Print VersionStay Informed
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Monday, December 9, 2002 – 7:00 p.m.

The City Council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, December 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Vice President Hamerlik presiding. Present at roll call were Council Members Brooks, Glassheim, Gershman, Hamerlik, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun – 7; absent : none.

Vice President Hamerlik announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record and be advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Vice President Hamerlik announced that for the information of all items 3.7 and 3.8 on tonight’s agenda which deal with the Homestead Grove PUD will not be discussed tonight. They will be discussed at the January 13, 2003 Committee of the Whole Meeting with action to be taken at the January 20, 2003 Council Meeting.

3.1 Bids for City Project No. 4371, Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Plant (Landscaping)

Council Member Brooks inquired of Mark Walker, Asst. City Engineer, as to why the recommendation on this item was to reject all bids. Mr. Walker stated that there was only one bid received on this item and it was substantially more than the engineer’s estimate. Mr. Walker stated that following the bid opening they went back to the consultant and asked them to research why no other vendors submitted a bid. The consultant found that the bid opening fell at a time when many were occupied by the time of the season and were out hunting and also that some were misled due to the title of the project being landscaping, and as such felt that the job would be more with trees, shrubs, and minor dirt work. Based on this finding they are recommending that the project be rebid. Council Member Brooks asked if we put a clause into our specs that we have the ability to reject all bids and if so is there is any stipulations or if it is open. Mr. Walker stated that we do put such a clause in and it is open. He stated that we review bids when they are received they evaluate to see if they have gotten the best price possible. When more than one bid is received it is easy to do this comparison. With only one bid it is harder to say that we got the best and fairest price, and in this case the bid was higher than the engineer’s estimate. Council Member Brooks stated that he felt the City did not have a good faith reason to reject this bid, as we did not state there needed to be more than one bid, and the people at NoDak were able to work up their bid despite it being hunting season and submitted it in good faith to us. It may have been above engineer’s estimate, but we need to review this process and try to stop this from happening in the future.

Council Member Gershman inquired as to the confusion of the landscaping and what the contractor feels on this matter. Mr. Walker stated that in the matter of the project title, it probably should have been called site grading or a similar description, thereby drawing attention to the major areas of work. In discussions with those who did not bid, they would have been interested, but were misled by the name of the project. In regards to the second question, the bidding contractor stated that their feeling on their bid was that they gave a competitive bid and they would be at a disadvantage if the project is rebid, as their number is already out in the public. Mr. Walker stated that he has weighed all of these factors, and still recommends that the City rebid to try and get the best price for the City.

Council Member Christensen inquired what difference it would have made if the bid description had been clear. The engineer’s estimate was out when the contractor bid the job, they still bid the number they did even knowing that they were above the estimate. Further, he stated that he felt it was poor policy to rebid a project based on the fact that several potential bidders were hunting. He stated that the additional costs for rebidding the project seemed out of line since we have staff that are preparing the specs and would be reworking the item. He felt that since the bidder got the package, looked at the specs, and put in a good faith bid, without any better reasons offered than those given tonight, he would not be in favor of rejecting the bid.

3.2 Change Order #2 for Project No. 5837, Inert Landfill Site Development.

Council Member Kerian called on Cindy Voigt, Asst. City Engineer, to explain the difference between the original change order that was in the packet with the new revision that was received tonight. Ms. Voigt stated that there is one difference of $10,500 that is detailed in paragraph #4. This is for an added dozer and operator that was used to spread the cover soil as it is hauled. This was added since the landfill operator was not able to keep up and they did not want a large frozen pile of cover to work with later. Ms. Kerian inquired whether this was from another city project. Ms. Voigt stated that this was residual material from another City project that was being done at a location adjacent to the landfill and could be used there. She stated that in the future they will try to look at ways this residual material could be used at the time the project is bid so that it can be included in the bid. She stated that the $1.39 per cubic yard that is on this change order is a very good rate in the industry.

Council Member Kreun stated that if he was understanding correctly this is the site work for the inert landfill that would have been bid out at a later time, however, we are now including it here. We are not piling it and then loading it later, but rather we are taking it straight to the landfill and spreading it for cover as it is available and this generates the need for more manpower. Ms. Voigt stated that he was correct and we are saving money by not handling it twice. Council Member Gershman asked if we would incur additional costs by stockpiling it now and moving it later. Ms. Voigt stated that she has spoken with the Director of Sanitation and he is in need of the material now and does not have trucks adequate for the work of moving the materials later. Council Member Brooks asked if we, the City had changed the scope of the project from what was originally bid. Ms. Voigt stated that the job scope has changed significantly for the contractor because we are asking him to now move the dirt, not just pile it. We have added trucks and hauling to the project that were not part of the original bid.

Council Member Kreun stated that by doing it all at this time, we are being much more cost effective and efficient. Council Member Glassheim inquired whether the price we are paying now is fair or if we would have to pay more or less later. Ms. Voigt stated that this is an excellent price.

3.3 Powerline relocation for English Coulee Diversion (Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.)

Council Member Gershman asked for more information on this item. Mr. Walker stated that the City had asked Minnkota Power to do this for the City as part of the English Coulee Diversion. We agreed to reimburse Minnkota for their expenses. They initially gave us an estimate that turned out to be substantially lower than the final cost. When asked to explain the difference they stated that their initial estimate was too low. Mr. Walker stated that the work was completed in the winter, which involved much starting and stopping depending on the weather and was much slower. Council Member Gershman asked whether we have reviewed their actual bills to determine that this was their actual costs. He also stated that in the future the City should place a not too exceed in any agreement of this type. Mr. Walker stated that they used their own people to do the work so there are no contractors involved. He stated that he believed there was documentation that accompanied the billing and he will review it again. He stated that while we could ask for a not to exceed bid, however then they will just increase their estimate and we will still pay the same. Mr. Walker stated that since they did this project at our request and to relocate not for their choice, but rather for the benefit of our project that we do need to reimburse them for their actual costs. He further stated that in the past we have had agreements with Minnkota and they have always proven to be fair in their billings to us. Council Member Gershman asked how that will impact the contingency funds on the project. Mr. Walker stated that this will increase the project cost, although given the cost of the entire project this is a minimal increase. He stated that since this is a relocation this is 100% City cost, with the State picking up up to 45% of the City share.

Council Member Brooks asked if we have a memorandum of understanding on this project and if we do then if we are satisfied that the costs submitted are fair, we need to reimburse the costs. Mr. Walker stated that one item that he does know that contributed to the increased costs was due to the use of a different type of pole than the one the original estimate was based on as it was not available.

Council Member Kreun stated that he likens this to the building of the railroad bridge on DeMers. They told us it was their line, they would build it and would tell us how much it costs. With proper documentation available he was in favor of approving this item.

3.4 Amendment No. 1 to engineering services agreement with WFW for Project No. 5245, University Avenue Overlay.

Council Member Gershman stated that he understands staff hoped the project would be completed in a timely manner, however, he sees only a mention of some vandalism to staking. He requested more explanation on the $11,000 increase for inspection hours. Ms. Voigt stated that the job was done by the due date set by the ND DOT. She stated that usually this type of project is completed within a couple of weeks. The holdup on the project was the curb ramps and the process used by the contractor. They only used one crew which drew out the project and required additional engineering time for inspection as to what had been anticipated at the outset of the project. She stated that since it was a DOT project it required more intensive inspection than we would have had it been a City project. Council Member Gershman asked whether this was under the guidelines of the contract. Ms. Voigt stated that the project was completed on time as set forth by the DOT contract, and that the contractor could complete the project any way they chose as long as they met that date. Council Member Gershman stated that perhaps we should look at putting in something in future contracts to avoid this happening again, as it appears that we give contractors the ability to deliberately increase the costs to the City. Ms. Voigt stated that the City did not draw these specs it was a DOT project.

Council Member Kerian asked if there was any additional information that WFW could provide. Ms. Voigt stated that Tom Hanson wanted to again point out that the ND DOT was the one that drafted these specs and as such we have no control. Council Member Kerian stated that she hoped we could look at the process and see if there was a way we could better write specs on other projects so as to limit this in the future.

Council Member Christensen stated that it seems that possibly WFW misbid the project and they should have included enough in the initial bid to cover any additional time that may be required due to the way the specs were written by the DOT. He felt that perhaps we should pay for time on the change order but not for the additional overhead. Ms. Voigt stated that the original consulting engineer estimate was higher and the engineering department negotiated it down under the hope that the job would have been done in a more timely manner. She stated that the overhead amount is set in the current DOT contract that we have and we need to follow the current contract.

Tom Hanson, WFW, stated that they had initially proposed more, however the city stated that the contract should be less because it would not take as long as was included in the bid. He stated that WFW agreed to reduce the amount of the initial contract, with the knowledge if there was additional time required it could come in as a change order. He stated that they are doing it on a breakeven basis and have turned back money if they can complete the work for less. He stated that they try to be fair and complete all jobs in a professional manner and will eat costs when they do something wrong. Mr. Hanson stated that they felt at the outset that the job needed more time than the city proposed, but was willing to negotiate based on the City’s belief that the job would be completed quicker than they thought. He stated that WFW was only looking to be compensated at a fair rate for the work that was required.

Council Member Kreun stated that engineering fees are not bid on a job, they are based on the fees that are submitted at the beginning of each year. The City requested the amount of the estimate be lowered and the consultant agreed, they are now saying that they should have had the estimate approved initially at the higher rate. Council Member Brooks stated that he was in agreement with Council Member Kreun that engineering services are not bid and we are looking not at a change order, but rather as a contract amendment. As far as this item is concerned, we need to treat our consultant fairly, and if there is a feeling on the Council to change the process used for this type of item, then we should look to making these changes. Council Member Glassheim inquired as to whether the overhead percentage shown in this amendment is a customary amount. Mr. Hanson stated that it is based on their annual audit findings. Council Member Glassheim asked if the types of rates shown on this statement were customary with what is normally charged. Mr. Hanson stated that this is one way that consulting engineer’s are paid and the rates used depend on the paying agency on a project.

3.5 Budget amendment request (engineering)

There were no comments.

3.6 Grand Forks Renaissance Zone Project GF-4.

Council Member Gershman stated that he is glad to see some renaissance zone projects coming in. Council Member Christensen asked for details on the five-year exemptions. Dennis Potter, City Planner, explained to the Committee how the exemption is set up. Council Member Christensen inquired whether the current application included a request for the exemption and when people who may have an opposition to the proposed exemption could come to Council with the opposition. Mr. Potter stated that the current applicant was asking for the exemption and that the exemption is granted at the discretion of the Council.

Bill Graveline, 511 Reeves Drive, stated that the plans currently being developed under the Renaissance Zone guidelines requiring two bedroom units is planned to cost $150,000 to $200,000 for building and parking lots. Mr. Potter distributed a handout to the Council detailing the amount of the exemption for each of the five years. Mr. Potter stated that the total of the exemption for the five years is $6,900, based on the $150,000 building and $14,900 land cost. Council Member Christensen stated that in detail exemption breaks down as follows: year 1 $2,300, year 2 $1,840, year 3 $1,380, year 4 $920, and year 5 $460. Council Member Glassheim stated that also for the record the new property would be paying $16,100 in new property tax over the five years.

3.7 Ordinance (second reading) to amend zoning map to exclude from the A-1 (Limited Development) District and to include within the Homestead Grove PUD (Planned Urban Development), Concept Development Plan, all of the West Half of SW Quarter of Section 222, T151N, R50W of 5th P.M. (located east of S. Washington between 40th Ave S and 47th Ave S)

3.8 Final plat and Ordinance (second reading) to amend the Street and Highway Plan to include public R/W shown and dedicated on the plat of Homestead Grove First Addn. (located north of 47th Ave S between Sunbeam 5th Resub. and S 11th Street)

This item still is being worked on in Planning and Zoning Commission, and therefore will not be voted on at next week’s meeting. Council Member Brooks inquired as to why the item was being withdrawn and what the process is for withdrawing an item. Mr. Potter stated that at next week’s Council meeting there would be a request to continue the public hearing until the January 20 Council meeting. If the Council would choose not to continue the public hearing, there will be no recommendation from Planning and Zoning to act on.

Howard Swanson, City Attorney stated that it was the chair’s call whether to add or remove items from the agenda. He stated further that this item would require a recommendation from Planning and Zoning in order for any action to be taken. There will need to be a motion to table at next week’s meeting.

3.9 Request from Pribula Engineering and Surveying on behalf of David Parker for final approval of a Replat of Lot 1, Block 1, Perkins Fifth Addition (located west of S. Columbia Road and south of 36th Avenue South).

Vice President Hamerlik called on Mr. Potter for comments. Mr. Potter stated that the recommendation from Planning and Zoning on this item is to approve the final plat. There were no further comments.

3.10 Request from David Parker for ordinance to annex all lands previously platted as Lot 1, Block 1 , Perkins Fifth Addition, to be replatted as Lots GG, HH, and JJ, Block 1, Perkins Fifth Addn. (excluding parts previously annexed).

There were no comments.

3.11 Request from Johnson-Laffen-Galloway, LTD. on behalf of Grand Forks Airport Authority for preliminary approval of ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, amending Chap. XVIII, Article 2, Section 18-0222, A-D Airport District by adding Section 18-0222 (2)(L) Airport Entrance Sign.

There were no comments.

3.12 2003 Special Events Program.

Vice Chair Hamerlik called on Terry Hanson, Interim Director of Urban Development to make comments on this item. Mr. Hanson stated that the proposed timetable will allow for final allocation of the funds prior to January 13, which is important since one of the anticipated applicants is Marketplace of Ideas which takes place on January 16. Mr. Hanson reviewed in detail the deadlines on the timetable. Council Member Gershman stated that he has no problem with the timeline, but rather has a proposal that perhaps we should look at delegating this to another group such as the CVB, possibly under a regranting situation similar to what we use with the NOVAC group. The reasoning is that these groups may be able to have knowledge of the applicants and their events that we don’t have.

Council Member Brooks stated that he would like to get back a way from making a committee for these types of items and maybe refer either to another group, or use a standby committee or rely on staff recommendation with Council having final approval. Council Member Christensen stated that it seemed that the timetable is rather aggressive given the amount of publicity done so far. He stated that we shouldn’t rush, and if an organization has already had their event, they could still be considered. Mr. Hanson stated that they did not submit an application last year, however the City did allocate money to them in the amount of $25,000 from fund 2163. Council Member Christensen asked if there are any 2002 funds that we know will be able to be carried over to 2003. Mr. Hanson stated that two of the major applicants events have not yet taken place, he does expect that all funds will be expended. Council Member Christensen stated that he would be in favor of exploring delegating this as in Council Member Gershman’s suggestion, but is worried about the short amount of time if the proposed timeline is adopted. Council Member Kerian inquired if there is a feel for what Marketplace of Ideas would be looking for in the way of funding when their application is reviewed. Mr. Hanson stated that he believed the application is for around $35,000. Council Member Kreun asked the status of the remaining funds on some of this year’s awards. Mr. Hanson stated that final reports need to be turned in and reviewed prior to any remaining funds being released and those agencies are still in the process of completing their reports and as such have not requested the funds. He stated that he does expect to receive completed requests and expense the remaining funds. Council Member Kreun stated that if we do decide to delegate this to have a Council liaison for the first year. Council Member Gershman suggested that perhaps the Council could decide to make an initial grant to Marketplace, and either as a separate item or as a part of the $100,000 and then dispense the remaining money after the regranting process was complete. This would eliminate the time crunch.

3.13 Budget Amendment (Urban Dev – Misc)

There were no comments.

3.14 Budget Amendment (Urban Dev – JDA)

There were no comments.

3.15 Budget Amendment (Urban Dev – HOME Funds )

Council Member Glassheim asked if Mr. Hanson could go back and review for the Committee and the public what each item was and where the funds come from.

Mr. Hanson stated that Agenda Item 3.13 pertained to fund 2199.116 which is responsible for putting on miscellaneous projects and within those is the relocation of historic homes project. The City had anticipated completing this project in 2001, however the project did go over into 2002 and that is the bulk of this amendment. The remainder is for the expenses that we make on behalf of the Housing Authority that we are ultimately reimbursed for and those expenditures exceeded the amount that we have in the budget for 2002. Council Member Glassheim asked for the source of these funds. Mr. Hanson stated that it would come from cash carryover.

Mr. Hanson continued to explain that agenda item 3.14 was for fund 5996, the Growth Fund, which is the JDA budget. The budget amendment is for the line items that the Growth Fund does its projects for economic development. Mr. Hanson stated that they anticipated expending $900,000 to be expended toward economic development in 2002. The actual expenditures were $1.8 million, one of the primary expenditures being the Cirrus $1 million that was funded. Council Member Glassheim inquired where the source of funds would be. Mr. Hanson stated that it will all come from cash carryover, and the funds are available since they were expected to be expended in 2001.

Council Member Gershman inquired as to the actual balance in 5996 fund. Mr. Hanson stated that he would have that information out tomorrow, but he believed that it is in excess of $3 million. Council Member Gershman asked whether that was all money that was available for economic development deals. Mr. Hanson stated not necessarily, but a majority of it is.

Council Member Christensen inquired where the $990,000 we received from Cirrus showed up. Mr. Hanson stated that that showed up as direct revenue in 2001 in the 5996 fund. He further stated that of the $1 million, $250,000 of that was revenue we received as a loan from the State of ND for the transaction. Council Member Christensen stated that on the report received by Council dated November 8 for 5996 reflects cash carryover of $1,677,000 and cash investment fund equity of $2,126,000 and EDA for total of $4.8 million. Of this which portion will no longer be available. Mr. Hanson stated that the equity investment is that, it is equity in Cirrus and others that the City holds. It is not cash available for use. The cash available is the initial cash available less bond payments and the JDA revolving loan payments for about $2 million. Mr. Schmisek stated that we would review these and forward correspondence to Council Members.

Mr. Hanson stated that item 3.15 is the HOME funds. The City is expending more funds this year than budgeted, the source for the funds in this amendment is all cash carryover.

3.16 Recycling Service Agreement extension.

Todd Feland, Director of Public Works, stated that he had received one proposal from Waste Management for recycling services and the task force has met and reviwed the proposal. From that meeting the task force has asked to meet with Waste Management and review make a counter offer. They have more planned meetings and plan to bring back to the City Council a new contract in January 2003. The current item is looking to extend our current contract for up to three months, with the plan being to arrive at a new plan in January 2003. Council Member Brooks inquired whether if a contract was ready in January if a switch to the new contract could take place in January even though up to a three month extension had been granted. Mr. Feland replied that as soon as a new contract was approved the switch would be made. Council Member Brooks inquired what the current percent of households actively recycle. Mr. Feland stated that in response to surveys 70% of people responding state that they do some form or recycling at least once a month. Council Member Brooks inquired as to original bins and what type of cost we would have if we switch to a new approach. Mr. Feland stated that under the new proposal a commingled process would be used. Waste Management is planning to purchase new trucks and a new bin which will hold all types of rigid recyclables except newspaper. Waste Management will purchase and own the trucks and bins. Council Member Brooks stated that we need to also take some of our money and focus on education and why they should recycle to make our program effective.

Council Member Gershman stated that to clarify the City would not purchase any equipment. Council Member Christensen said that a concern is when the fee stays the same, but the service level drops to once a month and the equipment costs increase, it does not seem we are moving in the right direction to encourage recycling.

Vice President Hamerlik stated that the Committee needed to remember that the components of the new contract were not the agenda item and that all the committee was asked to review was the three month extension to the existing contract.

Council Member Kerian said that one advantage of the new truck, if it can be done cost effectively, is that the items would be enclosed and thereby lessen or eliminate the amount of items that are lost as happens with the current uncovered trucks. Council Member Glassheim stated that his feeling was at the Committee of the Whole meeting full exploration of the topic could lead to a better business meeting. Council Member Kreun stated that he would be in favor of extending this current contract for the three months.

3.17 Budget Amendment (Sanitation)

Vice President Hamerlik requested Mr. Feland briefly explain the item for the committee. Mr. Feland stated that last year it was decided that the Sanitation Fund bear the debt service payments for the water line and the road that goes out to the new water treatment plant and the baling facility. It was not budgeted for so for 2002 the request is to use cash carryover for this year’s payments and it was included in the budget for 2003.

Council Member Christensen inquired why this was done as a tapping fee when it was along a road with very little chance of being developed in the future as it only leads to our baling facility and wastewater treatment plant. Mr. Feland stated that at the time in the 90’s when this was done there was a thought of perhaps some development in this area, in hindsight it probably should have been assessed and not listed as a tapping fee at the beginning.

3.18 Budget Amendment (Police)

Council Member Gershman asked of John Packett, Chief of Police, whether the City was not to be fully reimbursed for the cost of these services. Chief Packett stated that the city will receive 100% reimbursement, the $61,613.93 is for the year to date reimbursement due and the $26,000.00 is an estimate to bring us to the end of the year. This will be overtime expenditures beyond what was budgeted, but will be offset by reimbursement from the federal government.

3.19 Appointment to Events Center Commission

Vice President Hamerlik stated that as per our agreement with the University, they appoint the commission member and the City confirms the appointment. This is along the lines of another agreement that the City has for another term that will be ending soon. He further stated that Mr. Harmeson has served in good standing on the commission in the past.

3.20 Ordinance amendments supporting a market-based salary plan as presented in FY salary plan
3.21 Resolution regarding 2003 salary plan.

Charlie Bunce, Human Resources Director, updated the Committee on meetings with the Employee Reps Group. He then proceeded to begin reviewing the ordinance with the Committee. He stated that if the Committee would refer to 6-0303 (C), (D), and (E), they will see that provisions have been added to show that Human Resources has the responsibility to look at the market as a whole on total compensation between comparable cities, (D) to clarify how the plan will come to the Council for annual review, and (E) would add the clause “for budgeting purposes to the beginning of the section. City Attorney Swanson stated that for tonight, the Council should concentrate on the substance of the ordinance and allow the grammatical questions to be worked out by himself and staff. Mr. Swanson stated that he did receive an e-mail from Council Member Kerian and believes these concerns have been addressed but will verify that and provide the information to her.

Mr. Bunce stated that in 6-0304 a change was made to allow the hiring in at other than 80% of the pay range. He stated that the City of Bismarck uses a system like this where they may recruit a person at 80%, and that following the probation period, if the person is performing, can be moved up to 85%. This aids in recruitment for some positions where there is an inability to find candidates. Council Member Gershman inquired as to off-duty court appearances. Mr. Bunce stated that this is not a change from existing policy. Council member Christensen inquired as to the longevity language that had been discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Swanson stated that in his draft of the ordinance he has included the longevity provision, the document before the committee is a draft from Human Resources. Mr. Swanson stated that all of the information will be combined into one draft for the Committee to review.

Council Member Christensen asked for more information on the 5% increase following probation. Mr. Bunce stated that in some cases it has been shown to work in recruiting in at the minimum, if the person knew that after probation they would be able to move up. Council Member Christensen asked how this will flow in the budget process. Mr. Bunce stated that you would budget for the higher amount.

Council Member Kerian inquired as to how additional duties added to a position are handled, or how is the reclassification process to be handled under the new system, longevity, and also how evaluative fairness is being assured. Mr. Bunce stated that at the employee rep meeting they discussed longevity and pay for performance system. The supervisor would rate the performance on a scale and if you are performing at or above the satisfactory scale and you are otherwise eligible, you would receive your experience level pay. If you were not performing at a satisfactory year, you would not receive the pay, and the year would not count towards longevity in the position, you would in fact get a negative year of service. He stated that the employee reps were to take this back to their departments and discuss this with the employees. Ed Grossbauer, employee reps committee stated that the employee reps discussed the item and stated that they would be in favor of tabling the longevity issue for years beyond 2003 for further discussion in 2003. Mr. Grossbauer asked if Mr. Swanson could provide an updated copy of the draft ordinance once it is completed.

Council Member Kerian stated that she is in favor of giving approval of changes in job descriptions to the Mayor’s Office. Council Member Brooks stated that longevity is an issue that needs to be addressed, would be in favor of getting everything done all at once. He stated that he had voted no last week since there are still issues to be worked out, therefore a yes vote was not appropriate. He stated he does have a concern for writing assurances into the pay for performance system with regards to fairness in the evaluation process. Mr. Bunce stated that there will be training for department heads and supervisors. He stated that he has spoken with Bismarck on the training that they use and it is annual and extensive, for all involved, including the employees.

Council Member Christensen stated that he would like to thank Mr. Grossbauer and Mrs. Diamond for the time they have put into working with Human Resources and the Employee Reps to get information out and bring forward employees concerns.

Council Member Glassheim required why the Civil Service annual report requirement was eliminated. Mr. Swanson stated that there has been a provision added that the Council or the Mayor can call for a report at any time so the section eliminated was duplicative. He stated that there is a possibility that a provision could be included to allow for at least an annual report or meeting. Council Member Glassheim inquired if the change in a job description does not lead to an increase in pay. Mr. Bunce stated that the change itself does not have a fiscal impact, and if it would lead to a fiscal change, would need to be handled through the budget process. Any change related to the budget must be approved by Council. Council Member Christensen stated that he had similar concerns with how a mid-year change in job description by the Mayor would be handled. Mr. Bunce stated that a position has to be open in order for someone to move into it. Council Member Christensen inquired as to why this provision was needed and why it could not just all be handled through the budget process. Council Member Glassheim stated that even if the title is not changed, you could have the Mayor increasing the duties in a person’s job description, to such an extent that they might now have basis to come in and justify an increase in pay based on those new duties. Council Member Kerian stated that a department head will know how much money he has available and if he does not have any then he can not assign those duties. Council Member Brooks inquired as to whether this is micromanagement for the council to review each change in a job description, or rather let the Mayor who is more familiar with the situation deal with that end, knowing that the Council will have ultimate say in any fiscal matter at budget time.

Mr. Swanson stated that Council designates the specific positions that are allowed in that department. No department head has the authority to change the authorized position list without the consent of the Council. There is no way that job description change can lead to a fiscal change, however a wage increase can occur within the salary range of the approved position. He stated that Council may want to include a provision that in an unusual situation where a fiscal change may be in order that could come to Council for approval mid-year. He stated that he highly recommended the ability to change a job description be delegated. The new system will not work as the old system did in that if an employee is doing one more duty than the person above them they should be increased. Also, there are no steps and grades and no process like the old reclassification system. Mr. Swanson stated that in answer to Civil Service’s role under the new system, they do have a role, just not in the implementation of the salary plan. They will have responsibility in the role of hiring and the front end, as well as grievances. Mr. Bunce stated that he sees Civil Service’s role is to determine fairness, then anything to do with the financial aspect of the decision will be referred to Council.

Council Member Glassheim inquired if it was possible to get a list of the current positions and their salaries and then what those positions become in the new system with salaries. Mr. Bunce stated that until the salary plan is passed, the data will not be populated. Mr. Bunce stated that the plan was to first bring everyone to minimum, then to an aged midpoint, and finally to allocate discretionary money to allocate to departments to handle discrepancies and unusual situations, those who were not positively affected by the wage study. Mr. Glassheim stated that he would like to get a list at least of what the current positions are receiving for salary.

Council Member Kreun asked whether cash carryover dollars can be expended on salaries. Mr. Schmisek stated that it could not. Cash carryover can only be spent on maintenance and operations and capital items.

Council Member Gershman inquired as to the discretionary money and giving some increase to people who are above market, and whether this then distorts the plan. Mr. Bunce stated that there was $204,000 that had been set aside to help people that had not been taken care of in the earlier process, in essence those with more than five years of service. He stated that these additional amounts were only available for 2003, and would not be available in future years. Council Member Gershman stated that he does not see how this fits in the basis for the plan. He stated that if our goal is to raise those who have been paid below market up to market then it does not seem right to be paying those who have been getting above market for a number of years even more.

Council Member Kerian stated that the ranges go from 80-120%, and we set up the ranges that will allow the people who have given additional years of experience and recognize the things they bring to the position. Mr. Bunce explained the phases of the position as outlined and how each phase was used. The $204,000 was used to handle situations where employees at different levels had been compressed and an adjustment was desirable.

Council Member Christensen referred to the August 20, 2002 memo for $593,906 for the salary plan. He stated that there were 14 people that were below the 80% and it took $107,000 to raise everyone to 80%. That left $252,377, and he is not sure how much is to move people from 80-100% of midpoint and how much is to move people up 5% each year. He asked whether we are spending the money to bring people to the 80%. Mr. Bunce said that yes, the $107,000 plus the step increases to come up with the total amount of funds that were available. Mr. Schmisek stated that also included were funds that would have gone to positions that were backed out of the budget. There was $204,000 left to handle positions where there was a need for adjustment. Council Member Christensen inquired why we would allocate this money to those at or above midpoint before trying to raise more employees below midpoint up to midpoint. Mr. Bunce stated that to bring everyone to midpoint cost $874,00. Roxanne Fiala, Information Services Director, stated that when the consultant was here they encouraged us to not leave out the people with lengthy years of service. The way the phase C money was used was an attempt to recognize the contribution of the people with more years of service. She stated that under the new plan there will be a matrix set up so that those with less than five years of service will receive larger increase each year than those with more years of service so that at the five year point they are at midpoint. Council Member Christensen inquired how much would be required for future years budgets to get everyone where they needed to be. Council Member Brooks felt we should not begin discussing budgetary items for future years and should more concentrate on the substance of the plan and the ordinance. Vice Chair Hamerlik asked if next week Council should move the matter back to committee to work out the details.

Council Member Kreun stated that there are two components and perhaps the Council should concentrate on only the ordinance at this point and work on the implementation later. Mr. Swanson stated that if the ordinance is approved without the resolution then there is no basis to pay the employees. Council Member Gershman stated that in his opinion this should not go back to committee, but rather should just be worked out at the Council level. Council Member Christensen agreed and felt the Council should keep moving forward and work to pass both items by the end of the year. He stated that his main concern will be the level of funding needed in future years to keep the plan moving forward. Council Member Kerian stated that the pay plan is a guide and we should not use the implementation process to penalize our senior employees. That was the intent behind moderate raises given this year. Mr. Grossbauer stated that the committee looked at the $204,000 as a way to help those employees that would have received a step increase this year under the old system. He stated that the implementation plan is still an ongoing process and he believes that all parties want to see fairness in all aspects to all employees. Council Member Gershman stated that he does not recall making a part of the plan being to compensate further those that are above the midpoint, and in some cases above their range. Mr. Bunce stated that he believes the plan has been designed as directed and will be happy to meet with any council members or employees who have reservations.

4 Portfolio Management Summary

Mr. Schmisek stated that in the Council packets there was a copy of this months portfolio management summary. He also stated that he is requesting a volunteer to review the pledged collateral with Maureen Storstad in our office. Council Member Brooks agreed to complete this review.

5. Administrative Coordinator Comments

Rick Duquette, Administrative Coordinator, stated that he wanted to update the council members on the Strategic Planning Process that has been in the works. They are now working on a date of January 9 or 16, 2003 for the meeting and have included detailed information in an e-mail that went to all council members. Council Member Christensen asked about the timeline for the process and also who will provide the items to be discussed. Mr. Duquette stated that the plan is still being fully developed and details are in the memo. Council Member Christensen inquired as to the CIP Process. Mr. Duquette stated that he has recommended that the two be done concurrently and will be accomplished in time for the budget process.

6. Mayor and Council Member Comments

Council Member Brooks stated that he would like to have department heads give information on budget amendments at the Committee of the Whole meeting so that members have information on the amendment.

Council Member Brooks stated that he had attended the National League of Cities meeting last week and it was an excellent experience and he brought back a lot of information to pass on to department heads.

Vice President Hamerlik stated that he had received correspondence from Del Rae Meier of the Parent Communication Network expressing thanks and appreciation for the support received for the Dale Brown Event which was held in our community recently.

Council Member Kerian stated that she would like to encourage anyone interested to attend the 40th Anniversary Concert of the Master Chorale that will be celebrated with a presentation of “The Messiah” this Sunday afternoon.

Chair declared the meeting adjourned 10:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Schmisek
City Auditor