City Council

January 16, 2014 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fairmont was held at 7:00 p.m. on the 16th day of January, 2014, at the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street in Fairmont, West Virginia. Mayor Straight called the meeting to order. Councilmembers present were: First District Robert D. (Bob) Gribben Second District Travis L. Blosser Third District Deborah D. (Debbie) Seifrit Fourth District William H. (Bill) Burdick Fifth District Charles E. (Chuck) Warner Sixth District Daniel K. (Dan) Weber Seventh District Robert Garcia Eighth District Robin W. Smith Ninth District Ronald J. (Ron) Straight, Sr. Also present were: City Manager Jay Rogers City Clerk Janet L. Keller City Attorney Kevin V. Sansalone Police Chief Kelley Moran Police Sergeant Glen Staley Police Officer David Wolford Civil Service Commissioner Don Chapman Civil Service Commissioner Shaun Petracca IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES Rev. Holley Faulkner of the Baptist Temple gave the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Councilmember Warner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Straight noted that each member of Council had received a copy of the minutes from the regular meeting held on December 17, 2013. He asked if there were any corrections, deletions, or amendments. Councilmember Warner moved to approve the minutes as submitted. 1 Councilmember Garcia seconded the motion. The Mayor declared the minutes approved as submitted by voice vote of Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS No public hearings were scheduled for this meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS IN RE: HAPPY NEW YEAR Several Councilmember extended Happy New Year wishes to everyone. IN RE: CITY EMPLOYEES COMMENDED Councilmember Garcia thanked all of the City of Fairmont employees for a fantastic 2013 and hope 2014 is even better. IN RE: OPEN HOUSE FOR COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA’S FATHER Councilmember Garcia announced that his father turned 90 years old last Tuesday and on January 26th the family will have an open house at his home on Naomi Street from 2:00 to 4:00 to honor his father. He invited everyone to stop by and visit his father. IN RE: SESEEN FRANCIS Councilmember Weber noted the passing of Seseen Francis who passed away last week. He then mentioned that Seseen came to a Council meeting several years ago asking about a Marion County Sports Museum and he wished that we had done something at that time while Seseen was still with us. He said that he thought City Council should initiate some kind of a program to remember Seseen and all of his good works that he did for Fairmont and for Marion County. He noted that maybe this is something that Council can think about in the future and he encourages Marion County to recognize Seseen in that way. 2 Councilmember Warner also stated that he wanted to commemorate the memory of Seseen Francis, his friend. IN RE: SNOW REMOVAL Councilmember Warner commended the City workers for cleaning up the snow in a timely manner. IN RE: DEMOLITION ON ROBINSON STREET Councilmember Burdick reported that a house is being demolished on Robinson Street. IN RE: WHITE HALL CITY COUNCIL - FIRE ALARMS Councilmember Burdick stated that he attended a White Hall City Council meeting and they have a concern about the number of false alarms and what it is doing to their time and budget. He noted that they are thinking about initiating a charge for excessive alarm calls. He then asked if the City of Fairmont wanted to look at this as well. IN RE: CELL PHONES Councilmember Burdick reported that people are still constantly on their cell phones while driving a vehicle. IN RE: NEW POLICE SERGEANT Councilmember Burdick announced that he got to visit the new Police Sergeant, Michael Keller. He extended congratulation to Sgt. Keller. IN RE: WATER FUND Councilmember Seifrit asked about what the Finance Director was referring to about paying off the loan for the Water Department. She asked the City Manager for an explanation. Mr. Rogers replied that the Finance Director was speaking about the Water Fund repaying it back to the General Fund from the 2007 water crisis. He noted that loan is paid in full. 3 Councilmember Seifrit stated that she was hoping that Fairmont could reduce the water rates. She reported that the City of Morgantown just raised their water rates. IN RE: CITY AND COUNTY COMMENDED Councilmember Blosser commended the City and the County for sending the bottled water to Charleston during their water crisis. He then mentioned that he would hope Fairmont could put some safe guards in place to protect our water supply that comes from the rivers. IN RE: VANDALISM AT PALATINE PARK Councilmember Blosser stated that he was disappointed to see in the news about the vandalism that occurred at Palatine Park. He noted that the City and the County have moved forward to work on different aspects of that project in different ways and that agitates him to see that someone would take taxpayer dollars that have been spent down there and destroy stuff like that. He noted that he would hope whoever did it is brought to justice. Mayor Straight stated that he was appalled by what happened at Palatine Park with the vandalism. IN RE: CITY AND COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENTS COMMENDED Councilmember Gribben commended the City Police and County Sheriff’s Department for the work they have been doing about the breaking and entering and for the theft that is going on. IN RE: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The Mayor reported that he and Councilmember Weber attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting this week and went over some lengthy discussions about the plans that Planning and Zoning is coming out with and Council will be addressed on these plans in the very near future. CITIZENS PETITIONS There were no citizen’s petitions for this meeting. 4  CITY MANAGER’S REPORT IN RE: LOCUST AVENUE PROJECT Mr. Rogers reported that the DOH has announced that they have awarded the contract for the widening of Locust Avenue. He said that we do not have a start date; however, the contract was awarded with a completion date of September 30, 2014 in addition to the widening of Locust Avenue between Oakwood Road and just south of the Fairmont General Hospital entrance. He mentioned that the contract also calls for complete resurfacing of Locust Avenue from the intersection of County Club Road and Locust Avenue back down to Oakwood Road. Councilmember Garcia asked if the DOH could extend the paving to possibly Carleton Street or at least get past the turn going up Lowell Street. He mentioned that students walk by there and get splashed. Mr. Rogers said that a lot of it is caused by the drainage coming down Lowell Street. IN RE: CLEVELAND AVENUE STRUCTURES The City Manager announced that the bids for the demolition of the three vacant dilapidated structures on Cleveland Avenue are due on January 24th. IN RE: BREAKING AND ENTERINGS The Manager commended the police officers that are out there and wanted to say that there is still a message to the public to be vigilant when you are out there and pay attention to people that are walking suspiciously and know your neighborhood. IN RE: STREET MAINTENANCE CHARGE Mr. Rogers gave the Street Maintenance Charge collection report for the period ending December 31, 2013. He said the current balance is $677,687.05 and for the period of June 13, 2013 to December 13, 2013, $390,985.56 was collected from residents of the corporate limits and $291,993.63 was collected from non-residents which is a distribution of 56% from residents and 44% from the non-residents. He said that we are budgeted at 50% and have collected at 52%. He mentioned that the last 5 expenditure being in October from the fall paving project. He went on to say that the Public Works Director has provided him and the Utility Department with his Spring 2014 paving list and will again focus on the large block areas of Gaston, Virginia, Walnut, Benoni, Coleman, and working from 7th Street down toward the center of the City. He noted that this also includes a few neighborhood areas that are also thrown into that list and right now the list is about 8,300 tons which projects to be about a $700,000 to $750,000 paving project. He added that this will still be under the State contract until June 30, 2014. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL BUSINESS IN RE: ADOPTION, A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF FAIRMONT APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO PART VI PROMOTIONS OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 13, 2000, AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 22, 2000, AND MORE PARTICULARLY 6.02 POLICY THEREOF, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF SUBPARAGRAPH 3 of SUBPART (d) WHICH PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OFFICERS ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION WHO DECLINED TO BE TESTED TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY TESTED Mayor Straight asked City Attorney Sansalone to explain the proposed amendment. Mr. Sansalone explained that this resolution changes the current Rules and Regulations that have been adopted by the Police Civil Service Commission with regard to promotions. He explained that we have a Commission who is responsible for basically testing the candidates for the Police Department, whether they are initial candidates or candidates for promotion. He said in this particular instance of our current Rules there are tests that are given for promotions and from those tests, the Commission comes up with a list of eligible candidates and once they formulate the list based on the results of the test and years of experience of the officers, they give those names to the City Manager who determines who is going to be promoted. He went on to say that the person who scores the highest is entitled to the promotion as the result of current State law. He said that the test they give and the list that results from that test is good until someone who is eligible for that rank. He stated that in order to test for the Sergeant’s position, you have to have two years as a police officer in the lower grade and if you are going to test from Sergeant to Lieutenant, you have to have two years in the lower grade. He went on to say that once they formulate the eligibility list, if someone 6 who did not take the test because they did not have two years in grade previously, then can have the opportunity to take the test for a subsequent position. He then explained that if someone else becomes eligible, then the Civil Service Commission has to give a new test. He went on to say that the other provision of the rule is that if the list is exhausted then they obviously have to give another test. He said that if someone was eligible to take that best but just didn’t do so for whatever reason, the subsequent opening comes available, then under the current rules the people who just didn’t opt to take the test would have the ability to say they now want to test for that position. He then said that what is proposed is to eliminate that opportunity. He said that he was not at the meeting where the Commission made the recommendation to eliminate that opportunity, he did not understand why they wanted to eliminate that opportunity, but what they are proposing to do is to limit it to only the first two instances that would require a new test, if the list were exhausted or if there were a police officer who obtained the necessary years of experience in the lower grade, then a new test would have to be given but to just give someone the opportunity to take a test who had initially not opted to take a test, that situation would be eliminated. Councilmember Warner asked under what circumstances they would be able to then take the test. Mr. Sansalone said that they would only be able to take the test if the list that existed was exhausted and there were no other names on it to appoint or if a new person didn’t have the requisite years in grade previously or on the date of that test, they would now become eligible to take the test. He then said that if you had a patrolman who only had one year as a patrolman when they have a Sergeant’s test, he did not have the statutory requisite two years in grade to take the test on that particular date, he subsequently gains the necessary experience and stays for five years and then a Sergeant’s position is open and gets promoted to Lieutenant, and there is a vacancy in the rank of Sergeant, then that person who did not have the requisite two years on the date of the first test could say he wants to be tested. He then said that the Commission would have to give a new test and everybody who was eligible could then test. Councilmember Warner said that it sounds to him like somebody that chooses not to do that, perhaps they feel that they don’t have the experience so they use the wisdom to opt out are now being blackballed from doing it. Mr. Sansalone said that he was not going to disagree. He said that if you eliminate option #3, then it would cause someone who was otherwise eligible who may have opted out not to be able to apply for promotion or 7 take the test until one of the two previous conditions came to happen. He then said that it lessens the pool of candidates from which you would have the ability to promote in a subsequent situation. Councilmember Warner asked who was asking for these changes. Mr. Sansalone replied the Police Civil Service Commission is recommending the change to the rule. He said that they are their rules and they review them periodically and this would be an amendment to those rules and under the statute, once they recommend the rule change, then it has to come to Council for approval. He noted that Council has the opportunity to act on it or to not pass the resolution that would adopt the modification to the rules. Councilmember Blosser asked how long of a time period does the list stay there. He said if this provision would be removed from the rules, the list would essentially stay there for the length until a Sergeant’s position came open. Mr. Rogers said that you have to have a vacancy first and then once a vacancy is declared then you have to look at the list to see if you have any of those factors. The City Attorney said that if the list had four names on it, it would stay until it was either exhausted because all of those names had been promoted to Sergeant or until a patrolman who did not have two years in grade at the time the test was given obtained two years in grade because then he would be entitled to have an opportunity to test and then those four people could retest and all of the other people who just opted out could come in and test. He went on to say that an initial promotion test is good for three years by the statute but it does not apply to promotional exams. Councilmember Weber asked if these were State regulations also and are the conditions that the Commission sets up more consistent with State regulations. Mr. Sansalone said there are Civil Service provisions of the State Code and the Rules and Regulations that the Civil Service Commission adopts cannot conflict with any of the provisions of the State Code and the purpose is to provide for the implementation of the State Code provisions so these particular rules provide guidance and administrative regulations for the implementation of the one provision of the State Code that relates to promotion. 8 Councilmember Garcia asked if this is basically saying whether you think you are competent enough or not, you should take the test. Mayor Straight said that you have to meet certain criteria. The City Attorney said that you have to have two years in grade in order to sit for a promotional exam. CHIEF MORAN said that the rule that is being discussed is a local rule and we have no idea when it was adopted but it is not part of Chapter 8 of the State Code. He explained that it causes hardship in the department when you have an eligibility list and if you have a patrolman who doesn’t want somebody to be promoted or wants to block somebody from being promoted for personal reasons, they can use this rule and it is unfair. He went on to say that if you are eligible to take the test, you should stand up and take the test and if you don’t want the promotion, you can turn it down. He explained that we have to bear the burden of giving the test and the advertising fees and paying for the cost of the test and one person because they decided not to take the test can ask for a new test. He said that it is not fair to the other officers who chose to take the test and take the time to study. He mentioned that some officers spend $300, $400, $500 or $600 buying books to study for the test. He said that we had a meeting with the Police Civil Service Commission on October 29, 2013 and six or seven officers were all in agreement that attended the meeting that all of them wanted that one local rule to be removed and the Civil Service Commission voted that day to remove that rule. SGT. GLEN STALEY spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. He said that he personally been affected by this twice. He explained that twice he has been number two on the list and when it came time to be promoted; somebody stepped forward and said that they wanted to take the test and he got blocked twice. He said that it was not fair to him and now it is not fair to Corporal Wolford who is next in line. Sgt. Staley said that Wolford is set to be the next Sergeant and there is no reason why anybody should be allowed to step forward and say I didn’t take the test the last time for whatever reason. He said that everybody had the same opportunity that he had and it’s wrong. He further said that it was not in State Code, Chapter 8 is very specific, and this is a local rule and where it came from nobody knows and it’s a silly rule and is time to change it. He went on to say that Civil Service voted to change it, he was at the meeting when Civil Service met and there was quite a few officers here and every one of us that was here, as police officers in the department, spoke in favor of it. He noted that they all agreed and it was a great idea to change that rule. 9 DON CHAPMAN, Police Civil Service Commissioner, stated that their job is to not interfere with the operation of the Police Department or anything as such. He noted that their job to make sure that there is eligible candidates that the City can promote in a timely manner. He explained that they give a test, the officers spend a great deal of money to get the books and take the time to study and then we administer the test and create an eligibility list. He said that if an officer chooses not to test under this rule, he was able to say that he wanted to take the test now and the situation was that just a few months ago we had a requirement for a Sergeant to be promoted. He said the individual who was number one on the list was excited about being promoted but someone who did not expend the money and who did not take the time and who did not take the initiative to study for the test when that list was created stepped forward and said that they want another test. He said that person then was not the highest scorer on the test and, therefore, was not the person who was promoted when Sgt. Keller was promoted. He said what they looked at and had the police officers come to a Commission meeting and give us input was why was this rule on the books, nobody could tell us why. He said that he has been a Police Civil Service Commissioner for the last 10 or 11 years and he doesn’t know why it was there and it is not part of State Code. Mr. Chapman went on to say that we are giving a Lieutenant’s test on January 24th and we just gave a Sergeant’s test in December, we would have to give another Sergeant’s test if someone who opted out of the first test a couple months ago would choose to step forward. He noted that they do not think this is fair and we don’t think it is in the best interest of the City and it definitely slows down the opportunity to keep Sergeants and Lieutenants promoted in a timely manner. Councilmember Garcia asked when this individual would have to approach the City about taking the test. He said that if he didn’t take it originally or initially but wants to take it again, you don’t change that testing date. Mr. Chapman said that the process is that the City Manager and Chief decide that there is a vacancy and they notify the Police Civil Service Commission and the Commission gets together and decide an appropriate date. He said that they talk to the testing company and find out what kind of a reading list they require and about how long the officers need to study for that test. He went on to say that they have a 30 day advertisement period where we have to notify the officers who are eligible that there will be a test and we give them 30 days to sign up for the test. He went on to say that after the 30 days, we will have the test date established and then once the 30 days is up, the people that signed up for the test will take the test. 10 Councilmember Garcia said that if you have a date set, then they decided to take the test; they would not have time to study for the test to score high enough. Mr. Chapman said that we notify them in plenty of time in advance. He said that they have plenty of time to study, if they choose. He stated that this rule was taken out because of those people who opt not to take the test and then for whatever reason decided that now they wanted to take the test. He went on to say that, in his opinion and the other two Commissioners, it was their opinion that was not in the best interest of the City or Police Department. Mayor Straight entertained a motion for the adoption of a resolution approving an amendment to the Police Civil Service Rules and Regulations which provides for the elimination of an opportunity for officers eligible for promotion who declined to be tested to be subsequently tested. Motion: Councilmember Warner moved for the adoption of the proposed resolution. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Garcia. The Clerk read the proposed resolution in its entirety for the first time. Roll call was taken by the Clerk. The Mayor declared the resolution adopted by unanimous vote of Council. IN RE: ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Straight moved that Council adjourn to Executive Session under WV Code Section §6-9A-4 under Item #2 under 2.11 of the City Charter. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Smith. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned to Executive Session by voice vote of Council at 7:41 p.m. IN RE: MEETING RECONVENED Mayor Straight declared the meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor entertained a motion for adjournment. 11 Motion: Councilmember Smith moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Garcia. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned by voice vote of Council at 9:06 p.m. 12