Print VersionStay Informed
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Tuesday, May 29, 2001

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Bjerke, Stevens, Hamerlik, Burke, Glassheim, Christensen, Kerian, Bakken, Kreun - 9; absent: Council Members Brooks, Gershman, Lunak, Klave, Martinson - 5.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS

2.1 Request to extend the fifty center surcharge for the E-911 PSAP service for the City of Grand Forks
North Dakota._____________________________________________________________________
Council Member Bjerke reported he read through the Memo and it stated that under the NDCC the governing body could impose a surcharge provided it was voted on at one point in time, and if voted on in 1989 and extended in 6-year increments to 2001, and asked if we can continue to extend this or if it has to go back for a vote. Howard Swanson, city attorney, reported they have two options - that if they wish they can submit it to public election under State law and approval would have a period of 6 years; or what is being requested is that the council enact an ordinance under Home Rule Authority which would not require any public vote, but would be acting upon it independently. The City of Fargo has chosen to follow its Home Rule Authority and has imposed a surcharge beyond that which is specifically provided for by State Law. He stated they would be enacting an ordinance under Home Rule Authority. Council Member Bjerke questioned funding - 39,233 phones x $0.50 is $19,616.50 and if $12,663.00 goes to PSAP where does the balance go; Mr. Morken, PSAP Director, reported he had started May 15, and stated that the phone companies gets 5 cents a phone for administrating this, and number of 39,000 may not be not be exact number of phones. Council Member Bjerke asked if they could find out if the $12,663 is correct by Monday night and if there is other money and where it’s going. Mr. Swanson stated that by terms of statute and by terms of proposed ordinance it can’t be used for any other purposes or activities except those directly related to the PSAP Center.

Council Member Burke asked where the balance of the budget comes from if get 22% of budget from the surcharge. Mr. Morken stated it’s divided - UND pays part of it, the City of Grand Forks and the County pays part of it on a percentage basis. Council Member Burke asked if there was funding for PSAP aside from the phone bill surcharge; that non-surcharge revenue for PSAP a percentage is paid by UND, City and County to off-set the added costs.

Mr. Swanson reported that the ordinance will be provided to the city council; that because of the time element they will act next Monday on introduction of the ordinance and approval at following council meeting, by terms of the existing surcharge that will expire on June 30, 2001, and if wish to continue the surcharge as it has been for the last several years, need to move forward with it.

Council Member Bakken stated that the 50 cent surcharge which they are trying to continue, but need to be aware that the surcharge doesn’t provide enough dollars to fund PSAP, going into future with equipment and personnel, and been topic discussed at great length but haven’t come to any conclusions; might need to have additional funds on phones to help supplement PSAP, which is the 911 service which is of great benefit to the public. Council Member Christensen asked Mr. Swanson to give them room in the ordinance for setting the rate; Mr. Swanson stated in an ordinance of this nature they will have to define the extent of the surcharge and can’t delegate that authority in any other manner, but could reference a budget resolution to be adopted annually, which may give you some flexibility, but the
Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 2

ordinance did not anticipate having a sunset clause in it, would continue until the council either amended or repealed it. Council Member Kreun questioned difference in expiration dates for County, University and City; Mr. Swanson stated that the University is governed by the City rate, they do not have separate rate; that there are two methods of financing - 1) surcharge and 2) pro-rata share of operating costs that are split among entities; the County enacted its surcharge at a different time than the City, County has also had an intermittent election that the City did not have and that’s why their period runs for another 2 years. Council Member Kreun asked if the County would have the ability to withdraw from participation, and City committed. Mr. Swanson stated council can repeeal your surcharge at any time, have a joint powers agreement that works among the University, City and County, any of the entities could withdraw from the joint powers agreement under the terms of the agreement, if one were to withdraw then they are without dispatch service for various functions - fire, police, ambulance, etc., conceivable but there would have to be some pre-planning and would have some knowledge about that.

2.2 Budget amendment and grant agreement for Healthy Families ($62,220).
2.3 Budget amendment (Health $1,410).
2.4 Budget amendment (Health $2,372)
Council Member Bjerke questioned where funding comes from under item 2.2; Mr. Shields reported funding is from the State.

2.5 Request from NDDOT to designate frontage roads as collectors so they are eligible for Federal Aid.
Council Member Bjerke asked if this would affect businesses along these roads, and if anything that could impact us in the future. Al Grasser, city engineer, reported frontage roads are generally what you see along Columbia, Washington, Gateway Drive, etc. and in the past when we have done those streets they fall into a funding category where we receive 80% federal, 10% state and 10% local, and have included frontage roads within that funding allocation, the DOT has since determined that frontage roads do not fall within that funding category and the alternative if not designated as a classified street is to call them a local street - local streets would have funding implications and not sure how pay for it with our existing programs, most straightforward way would be to special assess against the adjacent property owners, but not very acceptable to them. That the DOT has allowed us at our discretion to designate those streets as collectors and would mean that we can apply some of Federal-Aid Urban money to those streets, would be 80% federal and 20% local. - it’s a way of allocating some of our federal dollars to those streets - to address that would like to change the recommendation so that it clarifies “for purposes of federal funding” because he doesn’t want to change the classifications as it relates to how they enforce ordinances, etc. - that several of those businesses have driveways and things that are maybe too close to intersections if enforce those as a true collector type street. He stated they are proposing to change the amount of the collector system for federal funding purposes - there are impacts in the future as they now need to come up with the 20% local match rather than 10%, and will have to work that out. Council Member Bjerke stated that when the motion is made that we include the statement “..for purposes of federal funding” in an attempt to protect them.

2.6 Applications for abatement for 1999 and 2000 taxes by Roscoe Hill, 1107 Almonte Avenue.
2.7 Application for abatement for 1999 and 2000 taxes by Monica Jackson, 1324 6th Avenue North.
No comments on these items.

2.8 Bids for City Project Nos. 4648.0 and 4648.5, 2001 Clearwell/High Service Pumping Station and
GFWTR Pumping Modifications.___________________________________________________
Council Member Kreun stated this is going to be a complex bid process with a lot of bidders from outside the area, and would ask that the council not waive irregularities when bids come due. Council Member Burke questioned that on the two project the engineer’s estimate is $10,575,000, and on
Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 3

summary page what adds up to that. Brian Bergantine, Advanced Eng., stated that the $12 million and the $7 million are the total project costs, the other is the construction cost estimate (including design, etc.)

2.9 Bids for City Project No. 5250, Bio solids removal at the Wastewater Treatment Stabilization Ponds.
No comments.

2.10 Moving permit application to move home from 1205 Lincoln Dr. to 1119/1123 Almonte Avenue.
Council Member Hamerlik stated he assumes that this property fits into the decor, and people have been notified, etc. Bev Collings, Inspections, reported that information included in the packet, and satisfied with this.

2.11 Job description changes (reclassifications).
2.12 -Job description changes (reclassifications).
Council Member Hamerlik stated he has problem with reclassifications, each year we go through several job reclassifications, some are needed, but approx. year ago read research that said that over 90% of the job reclassifications in public entities are for reasons for pay increases rather than for any other - that some reclassifications are necessary but as we add new responsibilities and changes, hasn’t seen the person who has given up responsibilities change theirs and go the other direction, with less salary, etc.; and his concern is that we have quite a few of these every year and what can they do to make sure that they are really of a necessity. Daryl Hovland, Human Resources, stated that they use a point system factor and have met with all the department heads and that scope has changed within their jobs, can only go for a reclassification every 2 years. Mr. Hamerlik stated a person can really make a case for almost any position, and asked what they can do so don’t have job reclassifications - it then goes to Civil Service, salary increases are regular at that point. Rick Duquette, acting adm. coordinator, reported that reclassifications have been submitted, points have actually changed for a majority of them, and points have actually been reduced from what was originally brought in based upon an objective analysis of those positions, but it’s been carefully looked at.

Council Member Burke stated there may be legitimate changes in scope but who authorizes the change in scope, this provides for a type of mission creep within an individual position. Mr. Hovland stated these jobs evolve, our community changed in 1997 , and a lot of jobs evolved into something greater - some evolved less, that the council has to approve all the job description changes, upward or downward, the Commission has to provide a report to the council by July 20 as to their findings on the reclassifications, but it’s the council who approves this job description. Council Member Burke stated they are being asked to approve job description changes after the fact, that reclassifications are where the job activities have changed but these people are already doing it or they wouldn’t be asking for reclassification - that they are doing this and we haven’t been able to decide whether or not they should be doing it.

Council Member Hamerlik asked how many positions have received lowered classifications; Mr. Hovland stated he couldn’t think of any at this point, but the Code does provide for that option.

Council Member Bakken stated we go through wage reclassification and also through wage negotiations every year, do wage negotiation and get a raise and do reclassifications and get raise - that we have tight budget right now. He stated he has another concern, that we’re downsizing the council in a year and need to do some re-organizing in the city and downsize some of the departments, that before reclassifying should know what we want for department structure as compared to what we have today.

The city auditor stated that several of these are within his department, there were people doing this work in these positions, but it was not defined in their job descriptions, looked at it and if performing the duties
Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 4

then should identify those, and give you the opportunity to have it looked at for reclassification - that we are more specific and particular in the compensation and benefits specialist and in the insurance area because those have become areas of high priority for us, those are major cost areas for us and want somebody concentrating heavily on those to see if there are potentials for savings.

Mr. Hovland stated people doing a lot of these tasks over the years and has not been identified in the job description, and what reclassification process does, is identify the duties and responsibilities that have changed in that job description. The city auditor stated that as a department head that’s what the classification system is all about , submit a change in job duties to recognize the work that is being done, and believes that’s what other departments do - and it is at council’s discretion and whether you accept that or not - and will tell you the people we have are going to continue to do the work because that’s who we hire.

Council Member Burke stated it seems we have built into our system a mechanism (grade with steps) for rewarding people for increased productivity, there’s certainly a place for reclassification when there’s a substantial change in job descriptions and in memo on reclassifications from Mr. Gordon, significant and substantial and that’s what really coming down to here.

Council Member Bjerke asked for the correct figure of the total cost of reclassifications to be approved, because included all requests for reclassification, but not all approved, and number should be lower than $51,000. Mr. Hovland stated the $51,000 represents the figure at worst case scenario, if all of these were approved - HR’s recommendation to the Commission, HR Director and the Department Head have to provide a recommendation to the Commission, based on their recommendation the $51,843 is $33,320.

Council Member Bjerke stated that there are 3 jobs that you recommended reclassification, (Community Health Nurse, Housing Tech II, and Trade Inspector), all 3 of those went up one grade but not on tonight’s listing. Mr. Hovland stated the Community Health Nurse position is listed as current grade of 17, requested grade 18, HR recommendation is grade 18; that there is no significant change on the job description that would need approval, that the job description may not change but the individual and the department are bringing forward saying the degree, whether it be decision making has increased, independence may have increased and those will be brought before the Commission for them to weigh out and either approve or disapprove of the reclassification.

Council Member Kreun asked for effective date if approved. Mr. Hovland stated if these are approved and brought back to the council before July 20, these will go into effect January 1, 2002. Mr. Kreun stated this would be in the budget along with any step changes and any wage negotiations, and if this is brought as a complete package to council as a negotiation package. Mr. Hovland stated the reclassifications will come separate on a report from the Commission as to their findings, wage negotiations will be separate, won’t come as a complete package.

Council Member Hamerlik reviewed process - that the council approves the job description, the Civil Service Commission acts on the reclassification, the reclassification then determines the pay grade, so the council at this point does not determine any pay at all, and Civil Service determines the pay for the employees. Mr. Hovland stated they would be reclassified into a current grade already established by the council in our pay scales, so council has already approved the wage scales that we have. Mr. Hovland stated that when they look at the pay for the salary changes, per Section 6-0306, it states “When a position is reclassified to a job classification having a lower or higher salary step, the rate of pay for any employee holding a position in shall remain the same until such time as the salary step of pay to the new

Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 5

classification becomes equal to the amount previously held in that classification.” , that go to same step
but different grade, because a step is a number of years - to the nearest dollar.

Council Member Burke stated on the reclassifications for the Housing Authority - that they discussed earlier when having an interim department director, was that weren’t going to mess around with positions until they figured out what that department was going to look like, which meant after the budget process this year, and questioned why doing this when we have a restructuring plan on the table, which if we do adopt, is going to make this moot anyway. Mr. Hovland stated they are getting mixed up is the dollar figure versus what has actually changed in the person’s job description, what’s before you tonight is the job description change, not a matter of changing this to get a pay raise, it has to go under the restructure, these are duties identified by the individual, brought through the department head, consulted with HR, and bring to the Commission, the Commission will determine if there is a substantial change to the position and classify it as such; that they bring back report to the council and it’s the council’s authority to say yes or no.

Council Member Glassheim asked if next week they will only be asked to act upon only the changes in job descriptions (items included in staff recommendation), and will be what they will be discussing and can approve, disapprove or modify. Mr. Swanson stated that the council has no jurisdiction or authority over actual classification decisions, that is left to the Civil Service Commission; a change in a job description does not necessarily dictate a change in a classification, and vice versa, the lack of a change in a job description does not determine a change or no change in a classification.

2.13 Job description approval for Director of Information Systems.
Council Member Hamerlik stated he had concern as to the involvement of Civil Service Commission, it would seem they are missing a step as we have concluded in the past that all department heads are under contract, and whether we want this position to be contract if they are a department head; that the way this is presented it is to be under civil service, and if the council is moving towards more contracts, this is different than what past behavior has been. Mr. Hovland stated that would be the call of the council.

Mr. Duquette stated they have an employee in classified service moving into a position and asked what are the circumstance concerning going into contract or not. Mr. Swanson stated that an employee that is employed under Civil Service has certain constitutional protections that except with their concurrence cannot be automatically transferred or unilaterally transferred to a contractual position - may be able to accomplish that if you were to go through restructuring but can’t take an existing civil service employee and unilaterally change them to a contract employee. Council Member Hamerlik stated they had an employee under civil service promoted to a department head; Mr. Swanson stated they didn’t change the former position that they held, you made the contract based upon the new position that they had the opportunity to consider whether they would accept the contract. Council Member Hamerlik asked if this wasn’t a new position. Mr. Swanson stated if it is a new position that is vacant or newly created, you can create that as a contract but if a position held by a current employee you can’t unilaterally change that civil service position to a contract position. He stated if you are dealing with a new position this body is the only body that can determine whether it’s contract or not, not a decision that the mayor or Civil Service Commission can make. Council Member Bjerke stated that when Mr. Feland was promoted, he was going to be under contract, and asked if he was. Mr. Hovland stated that Mr. Feland will be offered a contract.

Council Member Bjerke stated if they are going to continue with an administrative coordinator, that when he read through both the job descriptions in the packet (IS and Finance Administrative Service) there is
Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 6

no mention of the administrative coordinator, and if continue down that road, would assume that work on correcting that.

Mr. Swanson stated that the recommended council action says to approve the reallocation, that there is no such thing in the Civil Service Code as a reallocation, that it doesn’t exist, is either a restructuring of an existing position or are creating a new position which requires a testing or hiring process, can’t automatically take and move one person into another position by what’s termed “reallocation”; and would tend to agree that this can’t be an existing position, has to be a new position. He stated that the restructuring process is where council goes through and determines changes in the structure of a department, it may be the elimination of some positions, or combination of positions, addition, and over the years various departments have done that, the more significant and most recent maybe the police department; that it does shift responsibilities and obligations within a department. He stated to fill a position like this, you would either fill it through a reassignment, which would be either a transfer or a promotion, or through new hire which would be an open competition.

Council Member Hamerlik stated we have not discussed whether or not we should have another department head and should it be moved from where it currently is to a separate entity and role it should play. Council Member Bakken stated he would like to look at the whole structure of each department and for efficiency purposes, combine some and not create more. Mayor Brown stated he disagrees because he feels this is such an important department and needs it’s own autonomy and is a service to all the departments, and that informational services was key to this organization and needed to be an independent body and that’s why this is as it is today, so will have to discuss policy.

Council Member Christensen stated that this is something they shouldn’t decide on Monday night, should be pulled and that he would like council to discuss policy rather than $’s here and there, and also thinks its part of the executive branch and this would be an important department and information services these people provide and wondering if couldn’t combine those two and have one person in charge of both. Council Member Burke stated that while the administrative coordinator’s job description provided that he would have direct supervision over department heads, the department heads job descriptions didn’t provide that they would report or receive supervision from the administrative coordinator and it seems we need to make adjustments across the board in the department heads and could be as simple as saying that the language right now says “receives administrative or general administration direction from the mayor” and add “or the mayor’s designee” so that when we have the administrative coordinator the mayor can designate that person as the person who provides direction to the department heads, and if the mayor chooses to have a particular department head report to his assistant as opposed to the administrative coordinator that would be the mayor’s designee.

Council Member Kreun stated to get this off dead center, should take this out and re-evaluate it and look at it as a new position rather than adding or reallocating which we can’t do.

2.14 2001 budget amendment (Human Resources).
Council Member Bjerke asked what balance is of cash carryover for this department. Mr. Hovland stated to date he has used 99% of his budget for advertising for the vacant positions, that since December 10 they advertised for 19 outside, and that the billing didn’t come in until this budget; and balance is approx. $34,000. Council Member Bjerke stated he would like when spending cash carryover to have amount, less transfer, and balance on the reports. Mayor Brown stated that was noted.

2.15 RFP for sale of home/lot package for relocation of historic homes.

Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 7

Council Member Christensen asked where these homes fit in the Habitat for Humanities allocation
of homes or non-allocation of homes. Mr. Hanson stated that the houses on this listing are not a part of the Habitat. Council Member Hamerlik stated there will not be oral bidding after they’ve been admitted with the minimum bid at the time of the auction; and asked if it wouldn’t be to our advantage and to the people interested, to be able to do it verbally so that they know because an auction is an auction and can change your bid. Mr. Hanson stated that if the city council wishes them to have oral bidding after opening the written bids, to give that direction and they will do that. Mr. Hanson stated they did change the procedure along the way because they were selling different types of structures. In answer to a question what happens if houses aren’t purchased. Mr. Hanson stated the Corps is directing us to sell these homes and if will be under their project, and if not sold under this method, the Corps will take control of them and try to sell or demolish them.

2.16 Wireless Communication premises site lease.
Council Member Christensen asked if enter into this lease is it exclusive as to the location or can others lease the space on top of the water towers. Mr. Swanson stated they are non-exclusive leases, that they have taken a position of uniform lease and have taken position with respect to the level of compensation to the degree that when in this case this particular lessee asked to modify or to change the terms of the lease, we basically said it was on a take it or leave it, and thinks that the way the council wanted it, subject to future changes in the level of lease payments. At some point may run out of space or run into situation where they will interfere with others usage, but to this point haven’t reached that degree that he is aware of.

2.17 Pre-application for Grand Forks, ND inert landfill permit.
Council Member Burke stated that there won’t be any additional operating cost because we’re already doing the same thing at the other location. Mr. Feland stated location is contiguous, and is on the other side of 69th, east of the location but west of the road. He stated they talked about their existing site, trying to save space, this particular site was going to be used as a solid waste landfill and don’t know that’s not going to occur, and want to get it sited as an inert landfill so when and if the City did want to move in that direction, would have the ability and have done all the work prior.

2.18 Petition from the Grand Forks Park District for vacation of all of South 17th Street and the 10-foot wide utility easement lying west of and adjoining thereto, as platted in the plat of Ulland Park First Addition, Grand Forks, ND, excluding any portion of the intersecting 47th Avenue South R/W.___
No comments.

2.19 Planning Department for final approval of an ordinance to amend the text of the Land Development
Code, Chapter XVIII of the Grand Forks City of 1987, as amended, amending Section 18-0204(2)
Definitions related to wireless communication facilities, amending Section 18-0206 A-1 (Limited
Development) District, amending Section 18-0208 R-1 (Single Family Residence) District, amending Section 18-0209 R-1 (One and Two Family Residence) District, Section 18-0210, R-3 (Multiple Family Residence, Medium Density) District, Section 18-0211 R-4 (Multiple Family Residence, High Density) District, Section 18-0212 R-5 (Mobile Home Residence) District, Section 18-0213 R-M (Manufactured Home Residence) District, Section 18-0214 B-1 (Limited Business) District, Section 18-0215 B-2 (Shopping Center) District, Section 18-0216 B-3 (General Business) District, Section 18-0217 B-4 (Central Business) District, Section 18-0218 I-1 (Light Industrial) District, Section 18-0221 U-D (University) District, Section 0303 Height, Section 18-0310.1 relating to Wireless Communication Towers and Antennas._______________________________________
Council Member Christensen stated he spoke to Mr. Potter about this, and would like the review process if an applicant were denied his permit, that they appeal it directly to the city council rather than to
Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 8

the Planning and Zoning Commission and then to the city council; we don’t need two layers of review and would appreciate it if the council would concur with that and has asked Mr. Potter to amend C. and D, and that Mr. Potter is also going to speak with a couple interested parties who are in the wireless business and give us a report on Monday.

2.20 Snow removal assessments for 2000-2001.
No comments.

2.21 Resolution of city council of Grand Forks to authorize the filing of an application with the North
Dakota Department of Health for a loan under the Clean Water Act.______________________
No comments.

2.22 Construction phase engineering agreement Project No. 4815 and 4816.1, Phase I, Utility Reloca-
tions, GFEG Amendment No. 16.___________________________________________________
No comments.

2.23 Appointment to Grand Forks City Planning & Zoning Commission.
No comments.

2.24 Incentive compensation for the assistant director of finance
Council Member Hamerlik reported that they hired consultants 2 to 3 years ago and did a job analysis study, there were some recommendations but really haven’t heard much about it, we were low, up to 15-l6% on some positions, and bringing up now, and asked for status on that study, or should we be looking at all of these at one time, and would seem to be appropriate. Mr. Duquette stated that during the last 3 weeks have been meeting with department heads and the finance department, HR and bringing in some technicians within the city to look at the recommendations from the Fox Lawson report, and their recommendations on whole the City was about 8% below median, that the city council set aside approx. $200,000 two years ago to implement some of those recommendations; that they are approx. 3 weeks off to completing that and bring recommendations back to the mayor and council on how to spend the $200,000 to implement a plan of the market adjustment from Fox Lawson. Council Member Hamerlik stated that part of that whole plan would have an impact on our next year’s budget. Mr. Duquette stated they are trying to stay within the constraints of that $200,000 that has been earmarked and looking at a multi-year phase in it of the recommendations.

Council Member Burke asked if it was their expectation that the market adjustments that you propose will be incorporated into the pay grade system or will it be a separate payment apart from the grade system. He stated we have a system that associates a job with a pay grade based on points, then we equate the value of jobs with the grade system and the points, we don’t provide for market adjustments right now but provide for adjustments based on merit and incentive and have no market adjustment mechanism in our current system; and his interest is in seeing whatever we do with market adjustment it be separate and apart from the pay grade system so that we can deal with market adjustments both up and down.

Mr. Swanson stated that about a year ago he provided an opinion to the HR Department that addressed that concern, and the essence of the opinion was if a market adjustment under the incentive provision of the Code is given presently it is not a permanent adjustment and is subject to re-evaluation or determination by the city council. It was noted that when applying our cost of living increase it applies to the incentive as well.


Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 9

Council Member Bjerke stated if talking about the market analysis, that if look at the jobs that are 5% or more underpaid, there are 10, and if look at the jobs that 5% or more overpaid, there are 22; and if going with the market analysis then have to go down as well as up or not consistent. He stated under agenda item 2.11 this classification was denied on a specific job - if we increase the pay for one person because somebody else got their pay increased, then theoretically all the people below that person deserve a raise because their separation of pay is now greater than the same person that was over them.

Mr. Swanson stated there is history where market analysis has shown positions to be overclassified or overpaid, and the council has red circled those positions (that they would not get any increase in negotiated annual raises) but are entitled to whatever steps they would get, it doesn’t occur a great deal but doesn’t occur in the classification scheme, it comes up in a pay study. He stated he doesn’t know if any position is red circled (frozen) but probably not because there hasn’t been an implementation of a market study for a number of years; that would be a prerogative and something that should be reviewed by the council as to whether this new market study affects any position that might be frozen. Mayor Brown stated they would look into that.

Council Member Hamerlik stated that Mayor Owens’ budget had in it $100,000 for retaining employees and that met with some concerns but passed; sometime later there were 2 or 3 positions in IS approved and approx. $40,000 was used up; that there was a memorandum of approx. 15-20-25 names being circulated around unofficially about who might be up for some extra pay - that met with a lot of disfavor - that on August 9, 1999 there were only 8 positions that appeared on the agenda and voted on, but there had been a number of positions dropped. He stated it was a way to retain these people but also to use up the $60,000.

C.T. Marhula, 617 Plain Hills Drive, stated he was here to talk down this request from the finance department, that what is missing in the report is what the most recent market study showed, that he doesn’t believe it shows the assistant finance director as being under market; and report doesn’t show that the separation was 8 to 11% but it doesn’t compare how the position compares to the whole study. He stated he does recall what Fox Lawson recommended not doing - do not make individual adjustments; what they did recommend doing was we were 8% below market and somehow should find a way over the next 5 - 8 years to raise the overall salary an additional 8% in addition to the cost of living - that some positions were up to 24% below market - he listed several department heads with similar grades are not getting similar pay and hopefully that is being studied and feels there’s a problem with department heads that have the same grades but compensated differently. He stated the promise was implied to employees that after the adjustments were made to the 8 people Mr. Hamerlik indicted, that the rest of the employees would get a serious shake and was supposed to happen in January, 2000; again in January, 2001, and recognizing how hands are tied with budget constraints. He stated he has some concern about who is going to speak for the water plant employees, health department employees, sanitation and street department employees, etc. He stated as a Home Rule Charter you can eliminate the merit system and do away with the civil service system.

Council Member Christensen asked if they could eliminate the civil service system. Mr. Swanson stated the issue of Home Rule probably isn’t determinative but believes the council has been provided with a fairly recent copy of an Attorney General’s opinion authorized by Attorney General Heitkamp that indicates that a civil service system can be eliminated (question was whether a Home Rule city could eliminate without a public vote) - that can occur and would be within your prerogative, that doesn’t resolve all the issues - the issues then become by elimination of civil service system what protection and constitutional rights do those employees that were hired under the existing civil service system have two separate forms. An alternative to elimination of the civil service system is what you have been moving
Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 10

toward on department heads - hiring under contract, separate and apart. He stated if someone wishes that opinion he will provide it.

Council Member Christensen stated if they were to eliminate civil service then we have to deal with the existing employees and have to deal with the fact that they were hired and have a contract of employment, don’t know if can change that contract of employment unilaterally and have a dual system of employees for years to come; we’d probably be better off to examine the civil service system and review the code and try to simplify it because it appears there have been a lot of changes over the years to address certain issues; and would be in favor of reviewing the ordinance in its entirety as a matter of policy to try to make it a little simpler.

Mr. Swanson stated that in 1994 1995 timeframe their office was asked to draft model employment agreement and also to determine whether they could enter into model employment agreements, and in the course of that work did a non-scientific study which led their office to conclude that contract employees demanded approx. 15% higher pay than civil service employees because of the protection; doesn’t know if that number is true today. Council Member Christensen stated those are policy decisions they have to make but that’s consideration they would make in changing the Code or not, but trade-off for that is, don’t have to go through the process, don’t have department heads or sub-heads who are afraid to memo the file to begin the process of removing an employee who is not performing, and would hope that they examine civil service system in its entirety and methodology of compensation.

Mr. Marhula stated he believes in the merit system, civil service system as he thinks it suits the City best, that avoids the politics, and from his experience on the civil service commission not one time did they ever overrule a department head for disciplining an employee, including dismissal of employees.

Council Member Burke questioned term of employees who have civil service positions having a property right to that job. Mr. Swanson stated that even if you eliminate civil service code employees hired under that do have a property right and it is called that by the US Supreme Court as a property right or a property interest provided under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution. Council Member Christensen stated to eliminate an employee, have to go through a procedure to make sure their property right is protected before they are fired (there is a hearing, and as a result of the hearing and process his/her decision is confirmed and the person is terminated, if not, they continue, that even if terminated, they can still sue the City as we’ve experienced several times and sue the City for failure to follow the procedure, not having enough information in the file to justify the termination).

Council Member Kreun stated we have several issues tonight and should look at each one individually right now and put together a process so that we can put them all together as Mr. Marhula indicated so that we do not pick and choose each one individually as they come up, but there are some that need some attention at this time. Mr. Duquette stated they will look at all the incentive adjustments that need work at this point in time. Council Member Hamerlik stated they should look to see what the committee who studied that and review their recommendations; look at phase-in that ties in with the budget because using up the $200,000 has an impact on the future, and have a start already but has concern about acting on one when there are many more. Mayor Brown stated they will look at that or bring report. Council Member Hamerlik stated looking at the committee’s report, draw up an agenda on how we’re going to do it, increase those who are off 10% or 15%, etc. and then have a scenario in place that will take care of it based on the Fox study for the next 5 - 10 years so don’t revisit it each year.

Council Member Bakken stated because of tightness of money, doesn’t think situation is going to improve even through 2003, but the biggest part of our expense is employees and we’re adding to that but
Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 11

not taking away expenses and not adding revenue. Mr. Duquette stated the way they are approaching this is in a multi-year approach, have $200,000 to work with for 2002, it’s going to be a policy decision and if the funds are not there for 2003, they’re not there and that’s a decision the council makes and decision we live with but are trying to stay in constrains of this current earmarked dollars so that there’s a fiscal note attached to this idea and will stay within those boundaries. Council Member Christensen stated that the council’s message to staff is that we want to implement the wage Lawson report says we’re under 8%, but this year is go with 2-3% increase it will be half million dollars, lot of it comes out of general revenue, and remind that when preparing budget that four years from now have the Greenway and will be asked to fund that for the upkeep, etc., that if we increase taxes in the next four years or cost of doing business here, doesn’t see where revenue going up, that we’re losing sight of where going when we talk about implementing something under market, above market, etc.

Council Member Glassheim spoke of new investments in the city that are real, increase in sales tax revenues are real, the increase in valuation of property over time is real, that we haven’t had increase in property taxes for several years - the City is very well managed, there is an increase in revenues that comes from natural growth, still have to be careful and cautious; and have to ask why consider having market increases, we have market studies which tell us what we need to pay to keep people of the quality we need in certain positions, and market study includes cities of comparable size, etc. and private sector, that when we’re below market in certain categories we have to come up or can’t hire new people; that market study is a fact that people will not come here of comparable skill to fill the positions we have if they’re not paid within a general range, and Fox Lawson found some positions above 15% below market.

Council Member Kerian asked what’s in front of us, will the request be held while do the rest of the work and present that at the same time. Mr. Duquette stated Ms. Jerath’s request to the mayor was based upon a pay equity issue between director and assistant director versus an incentive adjustment. Mayor Brown stated they will present it Monday, discuss it and vote on it.

Saroj Jerath stated she doesn’t know what they have decided about this issue and if they know what her concern is - fairness and equity; and not sure they have addressed that issue. She stated there is too big a disparity between the positions; that she has been working for the City for the last 12 to 13 years and thinks she has given 100% of her abilities and performed her job well and thinks should be paid appropriately, should be fairness and equity. It was noted that a decision will be made on Monday.

Council Member Glassheim stated his problem which is ranking of Grades 24 or 26, but all other assistants are at the Grade 24 level, that they do skilled and dedicated work as well, and problem with increasing Saroj’s compensation without increasing every assistant’s compensation, and at her level being paid fairly, but director got an increase of retention, that there’s more of a difference than there was previously, but doesn’t know if that’s the grounds on which your salary should be determined, and jiggles the entire civil service system, and according to the study, close to the ballpark.

The city auditor reported that the situation was that he was offered another position and the council asked what it would take to keep him here, that he gave them a dollar amount and it was less than what he would get for going somewhere else and that created the disparity, and he will agree that the position as the assistant in his office is vital to the office and what he received should correlate to the assistant is a decision the council needs to make, but that position is key, critical and wouldn’t want to do without it and doesn’t want to put personalities in this but the person that is in that position is critical and key, does a marvelous job and that the increase to him was done in the best interest of the city at the time, that it did create problems and creates problems now, and in answering Saroj’s concern you will probably create

Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 12

more problem, but hopefully we can address a lot of those through the market analysis and come up with further solutions for you.

Bill Couchigan, 815 40th Avenue South, asked if the retention pay has created a new level for that position or is it retention pay for that person holding that position. Mr. Swanson stated the pay is not specific to the position but to the person. Mr. Couchigan asked if the retention pay is increased with the cost of living or a flat retention pay and if that person leaves, would the replacement get the same salary with the retention pay. Mayor Brown stated the position replacement would be negotiated by contract. Mr. Swanson stated that as he looks at the list of who received retention pay, not all were department heads, that of the 8 listed, only 4 still employed by the City, and some replacement positions have been converted to contract positions; that if it involved the department head that was hired under contract, the scale is not applicable. Mr. Duquette stated the engineering department is still utilizing the incentive adjustment to recruit engineers, the 8% on top of the salary for that position - and 2 positions are still vacant.

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR COMMENTS

4.1 Landfill siting update.
Mr. Duquette stated they will be including additional informational items under Coordinator Comments, information items; that Mr. Feland has put in some landfill siting update for you and during this period of time at the committee of the whole if have questions Mr. Feland will be able to answer them on this item. Also distributed on your desk was the final CDBG Supplemental Cost Matrix. He also stated an informational item for council under Coordinator Comments at the Committee of the Whole; that they are working diligently on the market analysis, part-time employee circumstance, overtime situation, holiday pay issues and these items will figure into the calculations that council will be doing for 2002 budget and will have informal discussions with department heads and employees before bringing items to council.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

1) Council Member Glassheim presented matter of headline and chart “young people fleeing North Dakota” and the Grand Forks County loss of 22% in the 20-34 age bracket, which is higher than North Dakota’s average loss by 6%, that this has long term implications for the school system and for youth, which was down 14%, 6% worse than ND’s average in Grand Forks County; and would like to have us look at this and see if we feel there are any actions we can take to build up that age range - thinks people leave and come for many reasons and would like either a mayor’s or council’s task force or staff, thinks these are most significant numbers he’s seen, that this is our future and concerned about it. That he would like suggestions as to how to proceed to see if want to look at it. Mayor Brown stated they would look into that issue - will bring report back as to how to deal with it and address it. Council Member Burke stated that Dr. Hickock with the MPO is a demographer and understands better than anyone the dynamics of what’s gone on in the past 10 years with the missile wing, flood, who are the most vulnerable and likely to leave town because of those items; and perhaps if asked him to prepare a memo on his interpretation of those number, might be a starting point. He stated he would be interested in assessing again in 2 or 3 years when community more stable.

2) Council Member Burke stated he had discussed with the engineering department some months ago about the “no right turn on red” signs on South Washington, they investigated with the State indicating it was their intention to retain those signs - it was brought to his attention over the weekend and would like to revisit - that it seems to him in light of current energy situation and that “right on red” was instituted
Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 13

during the last energy crises and might have a case to make for getting rid of those signs which adds not to safety but inconvenience.

3) Council Member Burke asked if finance staff could tell us how much we have budgeted and how much spent on education benefits for our employees, and institutions, that we’re providing some money to the UND for recruitment and retention of students, $100,000 last year, and looking for that same kind of help next year, and perhaps work some kind of arrangement where we get a tuition credit from the UND in a like amount that we could provide to our employees, no incremental cost for the UND to provide that, and benefit to provide to our employees. The city auditor will research that.

4) Council Member Burke presented matter of joint powers agreement between County, City and UND, that they hire the director and the people who work in PSAP Center are civil service and City employees, and if not a City entity why City employees, that we encourage some liability for this and figure out situation where remove ourselves from that liability. Mayor Brown noted the matter. Council Member Bakken stated that PSAP started out as City entity and turned into joint powers agreement and that’s how employees were left under City umbrella and biggest share of duties is for the city, that they’ve done a study and have had a committee looking into a new arrangement, which probably will be presented in the next month or so.

5) Council Member Hamerlik presented the matter of whether going to vote recommendations at committee of the whole, and would like a committee of the whole agenda item to decide whether or not we’re going to make motions to recommend to the full council, which would come up the following week for final decision. Council Member Christensen stated if doing this, would have to publish the committee of the whole agenda - Mayor Brown stated it is being published.

6) Council Member Stevens reported he received a call from constituent that have a teen-age alcoholic in their family and had to take him outside the community for treatment (Minot), that he knows we have started implementing the former County building for a treatment center for youth, but trying to encourage the City for that to be done so that we don’t have to send our children out of town for that type of treatment.

7) Council Member Bjerke stated he had asked for a report on diesel people movers because gas ones not as efficient but has come to understand that according to the MPO we could not even use people movers on our bus routes because the MPO requires a low floor bus, and asked what we would have to do to change that so that if we wanted to put a people mover on a route that we’d be able to do that. Mr. Feland stated they are currently looking at the long range transportation plan in lieu of the trolley and whatever transportation mode that we would want, and council would want a very general statement so that if you did want to move to a different form of transportation you’d have the ability to do as opposed to amending the long range transportation plan; and will bring that back to the council related to the plan.

8) Council Member Kreun stated in tacking on to Council Member Glassheim’s concern that one of the reasons he was bringing forth proposals for home ownership and when he and Mr. Hanson meet they will have a complete “tool box” in order to retain people and in order to entice people and have a positive effect on the schools.

9) Council Member Bakken reported he came across an insightful paragraph which he wanted to share with the council - “Men who achieve significant positions or responsibility and authority in this life run one of the greatest risks, the risk is to identify who you are as a person with the position; the heartache

Committee of the Whole/05/29/01 - Page 14

comes when you no longer have the position and you realize people were not interested in you because you were you but because of the position you held which they believed could benefit them in some way."

10) Council Member Kerian stated that as discussions have gone on we hit the line of what are a couple of the most important things that the city council deals with, one are the people who pay for city government and those are the people who pay the taxes and our city employees who are the people that the citizens touch when they work with city government, and thinks its going to be some of the most important decisions that a council makes is how we balance those two, and it’s a challenge and its not going to come out either way perfectly and yet we need to be mindful of the best use of the resources we have and salaries do not always reflect the importance of the work that city employees do.

11) Council Member Christensen stated that addressing the numbers and concerns that Mr. Glassheim suggests the council address, that we should ask ourselves what are we here to do as council persons, what can we truly affect rather than just comment on and study, it seems that the only method that the city has available to it to address those concerns would be to look to our sales tax dollar which is either 21 or 23% which goes to economic development and begin to study how we address economic development/quality of life/youth retention issues in this community. He stated it’s something they should address as a community in conjunction with the School District and the Park District and the County, because we only collect 23 or 24% of the total taxes and if we don’t have the students here, if we have the child bearing ages leaving, one of those new schools we built won’t have students, but current reality and sure Mr. Hickock will tell you that, and as we proceed in this budgeting process and as move forward next year, should address economic development/quality of life/under 40 issues in this community and probably try to define some type of policy going forward for the next 2 to 5 years and follow it.

12) Mayor Brown stated from the Mayor’s Office they were excited to bring forward the report on the issues that have been on the table for last several years, and bring solutions forward that will satisfy the needs of our community.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved by Council Member Hamerlik and seconded by Council Member Bjerke that we do now adjourn. Carried 9 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



John M. Schmisek
City Auditor