Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-2001 Mechanical~1rr~ ` Mechanical Committee Minutes City Council Chambers @ Historic Depot Apri124, 2001 - 6:30 p.m. Members Present: Jim May, Jo Anne Shores, Jim Hartford, Chet Phillips Others Present: Mayor Donald Edwards, Attorney James Elson, Bob Molleck, Kevin Meade, Larry Sarff, David Nidiffer, Chief Elam, Chief Stanko, Gary Orwig, Clif O'Brien, Steve White, Jim Snider, Linda Caudle, John Froehling, Tony Lee, Michael Noyes, Mayor-elect Jerry Bohler, Alderman-elect Mary Fillingham, Alderman-elect Craig West. Treasurer-elect Patti Franzoni Public Safety & Traffic Committee Jo Anne Shores, Chairman Mayor Edwards opened the committee meeting addressing the large number of citizens who wanted to discuss two ordinances that have come before the council recently. A Motion was made by Alderman Molleck, seconded by Alderman Sarff to amend the agenda to include a "committee of the whole" at the end of the regular committee meetings, with Alderman Sarff chairing. Chief Elam distributed the monthly police report. He added that Marty Brown has retired from his position in dispatch. Chief Stanko distributed the monthly fire department report along with the ESDA report. Both were self-explanatory. He added that the fire department received a grant to purchase another defibrillator and $2500 in scholarship funds for personnel to attend special training. Chief Elam reported that 2 traffic analyzers were borrowed from IDOT to conduct a 24 hour study at Main and Cedar. Over 800 vehicles traveled that area in the 24 hour period and almost all were under the speed limit. Chief Elam recommends that no stop signs be placed at that location. The police department also investigated complaints of visibility problems at 2°a and Elm. The Street Department has painted the corners back 25 feet for no parking. Chief Elam does not want to remove additional parking because of the successful businesses in that area. He will continue to study this area. Chief Elam requested permission to send 4 officers to the Executive Management Retrainer Program June 10's thru 12~` in Springfield. Cost is $125 each and includes registration, meals and lodging. A Motion was made by Alderman Hartford, seconded by Alderman Phillips to approve this request. Voice vote, motion carried. No other business was discussed. The Public Safety and Traffic Committee adjourned. 'fir `rr~ Streets & Garbage Committee Chet Phillips, Chairman Alderman Nidiffer brought before the committee a concern about the condition of West Pine Street at Avenue I. Clif O'Brien stated that he has had his work crews clean the culverts and patch the street. No other business was discussed under Streets and Garbage, and the committee adjourned. Lake, Buildings & Grounds Committee Jim Hartford, Chairman Clark Wilson informed the committee that he met with Randolph and Associates with two contractors that specialize in asbestos abatement. He received quotes from both contractors for the removal of asbestos in the back section of the Randolph Building. The quote from Air Care Inc. was $19,539 and the quote from M & O Environment was $11,840. A Motion was made by Alderman Phillips, seconded by Alderman Shores to refer the quotes to staff for a recommendation. Voice vote, motion carried. As an informational item, Clif O'Brien said that his department has demolished the home at 449 W. Locust and will have it cleaned up this week. No other business was discussed and the committee adjourned. Public Works, Water & Sewer Committee Jim May, Chairman Gary Orwig requested approval for the expense of parts for the sludge pump that runs the press. The amount is for $1108 plus freight. A Motion was made by Alderman May, seconded by Alderman Hartford to approve this expenditure. Voice vote, motion carried. No other business was discussed and the committee adjourned. Committee of the Whole Larry Sarff, Chairman At this time, due to medical reasons, Mayor Edwards excused himself from the meeting. A motion made earlier allows Alderman Sarff to preside over the meeting of the "committee of the whole". The meeting opened at 6:50 p.m. Chairman Sarff asked for comments from the committee members, the elected officials who will betaking office May 1~` and from the public in that order. The first item to be discussed was the Ordinance regarding temporary appointments. This ordinance had its first reading at the April 17t1i council meeting and will go before the current council May 1~ for a vote. Some of those comments follow. Alderman Molleck: I believe this ordinance is grossly unfair to the incoming officials. The Mayor has never before been limited on his appointments. I believe this ordinance should be sent back to the Legal and Ordinance committee before it goes for a second reading at council. I believe the incoming officials should have input on this ordinance. 2 ~rrr-' ``r~+' Alderman Phillips: I believe the 6 month severance pay is excessive which appears in the ordinance already passed at the last council meeting. I also disagree with the temporary appointment ordinance. I feel this is an attempt to limit the new mayor's ability to do his job. Neither ordinance should have been talked about in executive session. I was not at that meeting due to my work schedule. I believe the public has a right to know what is going on. Lets unite together for the common good of the community and lets not be a hindrance to the new administration. Alderman Nidiffer: My only question concerning the temporary ordinance is, does the council have an oversight responsibility? Something should be in place and should have been a long time ago. We either have a policy or we don't. If an appointment is made by the mayor, why take a vote if there is no policy in place. I feel we need something in writing to fill the present hole that exists. I would like the temporary ordinance held over for further discussion. I can live with whatever the council decides, but the main question is, does the next council have an oversight? Alderman Meade: This is an unusual situation. This ordinance is an attempt for the council to address issues that have not had to be addressed in over twenty years. I feel the temporary ordinance should lay over to the next Legal and Ordinance Committee. It is the law that the Mayor appoints and the council approves the appointments. There is a flaw in the law on the temporary appointments. We need a mechanism in place where council has a right to approve or disapprove. The question is, do we have oversight? I have no problem with changing the ordinance. This ordinance was drafted with the intent to clean up some of the language that was vague. Lets hold it over and send it to the Legal and Ordinance Committee in order to let the new administration work on it. Mayor-elect Bohler: I appreciate the aldermen's opinions and I do believe the public should be aware of what is taking place. I know there have been a lot of rumors. Unfortunately we don't have control over the rumors. However, I feel that the way the ordinance was handled was wrong. It should not have been discussed behind closed doors. The public should have been informed. The Mayor has to be able to appoint the people he feels will help him to reach his goals and to move forward on the platform of his campaign. Putting up stopping blocks could keep Canton from moving forward. That's my concern. Resident Paul Hurst: I am reading from the Illinois Municipal Handbook. "The Mayor's appointments are for one year or for the term of his office. It's as simple as that. I also don't like the 6 month severance pay. According to past practice would you have wanted to give all of those who were dismissed from their positions 6 month pay to get rid of them? (names were given) You're spending my tax dollars and I don't like it." Alderman May: I have had a lot of complaints and I don't like the way this whole thing has been handled. I don't like the idea of having to give someone 6 month's severance pay. I caught hell over this. Jim Snider may get mad at me for saying this but I've had a lot of jobs in my life and I never got anything when I left and you should either. You won't have any trouble finding a job at the hospital or anyplace else. Alderman Meade: Alrrnan May, you are out of order. Thesepes of comments are out of line. We are here to talk only about the issues, not about personalities. You shouldn't be mentioning names. That's why issues like this are discussed in executive session. It's the merit of the ordinance, not the people that we're here to discuss. Alderman Phillips: This ordinance has the appearance of trying to handcuffthe new administration. Resident Laura Powell, Ward 3: I am ashamed of each of you. What you did was wrong last Tuesday night. Alderman Shores: I received numerous calls on these ordinances. Resident Kurt Skender: I believe in the past there was an appointment that went on indefinitely when council at first did not approve. If a department head is doing a good job, keep him. If not, he should be dismissed without severance pay. As a tax payer, I want simple things like my snow plowed from my street, sewers cleaned out and so on. Six months compensation along with full medical benefits could bankrupt the City if there was a catastrophic illness. The ordinance is wrong and I applaud you for your efforts to send it back to committee. Making rules at the 11~' hour of an administration is not right. Chairman Sarff asked for any other comments on the temporary ordinance. Hearing none a Motion was made by Alderman Molleck, seconded by Alderman Nidiffer to take an advisory vote on sending the temporary ordinance back to the Legal and Ordinance Committee so the new administration could have input. Voice vote. Seven aldermen approved and Alderman Phillips voted against it. Chairman Sarff: We will now offer everyone the opportunity to discuss the Severance Pay Ordinance that was passed last Tuesday. Because of the fears of many department heads of losing their jobs, this ordinance was drafted and passed. Many did not know if they would have jobs after May 1~`. The council felt it should give the department heads some support. Because of the timing involved the ordinance was passed on 1~` reading. I will open the floor for comments, 1~` from the aldermen, then from the public. Alderman Meade: I recommend we send the ordinance back to the Legal and Ordinance Committee to be amended as to have some flexibility. I support the concept but I am not sure of the 6 month time frame. There are other issues that need to be addressed. A severance pay would be an optional amount determined by the council, with a limit placed upon it. Alderman Nidiffer: It does need to have amendments made to it. It should go back to Legal and Ordinance. This was a unanimous vote at council. I believe whole heartedly in the concept. The concept of the ordinance was discussed in executive session because it included specific personnel. Alderman Phillips: I agree with Alderman Nidiffer but I feel the time should be 3 months rather than 6 months for severance pay. I think this ordinance should have been done with the new administration having input. 4 ~rr/ '~ Resident Paul Hurst: Why was this discussed in executive session? You did not have a reason to discuss this in executive session. I feel your meeting was illegal. City Attorney Elson: I did not draft this ordinance. In my opinion, it does have inadequacies. Resident Bob Naylor: When you have a government appointed job you know that you may not have a secure job when the administration changes. This is a fact, and department heads know this when they take the job. Anew Mayor should be able to appoint who he wants. Attorney Ron Weber: This ordinance has already been passed and is law. It has some bad flaws. If it is in place, it is now real and it is the law until it is amended. It is in unsatisfactory form. It either stands, is appealed or is amended. Mayor-elect Bohler: My question is who drafted this ordinance? (answer by unidentified speaker: "Bruce Beal") Did the city council approve paying an outside attorney to draft it? I appreciate everyone's concerns. I will be willing to work with everyone to amend this ordinance and look at many different areas of it. I believe that severance pay should be considered on a case by case basis. I also want to add that I personally called three of the department heads the day after the primary election and confirmed that I would not dismiss them and their jobs were secure. Still the rumors continued. I want to apologize to the department heads and their families for those rumors. Its unfortunate that we cannot control rumors. Alderman Phillips: I think we need to rescind this. Attorney Elson: It has to come under the new council meeting next week under new business. Alderman Meade: It needs to be discussed at the May 8~' Legal and Ordinance Committee Meeting. Alderman Phillips: The ordinance is in place now. If someone is not appointed you're going to be paying 6 month's severance pay if the ordinance is not removed now. We've already termed this ordinance as excessive. Does the council want to leave this excessive ordinance in place? Alderman Meade: I would like to make an advisory motion to have the city attorney draft language to revise this ordinance, section 8.8, and bring it to the next Legal and Ordinance Committee. Second by Alderman Molleck. Discussion followed the motion. Resident Mrs. Powell: Instead of amending it why don't you throw it out the door. Resident Kurt Skender: My opinion is, if an appointed employee is discharged, to give him any severance pay is ridiculous. I am asking you to consider trashing this bad piece of legislation and starting all over. Alderman Phillips: E~ effort should be made to get rid of t~s before the new administration takes office. Resident Don Bull: I don't like the ordinance. It's no good. Area Citizen Betty Manock: Will this be in effect when the new administration takes office, and if someone is not appointed will they receive their 6 month severance pay? Attorney Elson: There are a lot of factors involved before someone would receive this pay. I feel you can repeal an ordinance without going through all of the readings. Alderman Phillips: I would like to have the motion include repealing the ordinance. If it is such a bad ordinance. It is still law, now. My concern is that we will pay 6 months to anyone whose position is eliminated by the new administration. This could end up in the courts and costing additional money. The original motion was called for a voice vote. All voted in favor except Alderman Phillips, voting against the motion. An advisory motion was made by Alderman Phillips, seconded by Alderman Hartford to advise the city attorney to find the quickest way possible to repeal this ordinance before the new administration takes office May 1 ~`. The advisory vote was unanimous. I have reported these comments to the best of my ability. Linda Caudle 6