Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-18 CHC MIN . Charter Commission March 18,2002 Present: Wayne Anderson, chair Gene Bealka, Richard Colemier, Chuck Donnelly, Gary Kriesel, Nile Kriesel, John Lund, Pat Needham and Mary Ruch Others: Jim McKnight, Water Department manager; Jim O'Brien, Water Board Absent: None Mr. Anderson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Mr. Colemier noted a correction to the spelling of his name. N. Kriesel suggested corrections to the 2nd page, last graph: the city would not have any problems implementing ... and adding the word election ... add 2004 election. Mr. Colemier moved to approve the minutes of Jan. 28,2002, as amended and corrected; N. Kriesel seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Water Board Study - Session 3 Mr. Anderson introduced Mr. McKnight and Mr. O'Brien. Written answers to the Commission's questions were provided in the agenda. . Mr. Colemier referred to question No.4 and asked about the duties of the six employees. Mr. McKnight said two people take care of the office duties; the other four are responsible for all maintenance on the water system, buildings - about 11 properties in all, general running of the water system. N. Kriesel asked about compensation - higher or lower than city employees. Mr. McKnight said in general the people in the field earn about $1 an hour more for comparable jobs. There was a question about any work done to help with snow plowing, etc. Mr. McKnight stated generally the water department is a totally separate entity. Mr. Bealka asked about question No.3 and terms of Water Board members. Ms. Ruch asked about the appointment process. Mr. McKnight said openings are advertised; appointments are made by the City Council. Ms. Ruch asked about No.6 and the budget process. Mr. McKnight said the budget is a Water Board responsibility. . Ms. Ruch asked is Mr. McKnight knew if there were other cities with separate Water Boards. Mr. McKnight said he knew of only one - the city of St. Paul. Ms. Ruch asked if Mr. McKnight had to be replaced whether an employee in the water department of another municipality would understand his role. Mr. McKnight said likely they would understand 60 percent of his function as he performs many functions ranging from investments to payroll to accounts payable. Ms. Ruch asked if there was a fiscal advisor. Mr. McKnight responded the auditors, the same auditors the City uses. . Ms. Ruch asked about the bond issue of 2002 and whether there was an official statement with that. N. Kriesel said the statement is available from City Hall. Ms. Ruch asked if the statement is about the Water Department or the City. N. Kriesel said it does include more detail about the Water Department - pumping capacity, employees, etc. G. Kriesel asked how the department keeps abreast of mandates in training, water quality, reporting, etc. Mr. McKnight noted that all six employees are licensed by the state of Minnesota, with continuing education required to maintain the licensure. There are federal and state laws regarding sampling that the Department has to follow. . Ms. Ruch noted one of the concerns raised is that people who work for the Water Department just do water department related functions with the loss of some economy versus if water department employees were basic City employees. Mr. Anderson referred to a possible duplication of effort and lack of coordination in digging up streets. Mr. McKnight noted that old water pipes are generally replaced in conjunction with street improvement projects; the water department coordinates with the engineering department on such projects as well as with the new developments. Ms. Ruch asked about having separate consulting engineering firms and why the water department doesn't use the same firm as the City. Mr. McKnight said there has been no problem. Mr. Anderson referred to the impression that water department employees might have periods of down time, unlike City employees who have various functions to perform. Mr. McKnight noted if there is slow time, time is spent on building maintenance, painting, etc. G. Kriesel suggested that if there is unified labor, it's easier to prioritize work and eliminate down time. Mr. McKnight noted that when he started with the department in 1976, there were two office people, three regular water crew employees, and three part- time employees. In 1976, the department had 3,500 accounts vs. 5,200 accounts now; by automating, changing meters, the department has been able to remain stable as far as the number of employees, he said. Ms. Ruch noted the Charter Commission has tried to be neutral on the issue. The Commission is also going to hear from City employees, some of whom are expected to show economies the City could achieve if the department was under city jurisdiction. Ms. Ruch asked if that information is provided in writing, whether the Water Department/Board would like to respond to that. Mr. McKnight responded in the affirmative. . Mr. Bealka asked about water rates, referring to Woodbury and White Bear Lake, which have lower rates. Mr. McKnight noted that all other towns surveyed, except Stillwater, are more than likely getting some revenue from their city's general fund. Mr. Bealka asked about Water Board meetings, places, and whether meeting minutes are kept. Mr. McKnight said regular meetings are held the second Wednesday of each month, 8 a.m., at the board offices; meeting notices are published in the Gazette. Minutes are kept and are on file in the office, he said. . There was some discussion about the North Hill sewer/water project. Mr. Donnelly asked whether Mr. McKnight had any thoughts/ideas of how to more efficiently do things or any second thoughts on the department's organization. Mr. McKnight responded that he thought the way things are being done works very well right now; he agreed there might be some duplication, basically in the billing process. Mr. McKnight noted that might not be true in 10 years. Ms. Ruch asked whether union contracts would allow City employees to perform other functions, such as plowing streets and whether union contracts/job descriptions define what employees do. N. Kriesel noted the City is in the process of reorganizing the Public Works Department so as to facilitate flexibility in job assignments. There was discussion about licensure requirements for the various job functions. N. Kriesel agreed that it would take some time to get everyone cross trained should the water department come under City control. N. Kriesel noted the question is whether there are more economies and efficiency, not that the Water Department is not functioning well. Mr. McKnight suggested the Commission might want to look at increasing the membership of the Water Board from three to five. Ms. Ruch asked why the billing issue hasn't been addressed. Mr. McKnight noted that are questions that need to be resolved. . Mr. Anderson asked Mr. McKnight and Mr. O'Brien what they thought would happen if the water board was merged with the City. Mr. McKnight said he didn't think a whole lot would change; the number of employees would likely remain much the same. Mr. Needham asked about equipment. Mr. McKnight noted the water department doesn't have any major construction equipment. Mr. O'Brien said he can't see that incorporating the department would be of any benefit to the City. Mr. Anderson asked about overtime. Mr. McKnight said other than emergencies, overtime is essentially limited to checking the pumps on the weekends. G. Kriesel asked how the City charges back for engineering services provided for the Water Department. Mr. McKnight responded that those charges are billed to the developers. Mr. Bealka asked about parts/equipment for fire hydrants. The parts belong to the City; the water department maintains the hydrants, Mr. McKnight said. Ms. Ruch asked what would be lost if the water department comes under the City. N. Kriesel suggested that the maintenance of the pump houses likely would be affected. . Redistricting: Mr. Colemier asked if everyone had received a revised ward boundary map. Mr. Bealka said he had a concern about Lily Lake being in Ward 1. Mr. Anderson suggested that people on Lily Lake might like having two council members representing their interests. A lengthy discussion ensued. . Mr. Anderson noted that the Charter Commission can't do anything until the state legislative redistricting is completed, and it doesn't appear the Commission is ready to adopt a preliminary proposal at this meeting. He suggested that the Commission will have to be prepared to discuss and adopt a proposal at the next meeting for presentation at the public hearing, he said. The next meeting will be held April 15. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary . .