Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 02-01-1993 SpecialPr. 11 AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1993 5:30 P.M. - 6:30 P.M. 5:30 P.M. DINNER AND INTRODUCTIONS I. Community use of school district facilities for recreational programs - Eric Blank II. DARE Program - Craig Gerdes III. School Liaison Officer Program - Craig Gerdes IV. Mielke Field Update - Linda Powell V. Areas for Cooperation VI. Other Business 6:30 P.M. ADJOURN DATE: January 28, 1993 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Frank Boyles, Acting City Manager SUBJECT: MONDAY FEBRUARY 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Three meetings are scheduled for the City Council on Monday afternoon and evening, February 1. They are: I. 4:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION The purpose of this session is to afford Councilmembers with the opportunity to discuss personnel matters and particularly, the impact of the Governor's State of the State message on Plymouth labor negotiations and 1993 budget. H. 5:30 p.m. JOINT PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL & INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 MEETING Attached is an agenda for this meeting which I have reviewed with Robbinsdale School Superintendent Linda Powell. The person's listed will make brief presentations on their respective agenda item and an opportunity will be provided for questions and answers. HI. 7:00 p.m. TOWN MEETING - WARD 4 Attached is the agenda, invitation letter and Ward 4 map for the Town Meeting. Staff members are prepared to make their respective presentations. We will endeavor to complete our presentations within 40 minutes in order to provide enough time for resident questions. attachment January 11, 1993 Dear Plymouth Resident: SUBJECT: TOWN MEETING, Ward 4 Plymouth is a developing community and there are many actions underway or in the planning stage which could impact you. In order to maintain open communication channels with residents of the community, the City Council has scheduled a Town Meeting for residents of your ward at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, Febniary 1, 1993. In order to keep the meetings on an informal basis while dealing with specific topics of interest to you, the Town Meeting will be for the ward shown on the map below. On the reverse side of this letter you will find the agenda topics for this meeting. Following reports on these topics, questions will be entertained regarding these or other matters. If you have questions about other issues you do not choose to raise publicly, the Resident Feedback Form you receive at the meeting may be used. Your particular concern will then be reviewed and a response provided. I encourage you to join Councilmembers Edson, Helliwell, Tierney, Vasiliou, and me at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, February 1, 1993, at the Plymouth City Center. We are anxious to meet you and look forward to this opportunity to informally discuss matters of mutual interest. If you have any questions about the Town Meeting, please call your City Clerk Laurie Rauenhorst at 550-5014. If you cannot attend the meeting, but would like further information on a particular topic, please contact the appropriate staff member listed on the attached agenda. Sincerely, Kim M. Bergman Mayor 1993 PLYMOUTH TOWN MEETING AGENDA WARD 4 1. DEVELOPMENT CLIMATE/CITY SERVICES (10 min.) A. Development Trends and Approved Projects - Chuck Dillerud (550-5059) B. 1993 City Service Revisions - Frank Boyles (550-5013) 2. PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (10 min.) A. Streets, Sanitary Sewer and Water - Fred Moore (550-5080) B. Public Buildings - Dale Hahn (550-5101) C. Parks/Trails -Eric Blank (550-5131) 3. PUBLIC SAFETY (10 min.) A. Police/Fire Report - Craig Gerdes (550-5161) B. Neighborhood Watch Program - Craig Gerdes (550-5161) C. Animal Control - Craig Gerdes (550-5161) 4. OTHER ITEMS (10 min.) A. Communication Efforts - Frank Boyles (550-5013) B. City Charter - Frank Boyles (550-5013) C. Water Sprinkling Restrictions - Fred Moore (550-5080) M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Dwight Johnson, City Manager SUBJECT: Wages, Negotiations, and the Salary Freeze DATE: January 27, 1993 Introduction. A special meeting of the City Council has been called for 4:30 p.m. on February 1st to discuss the impact of Governor Carlson's wage freeze proposal on city labor negotiations and to discuss related budgeting strategy. Background. Governor Carlson has recommended a wage freeze for all public employees for 1994. While he has not proposed a means for absolute enforcement, he has suggested that a special election be held on September 14, 1993 for any city that wishes to fund wage increases with an increased property tax levy. In addition, a new kind of "truth in taxation" statement would be required in which the salaries of all city employees would be published in advance of the election. While DFL leaders in the Legislature have not embraced the proposal, and some have been critical, it is significant that many DFL representatives have not ruled out some form of wage freeze. There are many questions about how the proposed wage restraints would work. They apparently would not affect utility employees, recreation employees, and others not directly paid by property taxes. It is not clear that the restraints could or would affect employees with pre-existing agreements in force. It is not clear exactly what the penalty would be for non-compliance (loss of HACA?). The City must consider alternative strategies to prepare for the possibility of strong restraints on wage increases in 1994. Alternatives and Discussion. Some of the possibilities that could be considered include: 1. Negotiate for one year (1993) only. This would have the advantage of allowing for all possibilities in 1994, a very flexible approach. 2. Negotiate for two or three year contracts. This has the advantage of providing stability for both the City and its employees and reduces the considerable staff time spent in negotiations each year. However, if the Legislature applies the proposed wage restraints to existing bargaining contracts (which may be legally questionable), the City could be forced into either an unreasonably tight budget or a special election. Or, if all pre-existing contracts are honored, non-union employees might be required to accept a freeze, while union employees are not. 3. Negotiate multi-year contracts, but with 1994 agreements consisting only of changes in fringe benefits, not wages. This might side-step the letter (and intent) of the Governor's proposals, but could be justified if one believes that the wage freeze is an unacceptable short-term solution which will cost public agencies more in the long run. 4. Plan to have a zero property tax increase so that no proposed state regulations would affect Plymouth. While this is more difficult in rapidly growing cities, it might be possible, especially if the Council is willing to consider such fees as the surface water utility fee to replace some property tax expenditures or is willing to consider major changes in how we do business. 5. Plan to have a special election on September 14, if required. Such an election could invoke an unpleasant round of public employee bashing which might be counterproductive. 6. Do nothing. Bargaining units are likely to want to settle very soon to get contracts in place for this year and next. Refusal to bargain in good faith is illegal. Therefore, this is not likely a viable option. 7. Actively lobby for changes in the law in conjunction with another alternative. Possible lobbying positions to take might include allowing a growth factor in the "no property tax increase for salaries" provision to be fairer to rapidly growing cities. Or, it could be argued that cities not receiving LGA should be exempt. Another possibility might be to lobby to exclude cities with either (1) wages below average or (2) fewer employees per capita than average. Lobbying would probably be best channeled through the Municipal Legislative Commission. In any case, the proposal, even if meritorious, is an attack on local control. 8. Refer the matter to the Financial Advisory Committee for recommendation. News reports indicate that top corporate executives advised Governor Carlson that any wage freeze would cost the public in the long run. Also, the national wage and price controls adopted in the 1970's under President Nixon eventually resulted in higher inflation for both. It would be interesting to see what our committee thinks. Recommendation. The choice of alternatives depends upon a philosophical judgement on the idea of a wage freeze. A freeze seems defensible if public employees are consistently paid above -market rates (a possible result of comparable worth regulations?). However, if this is not the case, it is no more reasonable to reduce real wages than maintenance, operating, or capital expenses. Furthermore, some jurisdictions might choose to pay above market wages to attract the best candidates when recruiting. This might result in fewer employees being needed. w For these reasons, as well as the discussion of alternatives, the best courses of action would appear to be to pursue options 1, 4, 7, and 8 simultaneously.