Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
Tuesday, December 26, 1995 - 3:45 p.m.

Members present: Carpenter, Babinchak, Geller, McCabe.

1. Matter of mayor's salary.
Tom Hagness stated that he asked to place this item on the agenda as timing is right with election coming up; that in Budget Framework Committee discussed and budgeted for one of three options (administrator, city manager or increased salary for future mayor); need to discuss so as not to eliminate any qualified candidates for that job; that he is interested in more money for the mayor's position, and doesn't support city administrator or city manager form of government (would have to have election). He stated he would like committee to consider and make recommendation to the council, the sooner the better, and is looking for all good candidates that possibly could run for mayor; thinks it opens up the field.

Chairman Carpenter stated he didn't see committee making recommendation today, but need input from public, council, etc.
starting process; need recommendation approved by council by middle of February at latest (filing deadline April 10).

Mayor Polovitz stated that when he first entered race (after having been on council for 8 years), that it was apparent to him that there was too big a job for a part-time position and that was why he ran on platform that he would work full-time. He stated that if you don't have a full-time mayor, you will have possibility of resorting back to old ways, and that someone or group has to make decision and move City forward. He stated that government is by the people, and has formed feeling that voters can make decision of who is qualified for that position. He stated that he wrote down some things that have happened in past 8 years, that mayor's office is sometimes first place people come to ask what mayor's opinion re. projects, etc.; that last one that took up tremendous amount of time (except civic center) was GFG Food Service, that kept GFG here because of pushing by his office; that this all takes time. He stated that 90% of following, evolved with some direct involvement by the mayor's office: RDO Foods; responsibility relating to floods; CVB Center; public works garage; City Hall addition; southend outflow line; water plant expansion; land for southend fire station; Industrial Park - American Woods; TAG project; Coca-Cola building; Butler Machinery; National Guard complex; EERC grant; super computer; Visioning project; riverfront; S. Washington St.; U.S. 2/Gateway project; Columbia Road overpass addition; DeMers Ave; 34th St. paving; 42nd Street paving; N. Columbia Rd. paving; 6th Ave.N; I-29 overpasses; sales tax; taxes and budgets; Air Base retention; grants; U.S. 2 beautification; new businesses; development of the concept of the region; etc. that mayor's office has had something to do with every one of those.
Plus mayor has tremendous responsibility in the Code - civil service code; discipline of employees (hire and fire); and feels

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
December 26, 1995 - Page 2

all this wouldn't have happened if someone hadn't been there full-time; and thinks that is what is needed, City is too big now for part-time mayor. Committee asked what mayor felt was an appropriate salary; Mayor Polovitz stated minimum of $40,000, and should look at what salaries are for full-time mayors.

Ken Vein stated he is chairman of the department head committee, that they distributed memo re. mayor's position; that they work very closely with mayor's position, have very important ideas;
that item on agenda is for salary but item goes beyond that into the decision making process for city government; that they see strong mayor/council form of government with the departments fitting nicely into that; the mayor is supervisor/leader, with council setting policy they have to administer. He stated they look at mayor's position as position of leadership, and depending on that mayor's leadership and management style is going to dictate a lot out of what you can expect out of the mayor's position; that in the past the position has been more of community service, and that under Mayor Polovitz that has gone beyond that; and it's a matter of whether it is a job or com- munity service, and recommended that if it's community service in the neighborhood of $20,000 and if it's a job, $60-70,000, or somewhere in between. He stated that as an association they would like to improve government, making government more efficient, working with some inter-governmental cooperation, and meeting with chairs, etc. He asked committee to look over their memo very closely and that they would answer any questions committee might have.

Eliot Glassheim stated they have all been convinced by Mayor Polovitz that the job of mayor is a full-time job; and question is what do you want to pay; that it is up to committee to decide what citizens would feel is reasonable; that he feels it would not be appropriate for him to have position on exact number. He stated he likes department head characterization of the position as community service, but that does exclude some people.

Jim Johnson asked what happens to administrative assistant position if go to a full-time mayor. Chairman Carpenter stated they perhaps would keep that position, would have to address more completely.

Chairman Carpenter stated issue bigger than salary of full-time mayor, not sure full-time mayor is best; thinks need full-time executive, whether mayor or administrator, would tend to lean to the idea of a full-time elected mayor, do trust judgment of the people; but don't always have qualified candidates. He stated
that he's not sure that administrator, with part-time mayor,
defines more specifically what mayor's responsibilities are; that lot of issues mayor alluded to were economic development issues, and that's something that mayor needs to be concentrating on and

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
December 26, 1995 - Page 3

involved in; that some of administrative things listed in Code can go to department heads or to chief adm. person; that whatever they do is going to require some changes in the Code but can make some of those changes, but not just setting matter of salary, need to get dialogue going with people of Grand Forks.

Member Geller stated that because growth rate going to accele-rate, have to bring certain degree of professionalism in, that they give lot of consideration at department head level; but question if getting most votes enough of qualification to run the City of Grand Forks in environment going to see tomorrow. He stated that efficient administrator would be able to handle number of things they see in committee/council; that it's much larger question than what salary is going to be; that he can envision full-time mayor and full-time administrative officer; thinks government of tomorrow is going to be a lot more responsive and lot more professional.

Mayor Polovitz stated that unless they restrict items that can be placed on agenda, will have those items; and re. professionalism, bottom line is how you work with people.

Jerry Hamerlik suggested they perhaps should have committee of the whole meeting with input from the public.

Mr. Glassheim gave couple reasons against professional staff person; would be creating a new level of bureaucracy, be creating a new area of competition and resentment among the existing department heads, jockeying for access to this person; that if concerned that the mayor not professional enough and does not have knowledge of lot of things the department heads have knowledge of and more easily led by department heads, that it's good to have mayor as policy maker; and mayor's judgment or reaction to things is in line with the people of Grand Forks.
He stated he felt it would create more trouble than would gain.

Bonnie Schiebe, 1314 S. 17th Street, stated that if they are thinking of changing the form of government from mayor to administrator or something else, should let the citizens know the difference between mayor, administrator or city manager position.

Member Babinchak questioned what they are trying to accomplish by changing what we now have, what advantage to change, and would like more information on other forms of government.

Dave Beach stated that they do what is best for the city, what is best for structure of city government but at all
costs keep personalities out of it.

Member Geller questioned what change(s) can be made with or without a vote of the people; whether creating a position of city MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
December 26, 1995 - Page 4

manager or chief administrative officer is a change in structure that requires something greater than a decision to add a new position in city government. Mayor Polovitz stated that change to city manager form of government would have to go to vote of people, but to put in a person basically an administrator, wouldn't have to go to people. He stated that he feels that mayor's position should be directly responsible to people who put him in office.

Member McCabe stated that the people who choose mayor (or council members) are not professionals, they are hiring someone who represents them who can sit in that office and oversee a staff of professionals and be the voice of the people to facilitate change for the future and to represent the people; and that perhaps in addition to mayor should have full-time staff person that will take the place of the professionalism.

Chairman Carpenter stated they probably need to gather some additional information on city managers, full-time mayors, levels of salary, what does or doesn't need to be voted on and have that information out prior to calling a noon luncheon or committee of the whole meeting to discuss. No action taken.

2. Matter of Christmas bonus.
Mayor Polovitz stated he put this item on the agenda for reasons of indicating that we appreciate what employees have done for the City, has come to conclusion that employees are in fishbowl, no matter what they do, whether under direction of council or mayor, take a lot of heat from the public, and that a $20/bonus to full-time people would be expression of faith in them and a thanks to them. He stated that monies could be taken from carry-overs.

Moved by Geller and McCabe to authorize Christmas bonus of $20.00 to all employees who work 20 hours or more per week, with funds to come from departmental budgets, and with exception of appointed or elected positions. Motion carried. (Comm. only)

3. Matter of allocation of appraisers positions.
Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated that this is really a reallocation of funds; that over past several years have discussed the possibility of promoting the 3 Appraiser II's to the equivalent level of an Appraiser III; since 1990 appraisers have assumed responsibility of an Appraiser III; that since Porter/Eberhardt study thought they would recognize the responsibilities and duties and classify the jobs as such; but rather down-graded all of the appraisal staff and they had to go
back to civil service for reclassification to get salaries up where they should be; that in the middle of 1994 the civil
service commission did reclassify the Appraiser I, the Appraiser II and the Deputy assessor; and part way to reclassify Appraiser

MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
December 26, 1995 - Page 5

III, but didn't finalize it so currently Appraiser III is at same grade as Appraiser II; that in 1994 he had requested 3 Appraiser III and no Appraiser II's, that he did not promote anyone at that time because civil service had not reclassified that position, so promotion at that time meant nothing more than additional duties; that in 1995 budget went back to 2 Appraiser II's and 1 Appraiser III, that 1996 budget is the same. He reviewed differences in Appraiser II and III, which is more experience and expertise. He stated that in October he moved to promote one of the appraisers to the III level, that there is need for experience and expertise that an Appraiser III brings to the job site; that current appraisers have 15 to 19 years experience, that they are responsible for residential level of assessing in the city, and should be doing some of the commercial properties. The request today is to reallocate positions in the assessing department to allow promotion of 3 appraiser II's to appraiser III's; cost: 2/3rds of cost from budgeted position and 1/3 from allocation for part-time salaries. Committee questioned need for 3 appraiser III positions; and why not dealing with at time of budget process. Mr. Carsen stated he didn't think he could get three Appraiser III positions, and moved to promote one; however, three appraisers reminded him of previous discussions concerning equity, longevity, experience; and thinks want to compensate these people justly; would have to go back to civil service, and didn't know what would do with the reclassification that has been halted since 1992, that last time took to civil service they refused to hear because too close to completion of new study. He stated he wanted to bring to committee to make aware of.

Dan Gordon, Human Resources Director, stated that the civil service commission didn't reclassify the Appraiser III position so it was identical to Appraiser II position; a reallocation of the positions would be first decision and if there are current funds within the department. He stated that in 1994 budget budgeted for 3 Appraiser III's, subsequent years because civil service didn't reclassify, went to 1 Appraiser III; that main difference between II and III is experience. He stated that the mayor supports this; and are asking for reallocation of positions, brought back to civil service to establish starting date when promotion take effect.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that a member of the Commission called him, and he suggested that he be here, but is not; that they didn't take action because they were sensitive to the council, and that's why they stepped aside temporarily.

Chairman Carpenter expressed concern re 3 appraiser III's,
whether in best interest of the city; or should hold until budget time and look at. Member Geller stated that if doing an ap-
praiser III work, and paying them Appraiser II wage; exploiting them, are not paying them as much or should not be asking them to MINUTES/FINANCE COMMITTEE
December 26, 1995 - Page 6

do as much, and questioned why if budgeted in 1994 budget, why not kept in 1995 and 1996 budgets. Mr. Carsen stated that they don't see staffing portion of budget until finalized. Held for 2 weeks.

4. Matter of tax increment financing for Pink Hanger bldg.
and/or alternate financing, Baltic, LLP
Mr. Schmisek stated this matter had been held for information from Dorsey firm; that he had asked two questions: 1) whether City may pool separate tax increments into a single bond issue which would be issued at a later date, and if City could advance the requested project funds and seek reimbursement from the funds; the letter stated they have answered each of these questions in the affirmative as further explained. Mr. Schmisek reviewed the opinion from Mr. Endorf indicating that such combining is permissible, together with draft of a charter ordinance to implement the combined financing concept.

Mr. Schmisek stated that problem they are running into is that they are issuing too many small bond issues; try to hold and issue only one large amount. He stated that one of the concerns is authorization to pool tax increment bonds since not specifically permitted under ND State statutes, that City pass a charter ordinance authorizing issuance of that type of bond. He stated that the biggest concern is that these have become the financing of choice for some of the businesses, and scary proposition that they rely on them; that it raises lot of questions, how long hold before issuing bonds, etc.

Held for 2 weeks for information from the city auditor, city assessor and city attorney as to pitfalls or drawbacks, etc. of doing this; possibly recommend policies.

5. Temporary and overtime statement for November, 1995.
Moved by Babinchak and Geller to approve statement of temporary and overtime wages for November. Motion carried. (committee only)

6. Matter of transfer of funds to Parking Authority.
A communication from Richard Jackson, Municipal Parking System, was presented requesting the transfer of $25,000 from the Surplus Parking Fund Acct. to the Parking Authority for purchase of land known as McPherson lot located behind the Grand Forks Glass & Paint on Riverboat Road to create a lighted and paved parking lot to provide additional parking space downtown.

Held for two weeks for input from Mr. Jackson and that he discuss with River Forks Commission.

Meeting adjourned.
John M. Schmisek, City Auditor
Dated: 12/27/95