1979 08 13
I
I
I
SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 13, 1979
Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with the following
members present: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving
and Matthews.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As this represented a special Council meeting'
with set agenda items, no additional items were considered.
REVIEW 1979 ASSESSMENT POLICIES: The City Manager noted that no
specific properties or assessments were proposed to be discussed this
evening. The purpose of the review session was to allow councilmembers
an opportunity to review, in depth, the improvements made in each of
the projects and to discuss previous assessment policies used and
their relationship to projects which had been completed in 1979 and
proposed to be assessed. ' The city engineer reviewed the scope and
nature of each of the following projects, presented detailed estimates
and costs for each of the projects, and the general policies used by
his office in preparing the engineer's recommended assessment roll for
each of the projects. The projects discussed by councilmembers
included:
1). Lotus Lake Estates - General concern expressed by council-
members as to the differential in assessments between
various lots. The Manager noted that such had occurred as
a result of the development contract stating the specific
amount for each of the lots and such being collected as
a part of the building permits within the subdivision~ 'That
costs had increased over the original estimate and, in any
case, the developer would be responsible for any differential
between amounts originally escrowed and actual costs. After
discussion, the Manager noted it may be more appropriate
to show each of the assessments as an even assessment with
the developer required to make payment of differences between
what was originally escrowed and the current even assessment
for all lots. No specific action was taken by the city
council; however, there did appear to be general agreement
that all assessments should be shown in a similar manner
to avoid future confusion.
2). Chaska Road Watermain: No comments were made by council-
members regarding the engineer's review of this project.
3). Lake Riley Sewer Extension: After review by the engineer
of the project (scope, costs, previous assessment policies,
etc.), the Council generally discussed the history of this
project including recognition of the fact that this project
was originally anticipated to be a part of a larger project;
however, as the pemrick's had required sanitary sewer prior
to the time that the larger project could be completed, that
a smaller project had been let for completion of such. Given
the fact that the larger project exceeded original estimates,
this project was being assessed as a separate project.
Councilmembers requested that staff insure that both the
pemrick's and Heille's were notified as to the previous history
on this project and asked to review the engineer's recommended
roll prior to the public hearing date - thus potentially
reducing the number of administrative or technical qùestions
at the hearing.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 13, 1979
-2-
REVIEW 1979 ASSESSMENT POLICIES, CONT:
No action was taken by the City Council on any of the projects shown
above except as shown.
I
NORTH SERVICE AREA SANITARY SEWER AND WATER REASSESSMENTS (PROJECT 71-1):
During discussion of this item in July of 1979, the city council set
this evening as a continuation of that discussion item with the city
engineer's office instructed to prepare additional maps which would more
clearly show properties having either or both deferred lateral and trunk
sanitary sewer and/or water units against them. These maps should be
referenced back to work sheets describing in detail the type and amount
of these charges.
Ray Jackson was present and noted that their office has completed a number
of the maps, but with the departure of Bill Brezinsky from their firm,
that they are requesting additional time prior to further discussion
of this item.
Councilman Pearson moved and Councilman Geving seconded a motion that this
item should reappear as a part of a special city council meeting set for
September 11, 1979.
POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN, CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager
reviewed his report dated August 13, 1979. Such report primarily noted
the Manager's concern that the position classification plan is basically
sound in establishing position descriptions, relationships between I
positions, establishment of salary ranges, and the establishment of
a merit pay plan as a part of the position classification plan. Of
concern to the Manager was the fact that, although the city
has adjusted salary ranges and individual salaries during the past three
year period, that the adjustments made by the council have been primarily
"across the board" increases paralleling or being below the cost of living.
The effect of these adjustments, although representing an effort by the
City to stay within budgetary constraints and/or to meet Presidential
guidelines, has been to erode the rational of a merit plan, i.e. that
employees would be reviewed for their work performance and that employees
performing at a level above the requirements of the position would be
rewarded for such. Examples were noted of individuals presently being
below the starting salary range for the position and/or other employees
who had remained in the lower portion ~f the range and, without question,
being high performers. The Manager did not question the City's previous
action, but was significantly concerned that, given the current rate of
inflation and levy limits of the city, that salary negotiations for 1980
may produce greater inequities. Although no reasonable solution may be
possible, the Manager recommended the following:
I) .
That the city council authorize the Manager to meet with employees
and inform them that general pay scale increases would occur on
or about January 1, 1980. That such general increases were to
parallel a program, to be initiated by the City Manager, to
update all position descriptions for city employees and to
review such in advance of general pay raises;
I
I
I
I
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 13, 1979
-3-
POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN, CITY EMPLOYEES, CONTINUED:
2). That the city council authorize the Manager to begin
reviews of position requirements in conjunction with
performance of each employee during February through April
of 1980 with the results of such performance reviews
being submitted to the city council prior to July of
each year;
3). That the Council will consider merit increases for employees,
after reviewing the performance reviews, on or about
July of each year.
The above general concepts were discussed by councilmembers. After
discussion, councilman Neveaux moved and Councilman Matthews seconded
a motion to approve the Manager's recommendation in regards to
position classificabions and the review schedules for 1980. Ayes All.
Councilman Geving noted, as a part of developing the position
descriptions, he believes that the city council should review methods
and general guidelines under which performance increases would occur.
The Manager noted that this would be a part of the information submitted
back to the city council and that action by the council would be
required prior to considering any merit increases.
Further discussion occurred between councilmembers in regards to the
"1979 Position Range" versus "1979 Salaries" of various employees.
In light of the Manager's statements that various employees were
presently below the minimum salary for the range and/or various
employees with significant experience were in the lower portion of
the range for their position; Councilman Matthews moved and seconded
by Councilman Pearson that the following salary adjustment::should be
made effective as of July 1, 1979:
position
Yearly Salary
Secretary/Housing
Coordinator
$9,680/year
(This is the yearly salary and
should be reduced by 1/5 to represent
the 32 hour work schedule for Nancy) .
Manager's Secretary
Foreman - Street (vic Kohman)
Utility Supt. (Jerry Boucher)
Treasurer
Asst. Manager/Land Use Coor.
$12,250/year
$16,050/year
$16,800/year
$14,9l0/year
$15,600/year
Councilmembers discussed the means by which the City Manager's salary
and position should be reviewed. After discussion, it was generally
agreed that the City Manager's salary should not be shown on the same
sheets and/or be considered as a part of salary negotiations for
all other employees. Such statements being made in light of the
Manager's responsibility to review all other positions and to make
recommendations in regards to salaries for other employees. As such,
a position that the Manager will be treated in the
same manner, for all personnel policies and/or salary adjustments
would be neither advisable nor reasonable business practice. In addition,
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 13, 1979
-4-
POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN, CITY EMPLOYEES, CONTINUED:
Councilmembers noted the fact that all other:' employees aréuresponsible I
to the Manager's office and it is his responsibility to higher and
fire such employees in light of State law, i.e. recognition of
grievance procedures, rights to contest suspensions and/or termination
for other than incompetance, insubordination, etc. These protections,
are not given to the Manager who must be responsible to a city council
and their interpretations as to what job requirements should be.
Councilman Pearson moved and seconded by Councilman Geving that
the Manager should be afforded a 60 day notice by the City prior to
termination and, similarly, the Manager must provide the city with
a 30 day notice prior to resignation; that the Manager's vacation
schedule be set at 3 weeks per year; and that a 4% increase should
be given to the Manager, effective July 1, 1979. Ayes - All.
Adjournment: 11:45 p.m.
Don Ashworth, City Manager
I
I