Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
Tuesday, March 14, 1995 - 3:45 p.m.

Members present: Carpenter, Babinchak, Geller, McCabe.

1. Matter of offer to purchase City property at 1310 8th Ave.N.
John Schmisek, director of administrative services, reported that his office has received offer of around $7,000 for purchase of the property; that value set by City is $17,100, that Mr. Carsen, city assessor, feels there should be reduction in value, and recommendation is to reject the offer. It was noted that they had offer on this lot last year of around $8-9,000 which was also rejected. Mr. Carsen reported that property currently listed as $17,100, believes that excessive; and would recommend offer be rejected or negotiated, and establish new asking price of $14,100, there is about $500 remaining in specials.

Moved by Babinchak and McCabe to reject the offer. Motion carried.

Moved by Babinchak and McCabe to reduce the asking price from $17,100 to $14,100. Motion carried.

2. Matter of tax exemption for former Roosevelt Center property.
Mr. Schmisek reported his office has received written request from William A. Schoen, Schoen Associates, asking for a 10-year exemption for the Roosevelt Center building assuming all necessary approvals are realized in City Hall, that they will then take possession of the building in the fall of 1995 and be ready for occupancy in the spring of 1996, and asking that the abatement time start in the spring of 1996. Mr. Schoen stated he was there to answer any questions committee might have.

It was noted that Washington School received 3-year remodeling exemption. Mr. Carsen noted that this project (Roosevelt Center) would be kin to the Freighthouse Apts. that was developed by Schoen and Kobetsky 5 years ago, and that was 10-year exemption, and also similar to St. Anne's Guest Home. It was noted there is a 15-year max. in State law.

Mr. Schoen reported this property will have a 10-year delay on federal dollars (funds received through Urban Development Office for this type of project to make financially feasible for low and moderate income), would allow acceleration on conventional financing, so as soon as conventional financing paid, then in a cash flow position to take on the federal loan as well as the property taxes. Mr. Geller asked if there was documentation for determining length of exemption, Mr. Schoen stated he would provide that information. Mr. Schmisek stated that would be good guideline to establish and use in all future requests. Mr. Swanson stated Mr. Schoen would have to decide whether information provided is proprietary in nature, and if so, marked
so does not become public document.

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 14, 1995 - Page 2

Mr. Swanson advised committee they would need to establish public hearing; notification requirement is once week for two consecutive weeks prior to hearing, and committee could grant preliminary approval and call for public hearing on April 3.

Moved by McCabe and Babinchak to grant preliminary approval of the request for the 10-year tax exemption, and to set public hearing for Monday, April 3. Motion carried.

3. Matter of bids for downtown parking ramp.
Mr. Schmisek reported bid tabs. included in packets, bids came in higher than anticipated, and notice sent to property owners stating that they hoped to pay off indebtedness on this project, 80% in first five years, plus the hoped for fact that no special assessments, the protest period ends on the 17th.

Don Tingum reported that bids came in about 26% higher than anticipated and with add on and $50,000 for contingencies, engineering, adm. costs, and bond costs, were hoping to come up with $1M issue and finance package of $425,000 which they could afford to finance; but adding in costs of increased construction costs, up to about $730,000 instead of $425,000, so $300,000 over and above what they can afford. He stated that the Downtown Business Dist. has concern that they are only maintenance committee, and because of this asked him to meet with mayor and finance committee. He presented proposal to assess an additional $300,000 to the parking lot in question where ramp to be located, which would then be a city assessment of which the Parking Auth. would agree to absorb $150,000 out of yearly special assessment funds against that lot, if they could impose upon City to pay the other $150,000 over 17 to 18 years, with interest rates, looks like $13,000/year for Parking Auth. over the 18 year period and would be burden on the City for that particular dollar amount. He stated they don't think that's unreasonable because they feel parking ramp would enhance the downtown area, and that should perhaps maintain enough revenue in the downtown area to pay for these bonds outstanding against City property. He reported they are asking for a 2-week delay in awarding or rejecting the bids, if still feel it's a worthy project. He noted two reasons for high bids were: 1) that ground is unstable and will create additional costs; and 2) contractors have full schedule. It was noted there are 3 levels - main and two additional floors, with cap. of 112 vehicles. Mr. Geller asked if they could scale back on project: Mr. Tingum stated they have discussed reducing cost by taking top floor off or only ground floor, but because of supports etc. for additional floor(s) that additional cost makes it almost prohibitive. Mike Murie, EAPC, consulting engineer, reported they had included number of alternate bids (striping, etc.), nothing substantial to leave out; size - now down to minimum to make work except cutting level off. He reported that
one of the major expenses is foundation because of soil MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 14, 1995 - Page 3

conditions; if built one level cost per stall considerably higher, but would have opportunity to add in the future and then cost per stall come down. (one level 56 stalls - when counting stalls not including ground level because already have parking there - not creating any additional parking).

Mr. Swanson advised that if bids came in 40% over engineer's estimate (came in 26% higher) cannot award bid. It was noted that the protest period expires 17th, and last date for award of bids is April 7. It was noted that there are soil borings for the project that were included in the terms of the design so foundations are adequately designed to support the structure. He noted that what their perceived idea of what soil condition costs would be versus what the contractor perceived them to be were different.

Mr. Tingum stated their proposal would be an assessment against City-owned property so consequently separate City mill levy of which 50% would be levied and 50% assessed in the annual budget of the Parking Authority budget. Mr. Swanson expressed some concern. Mr. Tingum stated they would have to contact bond counsel, but looking for additional time to research. He stated that protest period expires on 17th or 18th and this wouldn't give property owners adequate time to protest, and that they feel obligated to the 92 businesses within the District and the CBD Authority will send notices to the property owners, that there will be an additional $13,000 cost. He also stated they would see if they could delay additional cost for first 4 years until all assessments paid.

Mr. Schmisek stated he has some concerns because of change in price, and timing because need some legal opinions whether can assess a particular benefit to the lot that's being improved; and there's some disparity between what Evensen-Dodge and Springsted say is debt service payments and since these are City bonds would have to use Springsted who does our debt service and is familiar with it; one of his concerns is that total net requirements on the two schedules that they have given him is a net requirement of 14 years of $471,000 and restructuring a little differently is $535,000, so have lot of concerns, concerns in budget process and other projects coming up this year and getting priority status, and to give notice to property owners.

Mr. Tingum stated that the only way to finance third level would be through special assessment to the downtown; that it is intent of CBD not to levy another assessment; held public hearing and had one person show up who was not even in the district; that
since that time they have received letter of concern from Garry Pearson. He also stated that the CBD Auth. does not intend to go route of additional special assessments.

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 14, 1995 - Page 4

Mr. Carpenter stated he was willing to hold for two weeks to get legal opinions, would like to know feelings of downtown property owners.

Garry Pearson stated that in view of comments, his comments premature.

Held for 2 weeks.

4. Applications for 3-year remodeling exemption for the fol-
lowing properties:
a) 715 Belmont Road
b) 5105 Gateway Drive
c) 1200 South Washington Street.
Mr. Carsen reviewed applications, that they all qualify (except as noted on the form), and recommended approval. Moved by McCabe and Babinchak to approve the applications. Motion carried.

5. Matter of report from Detox Committee.
It was noted that council had referred matter of consideration of the report to finance. Mayor Polovitz reported he had received letter from Chief Aulich re. one of the suggested sites - fire drill tower training site, that space at the training site is limited, asking committee to consider alternative sites due to acute space shortage. It was noted this site contains several acres, used for storage on site (poles, etc.) wastewater facility, and that concern was that property in floodplain. Mr. Carpenter stated he would like to get resolved - either determine need or not need, whether by council vote or vote of people, need to resolve.

Ann Sande stated that as chair of financing subcommittee, and in talking to people, as long as they don't have to pay for through property taxes more receptive to idea. It was noted that one suggestion was adding charge onto alcohol related offenses. Mr. Swanson stated that the City has ability to establish fines for various offenses, and impose in addition to any fine or penalty, an administrative fee, so in concept available option; however, doesn't know what committee has identified as alcohol related offenses - might run in difficulty with DUI charges, that those fines in some instances regulated under State law and in some instances are not payable to the City but to the State (minors in possession, illegal sale, - disorderly conduct, assault, speeding, etc. - maybe some of those, but in theory is something that could be imposed. No numbers available, but numbers rise and fall with number of factors, etc.

Carpenter stated need to make determination before gathering any information for funding, etc.

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 14, 1995 - Page 5

Geller stated he was in support of detox center, and strongly supports such an organization or institution in the city and made motion to move forward and develop funding plan. Carpenter seconded motion. Motion carried.

Chairman Carpenter asked for two volunteers to serve on subcommittee to investigate funding sources and to report back to committee with recommendation at its first meeting in April. Geller and Babinchak volunteered.

6. Matter of consolidating building maintenance.
Ann Sande, 1110 Belmont Road, and councilperson for 4th Ward, stated that she would like to suggest that the police building (which houses 5 other city departments and renter within that building) but police run maintenance function, that her purpose in suggesting this is that police do police work rather than building maintenance (one example is purchase of boiler for that building - had sergeant, captain and the chief tell her that they all had responsibility with purchasing new boiler, also heard same thing from head custodian and the building inspector - that head custodian and building inspector more knowledgeable re. this; that urban development does not have direct access to storage closets on second floor where they store supplies, etc., that if they need access, have to call police dept. and policeman has to come up and unlock; that the auditorium crew does lawn mowing but do not do watering because they do not have access to faucets; that custodians shoveling snow by hand; that police need people they are confident in to do the janitorial work inside their department because of sensitive records, however, police do background check on those individuals so does not see this as an issue. She stated she feels very strongly that police should be able to be police and not to worry about running the building, and others who feel that some other method of managing the building would be looked upon with favor. She stated that since City Hall is also maintained by civic auditorium staff that this should just be one other building - moving towards building and grounds concept.

Mayor Polovitz thinks this is general administration problem and his recommendation would be to refer to his office to look at to see if they can work out some of the problems mentioned and to report back to the committee.

Don Shields, health department, stated it was hard for him to comment on proposal to centralize or not because lot of factors, and not sure what cost benefit would be; but that they have had outstanding maintenance support (floors clean, bathrooms clean, etc.) and that no matter which way they go, that they maintain
those standards.

Mrs. Sande stated she would be agreeable for mayor's office to
MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 14, 1995 - Page 6

look at, but does not want idea to be dropped.

McCabe moved that this matter be referred to the mayor's office to look at centralized building and grounds and report back to this committee at the April 11 meeting. Motion seconded by Geller. Motion carried. (Committee noted that they should look at other city buildings, not just police building issue). (Comm.only)

7. Matter of job descriptions and restructuring of inspection
department.
Bev Collings, code enf. officer, and Dan Gordon, human resource officer, were present. Ms. Collings distributed copies of memo requesting approval of the new job descriptions and restructuring for the inspection department, and copies of preliminary rating by the department and human resource. She noted that the format changed to generalize duties and that only change in job descriptions was in building insp. II position: 1) increase in experience required from 3 to 5 years, and 2) deletion of supervision exercised. She noted that the Civil Service Commission had asked human resource officer to give preliminary classification. Mr. Carpenter stated he was disappointed in the Civil Service Commission, when specifically requested by two committees of the council for a preliminary classification. Mr. Gordon stated that information not available to CSC and was referred to human resources for prelim. grading. He stated they sat down with each of the employees and reviewed. He also stated that the difference between old and proposed job descriptions do not constitute a significant change in duties, responsibilities and qualifications, and that if brought to him for reclassification, he would deny. However, when original study came out in 1992, job descriptions not fairly graded, failure in the original study. It was noted there is increase by one or two steps in grade for the 7 positions. Mr. Carpenter stated that Civil Service should be addressing issues related to disagreements with the study, and because there are other discussion going on about what should be done about some of those questions, and has some problem ratifying this and sending to Civil Service for their consideration. He stated he understands there are two issues but doesn't know how to separate the two.
Mr. Vein stated there are couple reasons why they want job descriptions approved: 1) they want mechanical inspector position taken care of, and job description had to be rewritten, and in rewriting all of these were incorporated, trying to do whole department. He stated that increases are not based on new job description, but can happen if the new job descriptions are not approved, request for reclassification would come in and could go to Civil Service and could get reclassified. He noted they are putting committee together to try to resolve this, and maybe moratorium placed on reclassifications until problem worked out. Mr. Carpenter stated he has problem when based solely on points, MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 14, 1995 - Page 7

that this doesn't take into consideration equity among other departments or market conditions. Mr. Vein stated this is more than job description but structuring of how inspections take place through system, and flattening out of system, and those improvements taking place whether employee given new title or not.

Mr. Swanson advised that any new job description no matter what changes are, gives Commission opportunity to classify or reclassify; that anytime you alter job description it is a change in the job description which may result in a reclassification.
He also advised that council has ability to change Civil Service Code, if changed way handled can do that, if intent to adopt moratorium that no reclassification shall be considered or acted upon for a period, believes council has authority to do that. He stated that issue is, should the Commission continue to consider reclassifications, is Commission following new Code, are they consistent in their application; all he can tell committee is that over last month he has heard more comment about the CSC in the handling of reclassifications. The Commission has to work within the boundaries of the Code as determined by the council.

Geller asked if they only approve mechanical inspector position would they be putting themselves at risk. Mr. Swanson stated that the mechanical inspector position, already had one grievance filed over the appointment procedure, and that grievance upheld; the issue then is whether the job description for that position was changed as a result of that initial grievance in an attempt to place an individual pre-selected into that job, or is it truly an attempt to restructure the job description and make the requirements for the job description different. It is easier for him to prove the latter if doing an entire restructuring as opposed to one limited job description; that if the question is what is the realistic chance if only deal with mechanical inspector, he can't answer. It increases risk, but to point where can't sustain it, he doesn't know.

Mr. Schmisek reported there is concern by department heads group and employee reps and they have discussed, and have formed committee incl. council members and civil service commission members to discuss and come back to council to correct this system; that they think it has gotten out of hand.

After further discussion it was moved by Geller and Carpenter to approve the job descriptions and to refer to Civil Service Com- mission for classification. Geller and Carpenter voted for the motion, McCabe and Babinchak voted against. Mr. Swanson stated that the motion would be forwarded to council with a 2-2 vote.

It was moved by Geller to establish a moratorium on any further reclassifications, job description approvals, except for those MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 14, 1995 - Page 8

reclassification requests filed prior to April1, 1992 and not yet heard, and to institute this moratorium as of March 20.

Mr. Swanson questioned why including job description approvals in the motion, as they are the ones that control job descriptions. The motion was amended to delete job descriptions approvals from the motion.

Upon call for the question, the motion carried.

8. Matter of policies for processing delinquent and final
utility bills.
Held in committee.

9. Budget amendments.
Mr. Schmisek reviewed request for budget amendments:
a) civic auditorium - $7,444.00
transfer of funds from cash carryover to office equipment to purchase two office side chairs and to replace copier.
Moved by Babinchak and McCabe to approve the budget amendment. Motion carried.
b) assessing department - $1,000.00
transfer of funds from cash carryover to contracted personal services - funds to be used to finish computer programming project which was started by person in MIS who has now left employment of the City. Moved by Babinchak and Geller to approve the budget amendment. Motion carried.

10. Mel Carsen, city assessor, reported that the Board of Equalization is required by state law to meet the second Tuesday in April - April 11, however, they will be unable to complete their work prior to that date and are asking committee for concurrence in extending that date for three weeks (they need firm date to include in notices being sent). McCabe and Geller moved to concur in the request to continue the Board of Equalization meeting to Monday, May 1 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

Alice Fontaine
City Clerk

Dated: 3/14/95