The Common Council of the City of West Lafayette, Indiana met in the Board of Works room at City Hall on June 27, 1996 at the hour of 4:30 p.m.

Mayor Margerum, who presided, called the meeting to order. Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes called the roll:

PRESENT: COUNCILORS BOSSUNG, PALMER. PARKER, PERRY, SPARBY, AND VERNON

ABSENT: COUNCILOR BRAILE

ALSO PRESENT: Street Commissioner Downey, Deputy Chief of Police Balser, City Attorney Bauman, City Engineer Snyder, and Mr. Gerald Malone of Umbaugh & Associates.

The agenda for the July 8, 1996 Common Council meeting was reviewed.

Ordinance No. 15-96. An ordinance to vacate certain easements within the City of West Lafayette, Indiana and designating a time when the same shall take effect. (Submitted by House Development, LP)
Joseph Bumbleburg, the attorney representing the petitioner House Development, Inc., reported that the project engineer had visited with the department heads as requested and all agreed to relocating the sewer easement.

Ordinance No. 18-96. An ordinance requesting an additional appropriation - LECE (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer)
The ordinance was accepted without comment.

Ordinance No. 20-96. An ordinance to set Wastewater Treatment Utility rates (Prepared by the City Attorney)
Councilor Bossung read the ordinance and moved for passage of Ordinance No. 20-96 on first reading and that the vote be by roll call. Motion seconded by Councilor Parker.

Mayor Margerum introduced Mr. Gerald Malone of Umbaugh & Associates and said he was present to answer any questions.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes stated her request to review the work papers from Umbaugh & Associates which were used to calculate the allocation of the sewer rates for operation and maintenance, and for debt service. She asked City Attorney Bauman if he had seen these. He said he had not.

Mayor Margerum questioned the Clerk-Treasurer as to why she had not asked for this information before. Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said she presumed that the calculations would be presented as Umbaugh & Associates had provided them the last time, in 1994, when they proposed a new sewer rate schedule.

Mr. Malone said he did not have this information with him but that he would provide it to the Mayor at her request. Mayor Margerum asked Mr. Malone to fax her the information the following day.

Councilor Bossung asked if there had been any contact with Purdue regarding the rate increase since they are such a big user. The Mayor said that we had talked to them beforehand, and that they were aware of the 26% increase. She said that we have talked to them about the 12.5% increase. Purdue is glad that it is going to be in two steps since it will be easier to handle. Mayor Margerum stated that Purdue is in agreement with this.

Councilor Sparby stated that she had requested of City Attorney Bauman when he prepared this ordinance to include two things. She stated she would like to make an amendment to include them. City Attorney Bauman then interrupted Councilor Sparby and handed her a sealed envelope containing a letter from him. Councilor Sparby paused to read the letter silently.

Mayor Margerum asked if there were further questions the Council would like to ask regarding the ordinance while Councilor Sparby was reading the letter, other than the working papers Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes had requested. Councilor Vernon commented that the Clerk-Treasurer's request is not a special request but are the working papers we would normally have seen with something like this. The Mayor, the Clerk-Treasurer, and Mr. Malone clarified that the information would be provided.

Mr. Frank Loeffel (506 Emilie) asked why the Purdue rate was less. The Mayor explained that it was because of the volume, with Purdue having half the volume of the plant, and that Purdue maintains the sewer lines that go through campus. Mayor Margerum said that Purdue built the sewer lines that go down Dehart and Williams and that the City uses these sewers for conveyance. The Mayor said that Bloomington does it in a similar way in that there is a lesser charge. Also, Purdue only pays one bill and we don't have to bill them as we do the other half of the users of the system.

Councilor Sparby explained that what she had asked for was for the ordinance to include the statement: "There will be an annual review of the financial condition of the WWTU at the April meeting of the Common Council." She said that currently the code says that there will be one during the first quarter.

Mayor Margerum said that there is presently in the ordinance a requirement for an annual audit.

Councilor Sparby replied that that is right but she didn't think it was done this year. She said she would like to specify that it be done at the April meeting of the Common Council every year. She also referred to the previous City Code, Section 22-55, and requested that there be a requirement for an annual budget preparation. This would be based on an audit of the present operation, maintenance, replacement, and debt service costs, as well as anticipated needs and an estimate of revenues and expenditures, and that the budget would be presented to the Board of Works for approval and to the Council at the September meeting.

The Mayor asked City Attorney Bauman to review that and if that was in his letter.

Councilor Sparby commented that the letter was a response to her request of two weeks ago.

City Attorney Bauman stated that he had reviewed the statute and it is clear that the Board of Works is charged with operating the Utility. The Council's powers in that regard are limited to the areas of deciding whether to originally purchase or construct the sewage works, approving whether to issue bonds, and establishing rates, which is what we are concerned with here. He stated that he did not think the Council had any authority over the budget whatsoever.

Councilor Sparby asked about the previous City Code, Section 22-55, which she said she referenced in her note to the City Attorney, and it had said that by August 15 of each year the projected budget for next year's operation shall be prepared by the City based on an audit of the present operation, maintenance, replacement, and debt service costs as well as anticipated needs.

City Attorney Bauman said that that would also cause a substantial duplication and expense in the WWTU. The WWTU as a governmental entity is audited by the State Board of Accounts. That would involve an additional audit in order to comply with that.

Councilor Palmer asked if that was in the present City Code. City Attorney Bauman said no. Councilor Palmer commented that you said it was from before, what application does that have to now? City Attorney Bauman said none.

Councilor Sparby said that when it was recodified, it was just deleted.

City Attorney Bauman said no, it was one of the new WWTU ordinances adopted several years ago. He said he didn't recall if it was before or after the recodification. That change did not have to do with the recodification.

Councilor Vernon said when the motion was made it said that the rates needed to be re-evaluated in March of 1997. The reason why we didn't say earlier than that is apparently the utility books are not closed and completed until February, so we wanted to make sure that all the information could be available. We wanted to look at this again to see if an additional 12.5% increase was going to be necessary July 1, 1997, so that we don't get into the problem that we are in right now. If we had looked at this the first quarter of this year, we wouldn't be sitting here right now at the last minute trying to change the 26% to 12.5%. She asked the City Attorney if he was saying that it is not possible to put a statement into this ordinance, that in March of 1997 we will revisit and look again at these rates? City Attorney Bauman said no, that that would be fine. The rate is one which is committed to the review of the Council.

Councilor Vernon asked if this ordinance can be amended and can we have that statement put in. City Attorney Bauman said that if that was the desire of this Council. There already is a provision in the WWTU chapter for an annual review, and if there is a specific time table that is desired, the best way to do that would be to specify that in that section.

Mayor Margerum asked, so the annual review, you would just amend it to say "to take place in April of each year."

Councilor Sparby said "to take place at the April meeting of the Common Council" so that it's at a public meeting.

Councilor Parker said that actually on the original motion when we moved this from a 26% to a 12.5% increase, my original motion was that we re-evaluate it in March of 1997, as our minutes on the Special Common Council meeting states. If it is not feasible to do it in March, do we have to change something since that was the original motion?

City Attorney Bauman suggested that we ask Mr. Malone, since he has to do the report that will come back to the City. Mr. Malone stated that it generally takes four to six weeks to complete.

Councilor Parker asked what the answer to his question is.

Councilor Palmer said that April would be more appropriate.

Councilor Vernon stated that it would need to be done by the last part of March, by Pre-Council.

Councilor Parker said that that is just according to what we had moved before, so it will all fit together.

City Attorney Bauman said that if that is what the Council wants we should add that as an amendment to Section 30.09.17 which provides for an annual rate review. This would make it more specific as to when that would occur.

Councilor Parker asked how Ordinance No. 20-96 would be amended. City Attorney Bauman explained how the ordinance would be amended in Section 30.09.17 to include; "On completion of the study, the Board shall recommend new rates and charges to the Common Council at the April meeting."

Councilor Sparby agreed that this is what she asked for. Councilor Parker said that is what we had asked for in our motion to change the rates.

Mayor Margerum asked Councilor Sparby if she would like to offer that amendment.

City Attorney Bauman suggested that he would be happy to draft this and get it prepared for Monday night, and repeated the previous suggested amending language.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes asked whether the request was to evaluate the rates not to...

Mayor Margerum interrupted her saying that that is what you would do.

Councilor Parker said we would like to have a report at the Pre-Council meeting at the end of March. City Attorney Bauman said that given the Council's procedure as set by ordinance, it would have to be available even before that. Mayor Margerum said ten days before.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said she was confused. There is a request for a financial report and then it is being confused with filing an ordinance. She stated that she heard them say they requested a financial report. She did not hear them say they wanted an ordinance presented. She asked if that was incorrect? Mayor Margerum responded that no, we are not talking about an ordinance. Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes responded that there is no filing deadline. Mayor Margerum said that the City Attorney is talking about presenting the information for the Council's review.

Councilor Sparby said if it is not in an ordinance, it does not have to meet the filing deadline for the Pre-Council. City Attorney Bauman asked if there is a particular date you would like to specify, just let me know. Tell me what day and I'll put it in here. Councilor Sparby said that she specified it would be at the April meeting of the Common Council.

Councilor Palmer said the language that was just used would work.

Councilor Vernon said if the information is going not to be subjected to the same standard as an ordinance, the information could get to us at the April Council meeting and be on our desks when we walk in, rather than getting to our homes prior to the Pre-Council meeting.

City Attorney Bauman said he assumed if he had the information sooner he'd let Council have it before then. If you want to specify when we will provide it ...

Councilor Vernon asked if it will be in the Council packet that arrives at her home for the March Pre-Council meeting. Mayor Margerum said it will be included in the agenda packet and it will be filed with the agenda material. She said City Attorney Bauman could draft that.

Mayor Margerum asked if the Council would pass this ordinance on first reading now, and leave that amendment for the second reading so the City Attorney can draft that appropriately. Councilor Sparby agreed.

Councilor Bossung stated that we have on the floor now a request for an amendment and it has been seconded. In order to withdraw it the second has to be withdrawn and the original amendment has to be withdrawn.

Councilor Parker asked if the amendment they are talking about is changing the rate increase from 26% to 12.5%. Councilor Bossung said no, the amendment we are talking about is what you amended on Councilor Sparby's request.

Councilor Parker said he would rescind. Councilor Sparby said she would rescind, pending City Attorney Bauman's preparation for the July 8 Council meeting.

City Attorney asked if he was clear that the amendment would provide that it (the information) would be provided to the Council on or before the agenda date for the April Council meeting when the packets are put together.

Ordinance No. 20-96 passed on first reading, 6-0.

Ordinance No. 19-96. An ordinance requesting the transfer of funds. (Prepared by the Clerk-Treasurer)
The Mayor reviewed the need for the transfers.

The Mayor asked Parks Superintendent Payne to explain the transfer for the Nonreverting Capital-Pool Fund. Superintendent Payne explained that a new diving platform has been ordered for the swimming pool. He explained that the funds have been transferred by Park Board resolution, and that the Clerk-Treasurer, on the advice of the State Board of Accounts had used that resolution to put it into the Council transfer. Superintendent Payne stated that he had since talked to the City Attorney and his interpretation of the Attorney General's opinion in reference to Park Board authority for transfer of funds is that the Park Board could actually go ahead and transfer that.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes stated that she had asked for a legal opinion and as soon as she gets something in writing, she can take action. She explained she had gone ahead with the Council transfer because Superintendent Payne expected her to pay the bill in a timely manner. Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said she thought there was a restriction on capital accounts unless the Council has authorized the Park Board through a nonreverting capital account. She stated she would be glad to entertain an opinion from the City Attorney in writing, which she needs in order to be able to make the entry in the accounting books. She said if he can do that before July 8, that would be good. She said she had been waiting. Once she had the opinion in writing, she would amend the ordinance. Superintendent Payne said it would save the Council a little time if that occurs.

Councilor Parker asked the Clerk-Treasurer for clarification on the practice that when funds are transferred it goes to the Council. Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes responded that until last year, all transfers went to the Council. The City Attorney provided an opinion based on an Attorney General's opinion that the Park Board had authority to transfer in park fund accounts. Nonetheless, this Nonreverting Capital-Pool budget was advertised and reviewed at the State Board of Tax Commissioners hearing last year, and therefore the Council did do the transfer last year. Now this year Mr. Payne would like to change that and utilize the Park Board. He simply needs to get the legal opinion in writing for me so that I can make the entry in my accounting books. Once I've got an audit advisory, that pretty much stops the music until the City Attorney provides an opinion. She said that she wrote Mr. Payne a memo on this on June 18.

Councilor Parker asked the City Attorney if we would have that by Council. City Attorney Bauman said yes.

Superintendent Payne commented that he believed transfers were done previously by the Park Board in the park board fund. The Park Board does have the authority to transfer funds. It was a question of whether they transfer within a 100 account or between 100 accounts. The City Attorney and Clerk-Treasurer both did research. Once it was all ironed out, it became cumbersome and time consuming to go through Council to do the transfers for NRC-Pool so we thought if we do it in Park Board, it is less of a problem as long as the initial appropriation is there. It is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, I am just trying to find the easiest way to make these things happen.

Councilor Parker said all he is hearing is that they are looking for whatever is the current procedure to have it done, and he is sure it will all be worked out.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes asked the Mayor if she would like to provide the Council with the amendment to this ordinance requested by Street Commissioner Downey. The amended ordinance was distributed.

Councilor Bossung asked City Engineer Snyder what was the purpose of the thousand dollar transfer for advertising. City Engineer Snyder replied it was for the vacant positions of engineering assistant and building inspector/plan reviewer, and that he was required to list all the qualifications and requirements for the job rather than just the description.

Mayor Margerum said the advertisement was done in two newspapers, the Journal & Courier and The Lafayette Leader. Councilor Sparby asked if we were required to advertise in The Leader. Mayor Margerum said yes.

City Engineer Snyder said that this was not a public notice requirement but a personnel requirement, including posting the job.

Street Commissioner Downey reviewed the transfers and explained the need to relocate the fire hydrant at the Street Department.

Councilor Palmer moved to amend ordinance No. 19-96 by substitution. Motion seconded by Councilor Vernon and passed viva-voce.

Ordinance No. 21-96. An ordinance requesting an additional appropriation - City Hall (Submitted by the Mayor)
The Mayor explained the plan to install the CentraNet system in City Hall and that it will provide a cost savings in line charges of approximately $4,000 per year. She explained that all of the satellite sites such as the fire stations and the street department will then be part of our network and we can three-digit direct dial to the other departments. There will also be voice mail, and there will approximately a $4,000 savings each year. The cost is less than $25,000, but we still have to pay off the equipment lease purchase obligation for the current system. The Mayor said that she has worked with the GTE representative who has agreed to discount some of these items, and there will be about a $2,000 discount on the original price that was quoted.

Councilor Sparby asked if there were bids from other providers. Mayor Margerum replied no, they had just talked to GTE because their equipment is what we have now.

Councilor Sparby asked if the equipment we have now is obsolete. The Mayor replied that it is possible to continue using it and GTE will continue to support it but it has problems because it does not connect with the North America system. At the present time , we can only go through GTE. We did discuss whether we could get equipment from other sources, but equipment that is compatible with them is only from that source. We could get instruments for the satellite locations, but there is so little cost savings that it isn't really worth it.

Councilor Sparby asked why it has to be only GTE. Mayor Margerum responded that to go through CentraNet, that is GTE. We cannot go through, at the present time, any other provider.

Councilor Vernon asked what year the City purchased the lease on this new system. The Mayor answered about 5 years ago. Councilor Vernon asked 1991? 1992?

The Mayor said it is still working. It is not obsolete in the sense that it doesn't work anymore. It's just that we are going to save $4,000 per year on charges, and we will be much more flexible. We'll be able to add new lines to it, and also make any changes that may be necessary. And they will be changing the telephone numbers this fall, we are going to get a new area code. This is the time to make the changes in the telephone system.

Councilor Vernon expressed her concern about a 1992 system for which we still owe $6,500 and we are now looking to go with the same company without going through the bid process. Mayor Margerum stated there is no other, GTE provides the telephone service. Their equipment is what we need to use for that system.

Councilor Vernon asked if there aren't any other carriers out there. Mayor Margerum asked who. Councilor Palmer asked if Councilor Vernon knew any. Councilor Vernon answered AT&T, KLF. Mayor Margerum said they do not supply local phone service. Councilor Sparby said that they do. Caterpillar uses AT&T.

Councilor Vernon said there is KLF, AT&T, Excel. There are numerous phone companies servicing business and industry in this community besides GTE. She said she is hesitant to go ahead and expend $25,000 when it doesn't seem like we have done all of our homework.

The Mayor responded you mean you don't want to save $4,000 a year on line charges? Councilor Vernon said she is all for saving $4,000 a year, but what she would like to see is someone else come in here and maybe someone else could save us $9,000, or a competitive bid process. If we haven't done all of our homework ...

Mayor Margerum said we have done our homework. She stated that Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes has discussed it, we have all discussed it with GTE. The CentraNet service is about $2,600 per year, so if you want to, go out and hire a consultant and spend two or there more months. The CentraNet service is in the $2,000 category.

Councilor Sparby asked if the Mayor had hired a consultant for GTE. The Mayor said no, why do you want to hire a consultant to spend $18,000? Councilor Sparby asked why couldn't you just call AT&T and ask a representative to come out and talk. The Mayor replied, feel free to call.

Councilor Vernon said have them come in and have a bid, or have KLF or one of the other companies come in and do the same thing.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes provided the Mayor with a copy of the GTE proposal and asked her where is the CentraNet charge you are referring to. The Mayor said we have talked about this at length and this is not an obsolete system. It can continue to work if you want to keep on using it and you don't want to save $4,000 a year.

Councilor Vernon said we are going to save $4,000 our first year but we are also going to spend $25,000.

Mayor Margerum stated that $2,652 is what the CentraNet system will cost monthly. It will save us $4,000 a month. Councilor Parker asked a month or for a year? Mayor Margerum said that she did not bring all of her paperwork because she didn't imagine the Council wouldn't want to make the change.

Councilor Parker asked $4,000 a year? The Mayor said yes, $4,000 a year. The maintenance savings in the first year is $4,375.80.

The Mayor asked the Clerk-Treasurer about the $2,500, as both were examining the GTE proposal. Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes answered that after the first year we will have to pay a $2,500 annual maintenance fee. The Mayor said that each year there will be a $4,000 savings for a total savings over 5 years of $25,314.

Councilor Vernon commented if hopefully the system lasts for 5 years and doesn't become almost obsolete.

The Mayor said our present system is not obsolete. It still works. It's like an old computer system. It is not state of the art, but it still works.

Councilor Palmer said we can just keep the system and keep paying the extra $4,000.

Councilor Vernon said that we have a system right now that we are not done paying our lease payment on and, as the Mayor said, it is an old dinosaur. The Mayor responded "Who said it was an old dinosaur?"

Councilor Palmer jumped to his feet and faced Councilor Vernon saying: "You are creating fictions here. You are micromanaging to the point where you are creating all kinds of fictions and you're putting words in other people's mouths! That's ridiculous! And that's the second time today you've done it!"

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes addressed the Mayor raising a point of order: "Madame Mayor, there is a certain decorum in this chamber. Would you please address the Councilor from District 2."

Councilor Vernon responded: "I am saying that I am sitting at this table guarding taxpayer dollars and I am being asked to look at an ordinance that is asking to spend $25,000 on a phone system. I am asking: have we looked at other systems as we do the bid process on other large capital purchases in the City? You are telling me that you have looked at GTE and GTE alone. I am asking have there been other companies contacted." The Mayor answered no. Councilor Palmer commented "and that is not the rhetoric which was used a moment ago."

Councilor Perry stated: " May I make a modest suggestion in the interest of decorum? It seems to me if we have a concern with the way an ordinance is written, or you have a concern about the way something was done, you get this packet several days in advance. You have the opportunity to discuss it with the Mayor without this confrontational style. This is getting embarrassing to work with this Council, because every meeting gets more and more confrontational and there is more and more grandstanding. I appreciate your interest in protecting taxpayer dollars. Everyone wants to save taxpayer dollars because we're all taxpayers. But it doesn't have to be a fight every month. We want to work with you."

Councilor Vernon replied: "I am not trying to not work with anyone. I am trying to work for the betterment of the City and the Mayor is saying ..."

Councilor Perry interrupted saying " My point is, please discuss this with the Mayor before the meeting and work something out before you start this confrontational style in the meeting. That's all I'm asking."

Mayor Margerum said she would provide Councilor Vernon with the information on the CentraNet. She said that the Councilor could make other inquiries. The Mayor said that she believes, in her judgment, that this is the best deal we can come up with.

Councilor Bossung said that prior to our meeting on the 8th, we are currently operating under this system at the school corporation and he checked with the administrative office to see if they had problems with it or if there is something they

should be aware of with this particular GTE system. They have had it in for about a year and it is his understanding, and he would need to talk with them directly, but it is his understanding that they are not satisfied with it. It might be something we should take a look at. Councilor Bossung said that he will have an opportunity between now and the 8th to get together with Mr. Banning, and the various principals, and ask if there are problems with this particular system, are there things we need to be concerned with. Because if they do have major concerns, then it might be something we might want to back away from, for a period of time, until they get it ironed out. He said that he wouldn't have a definite answer, but would like the latitude to do that and find out if there are problems with it.

Mayor Margerum said she had talked to Lafayette who have had it for a year and they are happy with theirs.

Councilor Parker said that he sees we have a balance left on the current system and asked if GTE would even consider, since we are buying another system from them ...

Mayor Margerum said they did, they did discount it about $2,000. Councilor Parker asked after the $2,000 discount are we still left owing $6,000.

Mayor Margerum said it is down lower than that now, and asked the Clerk-Treasurer. Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said that the entire cost of the system was put in there. We have half to pay this year, half next year. We have an appropriation already in City Hall to cover it this year although we are going to have a potential problem if we experience any more maintenance difficulties with the City Hall ventilation system. Therefore, the entire cost to buy out the system was put in there. We have depleted those accounts totally and we are not even half-way through the cooling season. If there are going to be additional expenditures out of this budget it might be wise to do this with the understanding that is to allow for an expenditure only to be used for the ventilation system, or you may wish to reduce it by half and carry the present appropriation. She said that she did know what the present purchase price is for the new system, and that the Mayor has those figures. This appropriation is for the hardware. We are buying phone instruments with this money.

The Mayor said that GTE did indicate that they would help the City sell the present system.

Ordinance No. 22-96. An ordinance to set the bi-weekly salaries of the elected officials, City of West Lafayette, Indiana for the year 1997 (Submitted by the Mayor)
The Mayor explained that the elected officials increase is the same as for other employees. The ordinance was accepted without comment.

Ordinance No. 23-96. An ordinance fixing the bi-weekly salaries of appointed officers, employees and members of the Police and Fire departments of the City of West Lafayette, Indiana for the year 1997 (Submitted by the Mayor)
The Mayor distributed an amended ordinance. She reviewed the salary ordinance which sets increases of 3.2% for employees earning $25,000 or more annually, and an $800 increase for employees earning less than $25,000 annually. She reviewed changes requested by Police Chief Mitchell and asked Deputy Chief Balser to explain the rationale for creating the four position levels for investigators. He explained that with positions such as detective patrolmen, detective captain, and detective lieutenant, problems had occurred at on scene incidents as to who was in charge When you had the patrol sergeant who was actually in charge of the scene and the detective happened to be higher ranking, there was some confusion among the ranks as to who was the person who was actually in charge. The levels were put in order to try to keep people in the investigative division properly rewarded for the job that they do and to try to put in some steps for a person to have an opportunity for advancement with some spread in the salary range.

Councilor Sparby asked if Chief Mitchell would be present at the Council meeting. The Mayor answered yes.

Councilor Sparby said currently there is a restriction on the number of sergeants, but with this new ordinance that restriction is taken out since "Investigator I" is the same pay equivalent as "Sergeant." Councilor Sparby asked if there was no restriction on the number of investigator I's that could be hired.

The Mayor explained that the salary positions authorize that these positions should be paid this way. In the budget you put in which ones will be funded. Councilor Sparby said the present ordinance says how many of each. The Mayor said that they don't have to be filled.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes said to clarify the discussion that the practice in drawing up the salary ordinance is that if there is no number after the position, it indicates only one. If the department heads want to have more slots at that level they would put two or more.

The Mayor said that those are slots. If you fill a slot, this is the approved salary. When the Chief does his budget, if he decides he wants only two sergeants of patrol, that is what controls it. All this is saying is that these are the slots you are approving.

Councilor Parker asked if the figures don't match between the sheets (provided by the Police Department) and the salary ordinance because the salary ordinance reflects the increase. Deputy Chief Balser explained that there have been some additional negotiations since that was done. The Mayor explained that the original was drawn up based on 3% not 3.2%.

The Mayor reviewed the $200 additional pay for a certified police instructor. She explained that this had been one of the things discussed in the request from the police department. Unless it was put in the salary ordinance, it couldn't be considered. A certified instructor has a week of training at the academy and has to provide instruction at least three times a year. It would have to be approved by the Board of Public Works and Safety. It is similar to what we do with the WWTU when they complete their certification. It is different in that certification for the WWTU is a written test, but it is a recognition of advanced training.

Councilor Sparby asked if that was $200 biweekly or annual? The Mayor said annual. The Mayor said it is similar to the fire department where the mechanic, and occupational and safety coordinator receives an additional increment. The addition recognizes additional duties above their normal duties.

The Mayor noted that the fire department personnel number is changed from 21 to 22.

The Mayor asked Superintendent Payne to explain the changes to Parks Department salaries. The changes are to reflect the amount that is being paid. All the positions receive the maximum in the range except the Maintenance Technician I position, of which there are three. Two of those receive the minimum, and the other receives the maximum because of his seniority. The reason we have the minimum is that if we were to replace someone, we would replace them at the minimum, not the maximum.

The intent with the Claims/Grants Administrator position was to make it equivalent to the Caretaker position and the two brand new Maintenance Technician II positions, so that those were the four lowest equivalent paid positions.

Superintendent Payne referred to the information which was distributed in the Council packets and said he had discussed this with Councilors Parker, Palmer and Vernon. He distributed an organizational chart. He said that if the changes were made today that we are recommending, it would result in a lower cost relative to the 1996 salary ordinance.

Councilor Parker asked if the overall salary would be less. Superintendent Payne explained that we have been reorganizing for about three years. We have accepted additional responsibilities from engineering when that position was eliminated and we have accepted additional responsibilities at Morton and reorganized our maintenance people, so we handle some additional responsibilities as well as take care of some things that weren't being taken care of, such as trails. In doing that we haven't added one new warm body in that three years. Through the dismissals or allowing people to resign these past few months, taking care of some problems we've had, and replacing and reclassifying people so we have a more fair arrangement, we actually will save $1,158.00 relative to the 1996 salary ordinance.

Superintendent Payne state they were doing this with that intent. We have discussed it with Park Board, but we have not done it formally through Park Board. It is my understanding that we can do this through Park Board. It is my understanding that we did reclassify one maintenance technician earlier in the year through Park Board. Since it is the proper time, we have completed our evaluation of the other maintenance technician we replaced. We are just now starting to turn around some additional grant reimbursement requests. We have brought back in two checks totaling over $80,000 this far from our nearly $1,000,000 in grants. All of that has been kept by Park Board. We now are showing miscellaneous revenue for this year and for next year that is going back in to lower the tax rate for the Park Board. It wouldn't be kept in one of the dedicated accounts. It will be put back in so we're going to be going for more grant reimbursements, and we are going to have to spend more time on it than we have. We do separate accounting on each of these. The Park Board received and accepted one new grant at its past meeting. We will be applying for three more this year and we have applied for one other this year that we haven't heard on. We think it's fair that the person bringing this money back in is equivalent to a maintenance technician and the Morton caretaker. By reorganizing this way we have everyone doing their job a little bit better, and people with a little higher morale in the right positions, with people being paid properly and still save money.

Councilor Bossung asked if the one person you are referring to would make an increase of $2,769 in one year. Superintendent Payne said that is true and the recommendation is to do that so that the four people we have at the bottom of the ladder in pay in Parks and Recreation are at the same level. That person is not only the lowest in the department but to lowest in the entire salary ordinance last year, and I don't feel that was a fair classification although I was not able to change it last year. These are brand new duties and we do keep a great deal of records that are not handled by anyone else in the City. No one else has the training to handle them. I can show you our records on our transfers and our claims and I can show you how we get the checks back from the State.

Councilor Vernon asked Superintendent Payne if he had talked to Garnet Peck about this. Superintendent Payne said yes, and we have started a new evaluation system, classification of our maintenance technicians, and he is very supportive and the Park Board in general of the things we are doing.

Superintendent Payne distributed a handout showing the requirements for different positions in his department which included qualifications and experience. Councilor Sparby asked if these requirements were in the job descriptions. He said yes. Councilor Bossung asked if the skills/experience does not have to apply within your department. Superintendent Payne said that it has to apply to the work, for example, if you have acquired the skill background to do the job you are doing now.

Superintendent Payne distributed a handout which tracks maintenance on the different park properties and locations. He explained that we have increased our acreage by 25% while decreasing the amount we are mowing. He reviewed the handout. He also explained how he does evaluations on his employees.

The Mayor stated that the $350 clothing allowance has been folded into the clerical salaries and will become part of their base next year.

City Engineer Snyder said that now that he understands the maximums and minimums on the salary ordinance, that he had a few corrections. He explained that he had an engineer's assistant that has an offer of an additional $1,000 if he passes the E.I.T. We can either put it in there now as part of the maximum or we can amend it at a later date, at such time. The Mayor responded that he could put a note on the salary ordinance to indicate this. City Engineer Snyder also said that the Council agreed to pass the salary for this man with two bonus options, one of which was passage of E.I.T., and the other was his college degree in Civil Engineering. He said he was just trying to anticipate what he should do. Councilor Palmer asked City Engineer Snyder if it was just a matter of adjusting the maximums and minimums. City Engineer Snyder said yes. The Mayor suggested that he put it in as the maximum and when he submits his budget, he will submit it at the approved rate. City Engineer Snyder also commented that one of his employees may be paid partially, 50% or something, out of the WWTU, and his salary range would need to be adjusted. The Mayor suggested he put in the maximum and have a statement if this person achieves his appropriate status.

Street Commissioner Downey asked if the salary ordinance should contain something that refers to overtime. He said that in our policy manual it states anything over 40 hours is overtime. The Clerk-Treasurer said that FLSA sets the minimum for how to handle work above 40 hours and our personnel policy specifies that departmental policies can supersede the City policy.

Mayor Margerum suggested that City Engineer Snyder get together with the Clerk-Treasurer to review the salaries.

By consensus, the Council recessed for a ten minute break prior to resuming for a work session to review budgets.

Superintendent Payne presented the Park Board budget.

City Engineer Snyder presented the Engineering Department budget.

Clerk-Treasurer Rhodes distributed the Judge and City Services budget but deferred presentation because of the time.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business at this time, Councilor Vernon moved for adjournment. Motion seconded by Councilor Sparby and passed viva-voce. The time being 7:15 p.m.

Office of Clerk-Treasurer Judy Rhodes