - 119; Public Works II - 146; Public Works I - 157; Public Works Supervisor - 245; Public Works Director/ City Engineer - 501; ~uilding Inspector - 242; Clerk Typist - 120; Account Clerk (formerly the Accountant) - 143; Clerk II (formerly Accounting Clerk) - 113; City Clerk/Treasurer/A. Administrator - 474. Mayor Windschitl suggested the City compare these point values with other cities of a similiar nature to see where it stands. Members of the Personnel Committee stated they will continue preparing the documents necessary for submission to the State. COON CRtEK WATtRSHED BOARD/LITIGATION Mayor Windschitl stated he has talked with some Watershed Board members and thinks there may be a willingness to solve the City's concerns without going to litigation. He asked it the Council would be willing to meet with the Waterhsed Boara on this matter. Council discussed the concerns raised previously about the Dltch 57 project and the litigation the City is proceeding with. It was noted the Council will be meeting with the lawfirm handHng the case on Tuesday, and they telt that should be done first. It was then agre~d a meeting with the Watershed Board at this time would not be beneficial; but if they wish to make a proposal in writing, the Council woula consider it. At this point the Council felt the only acceptable project on the ditch would be to remove the obstructions in the creek and to establish a good maintenance program. Special City Council Meeting September 18, 1985 Page 3 (Coon Creek Watershed Board/Ligitation; Continued) Council again mentioned there has been no justification for the scope of the project proposed by the Watershed, that there are many areas of the City with water problems this year but none in the Coon Creek Watershed area. ~OTION by Orttel, Seconaed by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submltted, - --,--