Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-17 CHC MIN - ........ Mr. Eckles stated that the Public Works department has been in the process of reorganizing over the past several years. The goal has been to cross-train all of the public works employees so that they could perform parks duties as well as street and sewer department duties, wherever the need was greatest. The new public works facility is designed to house all the public works employees and equipment and can house the Water Board employees. Under a central location and leadership, all the employees could be shifted to the areas where they are needed. - -. He stressed that this discussion in no way implied that he, nor anyone else, felt that the Board of Water Commissioners has not done a good job. On the contrary, the Water Board has always done and continues to do an excellent job. The real question is - is there a better way or are there ways to improve the situation? Would the citizens of Stillwater be better served by merging the Water Board with Public Works? Improvements to the existing city public works department would likely be the result. Klayton Eckles explained the outline for discussion that he brought to the meeting. He stated that he was an advocate of the merger ofthe Water Board with the City of Stillwater. Water Board Study Issues Related to Session 3 ~ -. Old Business Mr. Anderson called the minutes approved as amended. Wayne Anderson moved to approve both the April 1 and April 15 minutes as read. Mary Ruch noted that the April 1st minutes incorrectly listed her as voting against Plan C. The Commission noted the correction so that the vote was actually 7-0 in favor. Arm.rovalofMinutes Mr. Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Also present Klayton Eckles, City Engineer/Public Works Director Wayne Anderson, Chair Richard Colemeier, Patrick Needham, John Lund, Nile Kriesel and Mary Ruch, Gary Kriesel and Eugene Bealka Present: Charter Commission Meeting Minutes June 17, 2002 - ..-. When asked by Mary Ruch for hard figures Mr. Eckles stated that he was no cost accountant and that the figures were rough estimates and any opinions offered are his own. Mr. Eckles finished with the following questions for thought- - .- $10,000 $50,000 $50,000 $ 7,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $20,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Eliminate Water building (heat, maintenance, utilities) Avoid the need for additional secretary Reduce labor force Reduce overtime (plowing) Reduce overtime (weekends) Reduce alarm costs & upgrades to alarm system Possible cellular revenues or radio systems savings Equipment rental savings Consulting fees (engineering) savings Mr. Eckles felt that cost savings would result by combining the Water Board with the Public Works Department. He stressed that the following yearly cost savings were rough estimates: ~ Mr. Eckles was asked why the City didn't simply ask the Water Board for help. He explained that currently, the Water Board employees commitment is to the Water Board and that they are not required to perform duties for the City. .-. Weekend duties would be more efficient because only one employee would be needed to watch one central alarm system for both water and sewer. Snow plowing would be quicker and require less overtime Water Board would bring expertise in sprinkler systems, etc. Upkeep on the pump/lift stations would be more uniform The need for two sets of equipment would be eliminated Cooperation of work duties would increase (City can provide the equipment the Water Board does not have and vice versa - this would apply to skilled employees, i.e. mechanics, heavy equipment operators) Records and bills and information would be pulled together Review process would be centralized along with the decision process regarding when water services are replaced, who would decide the matter and who would pay The public would need to go to only one location with payments, for information, etc. Emergency responses to power outages, sewer back-ups would improve hopefully eliminating unnecessary delays that could lead to catastrophic damage to homes In addition to the benefits of cross training and a central work site, Mr. Eckles offered the following favorable points to the merger: - Mr. Colemeier asked ifthis change to the Charter requires a unanimous vote from City Council and if so, what would happen if not all council members agreed. It was explained that the issue would then be kicked back to the Charter Commission who could then choose to call a referendum or not. Ms. Ruch suggested that the workshop would be a good way to "take the temperature" of the City Council on this issue. She also pointed out that the Council might then request a feasibility study. ........ ....... ....... Nile Kriesel explained that Mr. Anderson would have to call the City Clerk to bring the meeting/workshop suggestion to City Council at their next meeting. Ms. Ruch explained that she would summarize the findings of the Charter Commission's study and let the Council know that the Charter Commission was unanimous in its support of the merge. Ms. Ruch moved to schedule a workshop/meeting with City Council. Seconded by Mr. Lund. Vote all in favor. Mr. Colemeier moved to take a straw poll vote on the merge issue. Second by Mr. Needham. Vote all in favor. Ms. Ruch withdrew her motion and Mr. Donnelly withdrew his second so that the issue of the Charter Commission's stand on the merger could be clarified. Vote all in favor. ... Ms Ruch moved to schedule a workshop meeting with City Council to discuss the merger of the Water Board with the City of Stillwater. Second by Mr. Donnelly. Discussion followed regarding a date for the workshop. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the Charter Commission had not yet determined if they would be advocating the merger and that perhaps they should establish their stand before the meeting with City Council regarding the matter. ....... Mr. Colemeier called the question. Motion failed. Vote was 6-1 against calling for a feasibility study. Mr. Bealka voted in favor. Mr. G. Kriesel asked ifit would be more prudent to schedule a workshop with the City Council first. If the City Council agrees with the Charter Commission then a feasibility study would not be necessary. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Kriesel and pointed out that the money for a feasibility study would come from City Council anyway. Mr. Bealka moved to implement, within thirty days, a feasibility study on bringing the Water Board into the City of Stillwater. Seconded by Mr. Colemeier. If the Water Board remains intact as is, why not give it authority over the current Sewer Department? If the Board system is better, why don't we create a Sewer Board and separate it from the City? Why not make authoritative boards for Parks & Streets, too? - .-. - .- ~ .- Kathy Rogness Acting Recording Secretary Respectfully submitted, Ms. Ruch moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Second by Mr. Needham. Vote all in favor. Mr. G. Kriesel moved to approve the reappointment of commission members Eugene Bealka, Mary Ruch and Chuck Donnelly. Motion was seconded by Mr. N. Kriesel. Vote all in favor.