Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/1996 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MAY 28, 1996 Mayor Henderson presiding 1] Roll Call at 4:00 P.M. 2] City Administrator Search 3] 5 Year Equipment List 4] Non Union Pay Plan Amendment 5] Other Business 6] Adjourn at 6:00 P.M. Barry A. Stock Acting City Administrator f y MEMORANDUM TO: City Administrator Search Committee FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: City Council Interviews DATE: May 3, 1996 At your meeting on April 4th, you asked me to check with the City Attorney regarding the open meeting law and how it relates to the City Council conducting their interviews and discussion on the candidates. Attached is a memo from Karen Marty addressing this matter. MEMORANDUM TO: Judy Cox, City Clerk FROM: Karen Marty, City Attorney DATE: May 2, 1996 RE : City Administrator Search ISSUE: You requested an opinion regarding two aspects of the selection of a City Administrator: (1) whether or how the City Council might privately interview finalists for the position; and (2) whether or how the City Council could discuss their opinions privately after the interviews . The primary concern is how the Open Meeting Law affects the interview process. As set forth more fully below, interviews and discussions involving only one or two Councilmembers at a time may be kept private. Interviews or discussions involving three or more Councilmembers must be open to the public . In a private discussion, Councilmembers must follow three restrictions : they (1) must not be trying to avoid public discussion, (2) must not be trying to line up a majority vote before receiving public input at a public meeting, and (3) must not be trying to hide a personal or financial interest . INTERVIEWS; The City Councilmembers may meet in groups of three or more (a quorum or more) to interview candidates, or they may meet individually or in pairs (groups of less than a quorum) to interview each candidate . As discussed below, a meeting with three or more Councilmembers must be open to the public; a meeting with only one or two Councilmembers can be private . If City Councilmembers meet in a group of more than a quorum, this fits the state law of a meeting which must be open to the public . The question of what, precisely, was a "meeting" under the Open Meeting Law was resolved in Moberg v. Independent School Dist . No. 281, 336 N.W. 2d 510 (1983) . In that case the Court ruled as follows : "We therefore hold that `meetings' subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law are those gatherings of a quorum or more members of the governing body . . . at which members discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that governing body. " At 518 . Hiring a new City Administrator is official business of the City Council, and therefore if a quorum of the members meet regarding that hiring, that meeting would be subject to the Open Meeting Law. (`_ The Court considered similar issues to ours when it decided The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. App. 1989) . In that case a committee was appointed to select finalists for the position of president of the University. The finalists then were to be interviewed at an open meeting. The Court approved this procedure. The issue becomes much more complicated if Councilmembers meet individually or in groups of less than a quorum. In Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc . v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982) , the Court ruled that individual informal discussions between councilmembers does not violate the open meeting law. At 765 . The limits of these discussions was laid out in Moberg, supra at 517. . . in formulating a definition of `meetings' that must be open, the public' s right to be informed must be balanced against the public' s right to the effective and efficient administration of public bodies . . . [I] t is the duty of public officials to persuade each other in an attempt to resolve issues, and it makes little sense to suggest that they may listen to a group of nonmembers on important matters but not to their colleagues, who may be more expert on the subject than any other persons . There are limits on the discussion which may be held between individual councilmembers, however. As stated in Moberg, Intra-agency persuasion and discussion become improper when designed to avoid public discussion altogether, to forge a majority in advance of public hearings on an issue, or to hide improper influences such as the personal or pecuniary interest of a public official . Id. at 517-518 . In the more recent case of Claude v. Collins, 518 N.W. 2d 836 (Minn. 1994) , the Court reaffirmed that the Open Meeting Law "serves three vital purposes : (1) 'to prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning board decisions or to detect improper influences' ; (2) 'to assure the public' s right to be informed' ; and (3) 'to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the [public body] . " Id. at 841, citing St . Cloud Newspapers, Inc . v. District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W. 2d. 1, 4 (Minn. 1983) . These cases provide the rules for meetings . Individual councilmembers may meet and discuss items so long as they (1) are not seeking to avoid public discussion, (2) are not trying to line up a majority vote on an issue before receiving public input at a public meeting, and (3) are not trying to hide a personal or financial interest . -2- In conclusion, Councilmembers as a group may meet with the candidates in a public meeting. In the alternative, Councilmembers may meet individually or in pairs with the candidates in private meetings . DISCUSSION OF CANDIDATES: The City Council may discuss its thoughts about the various candidates either in a meeting of three or more (a quorum) or in pairs (groups of less than a quorum) . If the meeting is of a quorum or more, then it must be open to the public. If Councilmembers meet in pairs to discuss the various candidates, they may meet privately only if they comply with the conditions set forth in Moberg, id. That is, they must not be seeking to avoid public discussion, they must not be trying to line up a majority ahead of the public meeting, and they must not be trying to hide a personal or financial interest in who is selected for the position. So long as these three criteria are met, discussion between pairs of councilmembers are completely legal. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Signed 01 - Karen Marty, C' t/ Attorney KEM:bjm [2 MEMO2] -3- MEMORANDUM TO: Shakopee City Council FROM: Mayor Jeff Henderson Chair, City Administrator Search Committee SUBJECT: City Administrator Interviewing DATE: May 22, 1996 When the City Administrator Search Committee(CASC) selected questions to ask the semi-finalists for the City Administrator position, they also selected questions that the City Council may wish to consider asking during their interviews with the final candidates. Attached is the list of the questions selected by the CASC. At the May 28th Council meeting, the Council should decide whether or not they wish to utilize these questions. CITY COUNCIL ORAL EXAMINATION QUESTIONS FOR CITY ADMINISTRATION POSITION June, 1996 #1. Decision Making What have you done to get creative solution to problems? Be specific. Notice whether the applicant seems excited by the creative process. Get an example of a creative solution. Was it arrived at through a structured process- or through intuition? Through group brainstorming- or individual initiative? You'll want a manager who values creativity and knows how to stimulate it in others. #2. Administration Do you feel that the chain of command is important? Why? When do you feel it might inhibit organizational effectiveness? The chain of command comes from a traditional, military model of management. Some managers feel it stifles creative ideas and people. Others feel it gives the organization safety and stability. Listen to the applicant's answer to determine his/her frustration level with the chain of command. The administrator/manager can make it work to his/her advantage. The leader/innovator may chafe under it. #3. Writing Skills What do you see as the difference in writing strategy for a report vs. a memo vs. a letter? Which do you think takes more skill? A competent business writer understands that a report must present information leading to a logical conclusion or recommendation. He or she also knows that a memo should be brief and readable, and should present the primary information at the beginning. Finally, the candidate should have a working knowledge of different business letters-those for persuasion, apology, information, or other purposes. #4. Financial Give me an example of something you did which saved money for your organization. Few managers initiate cost-cutting or money-saving ideas. Uncover whether the action was in response to an external pressure-for example, a management demand. Next, find out what was truly an original idea and what ideas came from others (an employee, for example). Finally, determine how the candidate monitored and measured the savings, and whether the impact was truly significant. #5. Leadership Give me an example of how you delegated responsibility for a recent assignment; for instance,whom you chose,what and how you delegated the assignment, and what you did to monitor it. Delegation is a fundamental part of management. Surprisingly, few managers think about it logically. For example, how many really think about how to best prepare a job before delegating, or what would be the most logical way to explain its details? By pursuing questions about a recent delegation, you'll learn a good bit about how the candidate assesses employee skill levels, his/her awareness of communication principles, training, planning of assignments, and his/her ability to follow through and monitor. Notice whether the applicant cares about developing and teaching employees through delegation, and what kinds of assignments he or she refuses to delegate. Ask how much detail the applicant usually provides when he/she delegates; it should vary according to an employee's experience and maturity. #6. Evaluating.Performance How have you evaluated your department's overall performance? This question will help determine the applicant's ability to plan, monitor, and assess the factors he/she must be responsible for. Look for an orientation to clear production standards and specific, measurable goals. Notice whether the applicant has developed a reporting system and whether he or she has a handle on the department's performance at various intervals(weekly, monthly, quarterly, etc.). #7. Employee Relations What is your approach to the collective bargaining process? #8. Planning Give me an example of a change you saw coming, or something you thought was necessary to change. How did you go about planning for it? An excellent candidate has one eye on the future. Rather than merely coping everyday, he or she looks for changes -both those from outside forces and those which must be self- initiated. Look closely to determine whether the candidate planning to implement the change- and whether the plan was followed. #9. Organizational Relationships Describe a time when "politics" at work affected your job. How did you deal with it? Two issues should concern you. First, can the candidate"read" and understand the norms or politics of an organization? Can he or she"play the game"? Second, will the candidate accept the political situation in your organization? Probe for an understanding of both issues. Notice whether the candidate seems excessively bothered by the situation. Does it seem that terrible to you? Your best candidate is one who can endure political storms and remain relatively dry. INTERVIEWS FOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR POSITION Date: Candidate: Interviewer: Question No. 1 Points Question No. 2 Points Question No. 3 Points Question No. 4 Points Question No. 5 Points Question No. 6 Points Question No. 7 Points Question No. 8 Points Question No. 9 Points Total Points 44:2) TO: Barry Stock, Acting City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: 5 Year Equipment List DATE: May 20, 1996 Introduction Attached is a draft of the 5 Year Equipment List for Council discussion. Background Annually, Council discusses a list of proposed mobile equipment purchases for the next 5 years. This is part of the routine budget process . The longer end of the five year time frame has traditionally been understated as departments tend to add more items to the list as the time gets shorter. Also, the projected "fund balance" in the Internal Service Fund appears to be growing. This fund is only a couple of years old. As we get more experience with the operation of the fund and if the balance does continue to grow as projected, we will cut back on the rental rates charged to the general fund so as to not build up too large a balance. The balance should be something larger than accumulated depreciation in order to have funding to buy higher cost replacement equipment and additional items as the city grows. The first year of the list becomes the next years budget for the Internal Service Fund. The items on the list impact the operating budget of the departments due to rental charges and the effect of having new equipment to maintain versus higher maintenance for older equipment . It is suggested that Council review the list to; 1 . Determine that an item needs replacement regardless of whether it has reached the end of its accounting or depreciated life or not . 2 . Determine that the item is needed as a purchase versus renting, leasing or contracting out . 1 3 . Determine if the city should buy new compact pickups for building inspectors or maximize use of cycled down cars (squads) . Based on mileage checks a couple of years ago, annual mileage varies from about 4 , 000 to 7, 000 miles per year. 4 . Determine if Council wants the City Mechanic to certify that the mechanical condition of each item on the list for the next year is such that replacement is needed within 18 months . Attached is a copy of the City of Eagans vehicle policy. Staff has scanned it into the computer and simply changed the name of Eagan to Shakopee. No further effort has been made to change the document at this point . If Council wishes to adopt a formal vehicle acquisition/replacement policy for Shakopee, staff can make suggested changes to fit Shakopee and bring it back to Council for discussion. Action Discuss and give staff direction. I :\Finance\budget\department\eq5-20 .doc City of Shakopee Equipment List 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 EQUIPMENT FUND Projected Fund Balance 1/1/97 $1,798,323 $ $ $ $ Rentals 413,650 465,730 565,800 571,860 600,170 Sale of Assets 8,000 5,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Interest98,910 93,520 97,980 118,460 140,090 Total Revenue 520,560 564,250 671,780 698,320 748,260 Expenditures per List 618,560 483,170 299,280 305,100 145,700 Excess (Deficiency) (98,000) 81,080 372,500 393,220 602,560 Balance Available 12/31 $1,700,323 $1,781,403 $2,153,903 $2,547,123 $3,149,683 Accumulated depreciation 12/31 1,257,440 1,388,591 1,696,134 1,832,766 2,182,329 / 3 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Inspection Truck 14,000 14,000 14,000 Police Marked Patrol Cars 25,660 25,770 53,280 55,100 28,500 Automobiles (unmarked) 13,900 14,400 16,200 Fire Truck- Pumper 300,000 300,000 Hover Craft 22,000 Utility/Personnel Vehicle 40,000 Engineering Pickup Truck 14,000 15,000 16,000 Car 15,000 Street Single Axle Dump Truck/equip 75,000 80,000 1 Ton Pickup with Plow 20,000 Steamer 40,000 Front End Loader 120,000 Skid Loader(Melroe Bobcat) 30,000 Diesel-powered sidewalk plow 65,000 Snow Blower (for loader) 55,000 Park Large Tractor Mower(ieJake) 70,000 Truck One Ton Dual Box/Hoist 30,000 Tree Spade for Loader 10,000 Garbage Truck 1 1/2 Ton 50,000 Bucket Truck 40,000 Small Mower w/cab and attachments 30,000 Sewer Fund 1 Ton Pickup with plow 30,000 Eductor 50,000 Storm Drainage Fund Tractor Loader/Backhoe 60,000 618,560 483,170 299,280 305,100 145,700 Police 1997: 1 Patrol Car (25,660) . Replace one patrol car purchased in 1993 . Unmarked Car (13,900) . Replace 1988 Plymouth. 1998: 1 Patrol Car (25,770) . Replace one patrol car purchased in 1994. Unmarked Car (14,400) . Replace 1990 Dodge. 1999: 2 Patrol Cars (53,280) . Replace two patrol cars purchased in 1995. 2000: 2 Patrol Cars (55,100) . Replace two patrol cars purchased in 1996. 2001: 1 Patrol Car (28,500) . Replace one patrol car purchased in 1997 Unmarked Car (16,200) . Unmarked Administrative Vehicle. Building Inspection 1997: Truck (14,000) . Compact pickup for Building Inspector who had been previously utilizing pass down police vehicles. Police vehicle will continue to be utilized by third building inspection position. 1998: Truck (14,000) . Compact pickup for third Building Inspector who had been previously utilizing pass down police vehicles. 1999: Truck (14,000) . This is to replace the 1989 _Pickup used by the Building Inspector. Fire 1997: Truck - pumper (300,000) . This is an addition to station 2 due to area growth and demand. The estimated cost of this unit has been increased from $260,000 to $300,000 this year to reflect cost increases. It is intended to purchase this unit late in the year and purchase the new pumper scheduled in 1998 together. This should reduce cost and give staff a truck with similar operating controls and maintenance parts. This unit will replace the 1973 Mack pumper. 1998: Truck - pumper (300,000) . This is an addition to station 2 due to area growth and demand. The estimated cost of this unit has been increased from $260, 000 to $300,000 this year to reflect cost increases. 1999: Hover Craft (22,000) . This will replace our present unit that will be 15 years old. It was purchased used and several years old. Improvements in hover craft design that are already available, will make the replacement unit more versatile, maneuverable, useable, and safer. The estimated cost of this unit has been increased from $20, 000 to $22, 000 this year to reflect cost increases. 2000: Utility/Personnel Vehicle (40,000) . This unit will be used for personnel transportation (fires, training, meetings etc. ) and also used to transport equipment and maintenance items between stations. In severe weather or other emergencies it will be used as a second officer/command vehicle. The estimated cost of this unit has been increased from $35, 000 to $40, 000 this year to reflect cost increases. Engineering 1998: Car (15,000) . This would replace the existing 1987 Chevrolet Nova which will be over 10 years old. This car is utilized by all departments as a pool vehicle, but is included in the engineering division for budget purposes. Truck (14,000) . This would be a new truck for a new inspector's vehicle. It is anticipated that due to developement, the city will need another full time inspector and thus another vehicle. If council does not authorize the inspector's position this vehicle is not necessary. 1999: Truck (15,000) . This would replace the 1989 inspectors vehicle. It is anticipated that due to the mileage and maintenance costs, this vehicle will need replacing by then. The Department will continue to monitor this situation annually and adjust the equipment list accordingly. 2001: Truck (16,000) . See comments under 1997. This truck would also replace an existing truck. Street 1997: Single Axle Dump Truck with Equipment (75,000) . This will replace the 1987 Ford Truck (Truck #107) which will be 10 years old at that time and probably reach the end of its useful service life at this point. Front End Loader (120,000) . This loader would replace the existing 1972 Fiat Loader. The Fiat Loader was replaced in 1992 with a Case Loader but retained for use by the Public Works Department due to its low salvage value. Additional equipment such as a loader with wing and plow or dump truck with plow and wing is needed to maintain the current level of service with the additional streets and cul-de- sacs being added in the city and to replace the Fiat Loader on a plow route. A study will be done by staff to evaluate purchasing options for owning or renting, and cost effectiveness of loader versus other pieces of equipment prior to Council authorization to prepare specifications. 1998: One Ton Pickup (20,000) . This will replace the existing truck #110, which will be 10 years old at that time. 1999: Single Axle Dump Truck with Equipment (80,000) . This will replace the 1989 Ford Truck (#109) which will be 10 years old at that time and near the end of its useful service life. Diesel - powered sidewalk plow w/attachments (65,000) . This piece of equipment is a proposed additional vehicle to facilitate snow removal on city sidewalks and trails. It is anticipated that the city will grow and additional sidewalks and trails will be added that will need snow removal. Attachments include a plow, snowblower, with truck loading chute and mower so this unit can be used in the grass/weed growing season as well. 2000: Bobcat (small loader) (30,000) . This will replace the existing skid loader, which will be 10 years old at that time. Steamer (40,000) . Currently our steamer boiler is used extensively in the winter and spring to thaw out storm sewers, catch basins, etc. , to alleviate flooding. The current steamer is a 1965 Cleaver- Brooks steamer which should be replaced with a more modern, advanced, safer steamer. 2001: Snow Blower Unit for Loader (55,000) . This would replace the existing 1987 Root snow blower attachment for a loader and used to remove and haul snow from the downtown areas and other areas which require hauling of snow. It is anticipated that this unit will be at the end of its service life and require replacement. Park Maintenance 1997: Large Tractor Mower (70,000) . This would be replacement for the 1987 Jacobsen large mower which is used extensively during the grass cutting season in the parks. The 1987 tractor mower will probably reach the end of its useful service life at this point. 1998: One Ton Truck Dual Box/Hoist (30,000) . This would replace P/U Truck #112, which will be 10 years old at that time. Tree Spade for Loader (10,000) . A tree spade attachment for a loader could be used to plant trees in City parks and City property if a nursery is established by the City Park Division. Bucket Truck (40,000) . This vehicle would be an additional piece of equipment used by the Street and Park divisions for trimming of trees. Public Works cannot use the front end loader with bucket due to OSHA requirements. Public Works has borrowed a bucket truck from other government agencies the past two years. Staff believes it is best to own this equipment to avoid conflicts and more cost effective to own than to rent or lease. 1999: Garbage Truck 1 1/2 Ton (50,000) . This would replace the existing 1984 Iveco 1 1/2 Ton Garbage Truck used for removing and collecting refuse from the parks. The equipment will be 15 years old and will probably reach the end of its useful life. 2001: Mower w/cab and attachments (30,000) . This- would replace the existing 1990 Toro 220D mower, which will be 10 years old at this time. Attachments besides mower, include broom blower and cab in order to convert the mower to a snow removal piece of equipment. Sewer Fund 2000: One Ton Pickup (30,000) . This will replace the existing truck #125, which will be 10 years old at that time. Eductor (50,000) . This would replace the 1984 IME Sewer Cleaner (educator) as this unit will be over 15 years old and will be at the end of its useful life. Storm Drainage Fund 2000: Tractor Loader/Backhoe (60,000) . Due to numerous ponds and ditches constructed the past few years, additional maintenance items such as pond cleaning and ditch cleaning/regrading are needed. Other uses for this piece of equipment are storm sewer repair, sanitary sewer adjustments. The majority of use would be in maintaining the storm water system, therefore the equipment should be funded by the Storm Drainage Fund. 9 City of Shakopee POLICY VEHICLE ACQUISITION, USE & REPLACEMENT POLICY I. PURPOSE &NEED FOR POLICY This policy will provide uniform criteria for all City departments and operations in the acquisition, use and replacement of vehicles. The City of Shakopee is dedicated to managing its resources in a fiscally responsible manner. Therefore, a specific need should be demonstrated before a new vehicle is added to the City's fleet, and every existing vehicle should be utilized to its greatest economic extent prior to replacement. The personal use of City vehicles will be delineated to ensure proper accounting and maximum efficiency of public purpose. The acquisition of additional vehicle to the City's overall fleet and their replacement should be only as necessary to allow the City to provide the services and perform the duties and responsibilities that is expected by the public within budgetary constraints. II. VEHICLE ACQUISITION POLICY The many varied aspects of public service provided by the City of Shakopee requires the use of different types of vehicles. These include: Type A) vehicles used primarily to transport employees to/from locations of work activity (i.e. administrative and inspection vehicles); Type B) vehicles necessary to assist City employees in performing their duties (i.e. squad car, survey van, utility repair truck etc.); and, Type C)vehicles used to actually perform a physical function(fire truck, road grader, dump truck, etc.). The type of vehicle acquired shall be that which is determined to be most appropriate and cost effective for that vehicle's function. However, all administrative/personnel transportation type vehicles shall be of the compact class. If a multi-passenger vehicle MPV) is deemed necessary to maximize personnel transportation capabilities, it shall be of the minivan class for 5-7 seatbelts and extended cargo van category for 8-10 seatbelts. A. Staff Transportation Vehicles A vehicle shall be acquired by the City of Shakopee and assigned for staff transportation only if one or more of the following occur. 1. If the City has deemed it appropriate to identify the driver and/or passengers as City employees on the way to/from remote work locations or while performing their official duties. 2. a. If a specific job description results in an employee accumulating a minimum of 10,000 reimbursable miles per year on their personal vehicle traveling to/from alternate work locations, or b. If an operational division has a cumulative staff mileage reimbursement of 12,000 miles Per Year or more. IC 3. If the City Administrator has determined that a vehicle should be provided as part of a position's responsibility and meets the requirements of State Law. B. Job Assistance Vehicles 1. In certain circumstances, City provided and equipped vehicles are necessary to allow employees to perform their job functions. In those circumstances, the City shall provide the specific required type of vehicle and equip it with the necessary tools, equipment and devices necessary to allow a City employee to perform their duties in the most efficient and safe manner possible. These vehicles may be assigned to specific employees or made available through a pool concept within a division/department operational basis determined to be most efficient by the department head(s). C. Job Performance Vehicles 1. If a certain specialty type of vehicle is deemed necessary by the department to perform a specific work task, it shall be justified in writing by the department head and approved by the City Administrator subject to budgetary constraints. The method of acquisition (purchase, lease, rental) shall be determined by the Finance Director. 2. Specialty pieces of equipment shall be shared interdepartmentally to the greatest extent possible subject to seasonal/usage availability to avoid redundant acquisitions. III. VEHICLE REPLACEMENT POLICY A. Minimum Replacement Standards City acquired vehicles should not be programmed or budgeted for replacement until they have met the minimum replacement standards for the particular vehicle category(see attached). Similarily,vehicles should not be replaced just because they have met the minimum replacement standards. Any deviations for early replacement must be justified in writing by the Department Head and approved by the City Administrator. B. Replacement Evaluation Process Any vehicle which has been proposed for replacement shall have a standard Vehicle evaluation form completed with a written recommendation by the ChiefMechanic/Shop Supervisor and Department Head delineating the justification for its replacement. A sample Evaluation Form is attached hereto. C Disposition of Used Vehicles Before a vehicle is removed from the City's Fleet,the Chief Mechanic shall review all current vehicles of similar type and determine if it would be economially beneficial to switch with another existing vehicle before disposal. All vehicles to be disposed of will be coordinated by the Chief Mechanic and Finance Director to determine the most economical method and time. Vehicles may be retained for continued use by the City for a period not to exceed 9 months from the date the new vehicle is placed into service. IV. PERSONAL USE OF CITY VEHICLES City vehicles are not available for take home use by City employees except for the following situations: A. Assigned Take-Home Vehicles 11 City employees, whose position responsibilities require them to respond directly to a work related situation from their residence outside of normal work hours, will be allowed to use a City vehicle (Type A or B) to commute to/from their place of residence under the following conditions: 1. The need must be justified in writting by the Department Head and approved by the City Administrator. 2. The employee must live in the City of Shakopee 3. The vehicle is not available for other than diminimus personal use while performing their job duties and/or commuting to/from their place of residence. 4. Employees will have an equivalent noncash income reported per controlling IRS regulations for any personal usage. 5. The employee does not receive a car allowance. 6. Job performance specialty type vehicles (Type C) shal 1 not be made available for personal personal use or commuting. 7. For scheduled leaves of absence by the designated employee exceeding I workday, the City vehicle shall be made available for pool use and remain at the employee's normal place of work. B. Occasional Take-Home Vehicles A City employees may occasionally use a City vehicle (Type A or B) to travel to/from the employee's residence under the following conditions. 1. An employee is scheduled to intermittently perform work related duties outside of the employee's normal work hours. 2. If the City employee has scheduled City business away from their normal work station and the number of miles traveled, or time needed to conduct the business, will be minimized if the employee uses a City vehicle to commute to/From the employee's residence before/after traveling to the place of business. 3. The vehicle is not available for other than diminimus personal use beyond commuting to/from place of residence. C. Exceptions Public Safety personnel may use take-home vehicles (Type A or B)under the following conditions: 1. Vehicles may be licensed with private passenger plates and may contain no external markings identifying it as a City vehicle. 2. Vehicles are to be used by those employees secondarily to personal/family vehicles. 3. Only City employees are authorized to drive the vehicle 4. Vehicles meeting Condition#2 can be used for personal vehicles on an unlimited basis within the 7 county metropolitan area 1)- 5. Employees must provide evidence that they have a personal automobile insurance policy. 6. Employees will have a noncash income reported per controlling IRS regulations for any personal usage. V. CITY USE OF PERSONAL VEHICLES A. Mileage Reimbursement 1. All employees of the City will be paid mileage for use of their personal vehicles and reimbursed for all related legal parking costs while conducting official City business. The mileage rate will be as set by the City Council. However, employees are encouraged to use available City vehicles whenever possible while conducting official City business,. 2. Normal personal commuting mileage from home to work or work to home is nonreimbursable. If an employee uses a personal vehicle to travel to a work responsiblity on the way to or from work, normal personal commuting mileage shall be deducted from the total trip mileage used to calculate the reimbursement. 3. Prior to using a personal vehicle and claiming mileage,the employee should first use a City vehicle assigned to their department. If one is not available, the employee should check with other departments regarding the availability of a similar appropriate City vehicle B. Monthly Allowance Department Heads, with the exception of Public Safety Department Heads, by virtue of their job responsibilities, are provided the option of an assigned take-home vehicle or a monthly allowance at their discretion upon approval by the City Administrator. The monthly allowance will be as set by the City Council. A monthly car allowance incurs the following conditions: 1. The monthly allowance covers all business miles driven and all parking costs incurred within the seven- county metropolitan area Any Travel outside this region in a personal vehicle will be reimbursed according to Section V.A. 2. City vehicles may be used: a. In emergencies when the personal vehicle is not available; - b. For work related off.road driving when the personal vehicle would be subjected to conditions above normal wear and tear on a vehicle, c. In severe adverse weather conditions; or d. Where the department head must travel by vehicle outside the seven-county metropolitan area C. Other Costs Employees, are responsible for all costs related to vehicle ownership and operation The City is responsible for all costs related to installation and maintenance of City equipment in the vehicles which is necessary in order that the employee may perform the position's functions. The City is also responsible for all costs related to the removal of such equipment and to the restoration of the vehicle caused by such removal. 13 • VI. VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION A. Color/City Logo All City vehicles shall be licensed and marked as appropriate for their specific use as follows: 1. All Administrative transportation vehicles (Type A) shall be white, of compact size, and have the City's name and vehicle number prominently displayed on the side door panels. The City's official logo will be applied when it is beneficial to have it displayed to the public as determined by the Department Head. 2. All Public Works and Parks maintenance specialty type vehicles(Type B or C) shall be yellow with the City name, logo, and vehicle number prominently displayed on the door panel or other highly visible location. 3. Marked police squad/patrol cars shall display the City name, logo, and vehicle number, it shall contain lettering identifying it as a police/law enforcement/emergency vehicle. The color of unmarked squad cars will be at the discretion of the Police Chief as necessary to minimize their detection as a law enforcement vehicle. 4. Fire Department vehicles shall be red with the City's name, logo, vehicle numberand shall contain lettering identifying it as a fire response emergency vehicle pominently displayed on the side door panels. 5. Other specialty type vehicles (Type B or C) shall match the color of other similar operational/department vehicles unless a specific written justification has been submitted by the Department Head and approved by the City Adminitrator. VII. RESPONSIBILITY The City Administrator is responsible for the enforcement of this policy. Department and Division Heads may not deviate from the policy unless they have written approval from the City Administrator Effective Date: City Administrator )14 VEHICLE CATEGORIES MINIMUM REPLACEMENT STANDARDS Administrative AGE MILES OR HOURS Sedan 10 100,000 miles Station Wagon 10 100,000 miles Vans (mini and multi-passenger) 10 100,000 miles Specialty Light Duty Survey 10 100,000 miles Inspection 10 100,000 miles Field Supervisor 10 100,000 miles Utility Van 10 100,000 miles Medium Duty Utility Truck 10 100,000 miles 4X4 pickup 10 100,000 miles 1-ton dump truck 10 100,000 miles Skidsteer 10 4,000 hours Fire Rescue or Grass Rig 15 Does not apply Heavy Duty Single Axle Dump Truck 12 80,000 miles Tandem Axle Dump Truck 12 80,000 miles Front End Loader 14 6,000 hours Road Grader 14 6,000 hours Tractor backhoe 20 6,000 hours Sweeper 8 5,000 hours Jetter 20 8,000 hours Tanker/Flusher 20 8,000 hours Sewer Vac 20 Does no apply Pumpers 20 Does not apply Police Investigation 10 100,000 miles Police Patrol 10 100,000 miles City of Shakopee Revised 5/21/96 VEHICLE EVALUATION FORM Public Works Department-Equipment Maintenance Section Unit# Serial# Department Year Make Model Vehicle Description Special Eqpt/Attachments Primary Use Current Mileage Hours Last Year Miles Hours Avg.Annual Miles Hours Purchase Price (includes special equipment) Estimated Replacement Cost (includes special equipment) Estimated Average Life years/hours/miles ANALYSIS OF UNIT YEAR Annual Operating Costs Cumulative Operating Costs Annual CPM or CPH Life-To-Date CPM or CPH Average CPM or CPH for vehicle class % Downtime -Annually % Downtime- Cumulative %Downtime by Class Body, mechanics and/or chassis condition comments: Prepared by Reviewed by City of Shakopee Revised 5/21/96 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Barry A. Stock, Acting City Administrator RE: Non Union Pay Plan Amendment -Res. No. 4446 DATE: May 23, 1996 INTRODUCTION: In reviewing our files it became apparent that the Planner H position classification and pay schedule was inadvertently left off the 1996 pay schedule. It would be appropriate at this time to amend the 1996 Pay Plan accordingly to establish the position classification and pay schedule. BACKGROUND: Attached is Resolution No. 4446, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4352 establishing the 1996 Pay Plan. The resolution establishes the position of Planner II and a corresponding pay schedule. The Planner II position existed on the 1995 pay schedule but was removed when the 1996 pay schedule was prepared because the position was vacant. The pay range is consistent with the pay range that was submitted to City Council when the position was filled at our last meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Offer Resolution No. 4446, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4352 establishing the 1996 Pay Plan. 2. Do not approve Resolution No. 4446. 3. Table action pending further information from staff STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative No. 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Offer Resolution No. 4446, A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 4352 establishing the 1996 Pay Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 4446 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 4352, ADOPTING THE 1996 PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE OFFICERS AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE WHEREAS, on December 5, 1995, the Shakopee City Council adopted Resolution No. 4352 approving the 1996 pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union Employees of the City of Shakopee; and WHEREAS, certain conditions and circumstances have changed to make it desirous to amend the 1996 pay Schedule for Officers and Non-Union employees of the City of Shakopee at this time. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, that the Planner II exempt position classification is hereby added to the Pay Schedule for the Officers and Non-Union employees of the City of Shakopee at the following pay steps: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 $35,099 $37,293 $38,390 $39,487 $40,584 $41,680 $42,777 $43,874 Adopted in Adjourned Regular Session of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held this 28th day of May, 1996. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney