12-18-87 Finance Comm MinutesFINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
. DECEMBER 18, 1987
The Committee met in the Conference Room at 4:20 p.m. attending were
Chairwoman Robinson, Committee Members Nystul and Ruiz, Mayor Ed Kennedy
Clerk Halver, DPW Hammer, City Attorney Neier and Surveyor Zavodny.
The Mayor explained the projected non -union salary schedule arrived at
during the last workshop, with suggested changes for the City Surveyor,
Deputy City Clerk positions. Halver explained a worksheet he prepared on
foreman type salaries without increments. Discussion followed of job
descriptions being necessary for salary assessments -as well as percentage of
increases being spread over a three year period and discussion of the Police
Lieutenant longevity consideration.
Chief Larson asked about the rationale of the disparity between the Police
and Fire Departments. Nystul stated that he asked the same question and
agrees that it is worth looking at - discussion of department proposals. C.
Robinson asked if tradition was the only reason for the difference in the
two departments: work schedules, prior negotiations and firemen still being
under negotiations, other cities department salaries were mentioned.
Mayor Kennedy suggested that the committee get back to discussion of
non -union salaries and this was done. C. Robinson stated that the changes
have to be expressed and asked if the committee wanted it done on the
Council floor there were some items in the proposal that she had not had the
opportunity to see, but felt the recommendations should be joint Finance and
• Personnel Committees. Clerk Halver stated his concern of the Deputy Clerk
not being kept up at the same wage increase as union personnel.
C. Ruiz stated that he thought an agreement was reached at the last meeting
and that the Mayor and Clerk would adjust percentages that all input had
been considered. C. Robinson stated that she felt the Council should look
at what employees are doing and not assume they know that. Ruiz stated that
they had been on the Council long enough to know what employees are doing.
If they are going to make a decision on salaries, they are going to have to
start informing themselves on some of the facts instead of coning in with a
shotgun. He said if adjustments are to be made, do them but don't get hung
up like this.
DPW Hammer asked about future meetings on the salary increases. C. Ruiz
said he thought the whole concept of this was to get away from individual
bargaining. There should come a point where policy is established and
management is out of it and go with department head recommendations. C.
Robinson stated that non -union employees are asking to be heard and their
request should be granted. Ruiz feels that every department head would like
to sit down with the Council and let them know what is going on if the
Council can find the time. Robinson has some questions -is not going to run
with the crowd but is not going to hold up the machinery. Ruiz felt
department heads would love to schedule a meeting and interested Council
members could attend but if it is as always, only two or three would attend,
the rest don't care. Let the people who care and inform themselves set
0
salaries.
r R.
Motions:
• C. Ruiz moved that the committee adopt the proposed pay plan and third page
of the Mayor's handout. Seconded by C. Nystul. Ruiz explained that the
Fire Chief's salary consideration is not in the motion. Question called.
All voted aye, no one opposed, motion carried.
Ruiz then made a motion for the City Attorney to draw up the Salary
Ordinance for 1987-88, seconded by Nystul. All voted aye. Carried.
C. Ruiz also moved that the handout sheet become part of a permanent file
and that Steps 2 and 3 be implemented on July 1 of 1988 and July 1, 1989.
This was also seconded by Nystul. Ruiz explained that in lieu of the
negotiated agreement, something was needed on file. All voted aye.
Mayor Kennedy talked for a three year ordinance. C. Ruiz suggested writing
separate ordinances for 1988-89 and 1989-90. Discussion of a negotiated
agreement vs salary ordinance, Ruiz defined the mechanism of such an
agreement. Halver advised that we were precluded from forming a bargaining
unit by state law.
After discussion, the committee agreed that a second ordinance be drafted
for the second and third years.
The meeting adjourned at 5:25 P.M.
DH/ms
•
•
1.1T1 Vl .�I J14 Z IL
i0: [ Mayor i:enoe.6y
City :'attorney Neier
DATF,: S&-Jte,:b:I: 23 1987
SUS7ECP: All -Tel Communications final bill.
The F!.nan Cor.�,dttee has expressed concern about the final. bill_ fr"o-m All -Tel
being in excess of the accepted bid amount. The final bill astounted to
$7,687.73. Ede have already paid a claim for the base bid amount of
538,500.00.
Here is a breakdovai of what is included in the final bill.
Central Telephone System
DSTU card 800.00
Dt'_KU card 1,128.00
purchased to provide for iimciediate e.eansion of system beyond design
and bid specs.
Upgrade from 10 button to 20 button phones (5 phones) 380.00
Fire Departr,ent:
KSU (A mini switch system) $ 3,370.00
• �ttery Pacl:up for mini switch 165,00
to solve problems with the ;nstalled system not adeeuately handling
the department needs. Provided at Ail -tells cost.
Police De art::ent
20 button phone
Police & Fire
purchase red "Hot Lire" phones from1,TS and get off lease
Water & Sewer
dial long loop extenders, 5 C 195.00
to discontinuc Uso of T_,?PS leased lines
E •%or
upgrade to 20 button phone
Switchboard
headset (upgrade?)
!9iscellaneous parts and accessories
is
170.00
140.00
975.00
280.00
166.23
123.50
7,687.73
October 19, 1987
CITY OF KALISPELL
w
A Perception Digital Switch (PBX) was proposed to the City
of Kalispell as equipment that met the parameters of the RFP.
The determination to propose a Perception was predicated on
the station and trunking requirements established in the RFP. A
pre -bid conference was hosted by the City. This conference
consisted of a point by point discussion of the requirements that
would have to be met by the proposed equipment. In addition to
the discussion, a walk-through of each of the departments was
conducted.
At that time, ALL-TEL continued with preparation of the
proposal for a Perception PBX which met and exceeded all the
requirements of the RFP and the walk-through.
Immediately subsequent to the actual installation of the
PBX, several conflicting operational problems surfaced; t`_ie1 are:
1.) The difference in architecture of the old equipment and
the new Perception for application of privacy on trunk
lines.
2.) The difference in the configuration of trunking and
ringing extensions.
As stated in tl above, all lines entering the Perception are
private, m:aning that a person retrieving a call must
electronically invite another person into the conversation by
depressing a privacy release button programmed on the individuals
telephone. Singularly, the salient problem this feature generated
was on an incoming emergency call to the fire department. The
fireman would answer the phone to tai:e the messa a' and bV
answering the call would "ta?,e control" of the line which then
r
1!
I*
became private. Unless he remembered to depress the "privacy
release" button, another station was not allowed to enter into
the conversation for monitoring purposes. The police department
monitors all incoming calls to the fire department emergency
lines. This had not been mentioned or specified in the RFP.
As stated in n2 the second problem that surfaced was with ringing
e::tensions, and again this is caused by the difference in the
architecture of the equipment. The Perception PBX allows for a
directory number (DN) to appear a maximum of 8 times, this means
the Perception assigns each -lr-e -or telephone -a -directory number"
which in turn may appear as a specific button on a phone and if
appearing, it may be programmed to ring. The limit is 8
appearances throughout the system. The problem this caused was
the police department required a ringing extension for the fire
lines and the fire department requires all phones to ring and
monitor the lines concurrent with an incoming emergency call.
The Perception provided for all the above but it was
necessary to perform the functions in a different fashion or
mechanical method than was employed when using the old switch.
As a result of the aforementioned, ALL-TEL proposed numerous
changes in the actual configuration of the Perception but we
finally were not able to defeat the "entrenched" method of
telephone usage. ALL-TEL finally decided the simplest method of
resolving the problem was to offer a separate key system (STRATA
12E) that not only would duplicate the old manner of telephone
usage bu'_ would enhance the overall posture of communications in
the fire department. The enhancements are:
1.) In.tercom to all stations
2.) Loud ringing device for Common Audible.
3.) Speecd='calling common to all lines, systems and stations
(40 number system and 40 numbers per station).
4.) The option of selecting either a private or non -private
system.
5.) Trunk grouping for either city trunks or fire
department trunking and usage.
6.) Numerous appearances of features that are peculiar to
key systems but allow operation of the best points of
the PBX and of the key system.
It is my opinion that ALL-TEL met and exceeded the
specifications of the RFP and that most problems that surfaced
were a result of training and/or orientation NOT MECHANICAL.
• To upgrade the Perception as we originally proposed and
installed it, and to make it work like the fire and police
department required a certain amount of additional equipment had
to be provided. ALL-TEL provided this equipment at our cost.
We also supplied the labor to install this equipment free of
charge to the city.
Q: Why not in original bid?
A: 1. Not aisted as specification requirements for our
interpretation of RFP was simply to meet the
requirements by technology of proposed equipment and not
to exactly duplicate the old method of telephone
employment.
2. During pre -bid conference and site survey, city or
department heads did not specify any requirements for
either up -grading existing configuration or exact
duplication of trunking, as applied to the old system.
3. At no time was any mention made of the duplicity in
monitoring fire calls until after the Perception was in
service and the old equipment gone.
4. See the advertisement for bids from' the city of
Kalispell and compare the feature listing of the
Perception. it, the Perception, meets and exceeds all
of the listed requirements without adding the key system.
•
•
CITY OF KALISPELL DON HALVER, CLERK/TREASURER
i
TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 7, 1987
• SUBJECT: Proposed Business Licenses
1. General Business License
It is proposed that a general business license and fee be established. This
license would be required for any business, profession or occupation existing
or established in the City of Kalispell.
The proposed fee is $25.00 per year per license.
Each business operation identifiable by Name, Address, Box Number, Phone
Number or other system of determination would be required to hold a license.
For example, members of a law firm, accounting practice, or other
professional office group would be licensed as one business, unless
individuals within that practice location are advertising or
otherwise operating as individuals sharing a common office site.
Any governmental agency providing services for a fee would be licensed.
Examples would be water, sewer, garbage,ambulance service. Governmental
agencies, churches, and non-profit ' corporations, which do not charga•a fee
for their services, would be exempt.
The following licenses presently called for in the City of Kalispell would be
repealed.
• Restaurant, Soft Drink Establishment, Cigarettes, Itinerant Vendors,
Theatres, Bowling Alleys, Trailer Courts, Gas Utilities, Plumbing
Firms, Plumbers, Gas Contractor, Gas Fitter, Oil Burner Installer,
Electrician, Amusement Machines.
The following license fees would remain the same and be additionally
required:
Beer, Beer & Wine, All Beverage, All Caning Fees, Pawnbroker,
Carnival & Circus.
The following fees are suggested for consideration for change:
Traveling Merchant or Peddler - Now $750.00 Per Quarter. It is
suggested changing this to $250.00 per quarter and changing the name
to something like Temporary Business Location.
Bicycle - Now $ .50, ordinance says $ .25. One suggestion would be
$5.00 for a non -expiring registration. Another idea would be
holding an annual registration day or week and no fee. The
registration should be done at the police department with the
records retained there for their use.
If the council agrees to these recommendations, then the City Clerk/Treasurer
and City Attorney will have to research and rewrite the appropriate city
ordinances for presentation to the council for final approval.
There is no point in my doing much more research and writing until the
• council agrees to this or some other concept regarding changes to our
existing business license format.
•
•
0
Comparison of present and proposed licenses and fees.
LICENSE:
Beer & Liquor
Beer
Beer it Wine
All Beverage
Business
General Business
Restaurant
Soft Drink Establishments
Cigarettes
Pawnbroker
Second Hand & Junk Shops
Carnival & Circus
Theatres
Bowling Alley
Amusement Machine Arcades
Trailer Courts
Gas Utility
Contractors and Trades
Plumbing Firms
Plumbers
Gas Contractor
Gas Fitter
Oil Burner Installer
Electrician
Drop Bond Requirement,
Temporary Businesses
Itinerant Vendors
Traveling Merchant or Peddler
Gaming
City Video Poker, Keno, Bingo,
Any Other Gamming Machine
General Gaming
Poker Tables
Panquinque Tables
Investigation Fee
Temporary Dealer
Dealer
Animal
Unneutered
Neutered
Bicycle
Building Department:
Building Permits
Plumbing Permits
Gas Permits
Excavation Permits
House Moving Permits
PRESE T
RATE
200.00 200.00
400.00 400.00
500.00 500.00
25.00
2.00
2.00
5.00 Per Machine
30.00 per Q.
None Set
50.00 Per Day
25.00
2.50 Per Alley/Q.
0
1.00 space-10.00 min.
150.00
25.00 -
25.00
5.00
75.00
3.00
25.00
25.00
100.00 month
15.00 Per Day
750.00 Per Q.
No Change
100.00
500.00
400.00
180.00
75.00
75.00
80.00
15.00
3.00
.50 Year 5.00 permanent
no change
Plan Reading
Miscellaneous
Reserved Parking
various
• Swimming Pool
"
Sale Of Maps Etc.
"
Notary Fee
0
5.00
Council Chamber Rent
35.00 Day
35.00
Police Department
Security Alarms -False Signals
25.00
25.00
Fingerprints
25.00
25.00
Accident Reports
2.00
5.00
Fire Reports
2.00
5.00
Theft Reports
2.00
5.00
Unlock Vehicles
0
20.00
Accident Investigation Per Vehicle
0
20.00
Funeral Escorts
0
20.00
Ll
9