What was supposed to be a very brief Clearwater City Council meeting Tuesday turned into a lengthy and somewhat heated discussion about cost of living benefits for employees and the procedure for approving consent agenda.

 

Tuesday’s consent agenda, which are small items typically approved by the council without much discussion, included a proposal for a 2.5% cost of living adjustment (COLA) for city staff.

 

Councilman Kris Crandall made a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Councilman Rollie Lange seconded the motion.

 

But Councilman Chris Ritzer said he would like to pull the COLA item for further discussion. He said he didn’t find any discussion in previous meeting minutes about the adjustment.

 

“I’m all for fair and equitable pay for our employees. We’ve go to treat them right. But in 2013 we entered into a step program to replace COLA program,” he said. “The COLA program was kind of due to the whim of the council.”

 

Mayor Pete Edmonson asked Crandall if he would amend his original motion to pull the COLA item out and discuss it separately.

 

“Do you accept his amendment?” asked Edmonson.

 

“Actually, I want to stand on my motion,” said Crandall.

 

“I don’t understand why. Do you want discussion to not happen?” asked Edmonson.

 

“Discussion happens now,” said Crandall. “The motion was seconded. If I understand parliamentary procedure, this is the discussion.”

 

Ritzer felt it should be a separate discussion.

 

“The intent of the consent agenda is for non-controversial quick items, and this is something I think should be a separate item,” he said.

 

Edmonson said the council has always agreed to pull an item for further discussion while approving the remaining items on the consent agenda.

 

“Why would you make a motion without asking if we had questions? You jumped ahead and made a motion before giving member Ritzer an opportunity to ask to pull that item,” he said. “It’s not our regular practice.”

 

“I think this is the time for us to have that discussion, since we had a motion and a second,” said Crandall.

 

Ritzer asked whether the COLA increase was included as part of the step increase, which is earned over a period of time.

 

“What you do with the COLA is, you roll it into the step program,” said Administrator Kevin Kress. “So the step program is consistent and it’s competitive with the cities that are around you. That’s the intention of having a COLA increase.”

 

“So you’re going to get your step and then aren’t you going to get a cost of living?” asked Ritzer.

 

“You have the potential to do that,” said Kress. “They’re two separate things. The cost of living is a blanket adjustment. The step program is performance-based. So unless there’s information that they don’t meet that requirement then you would approve that.”

 

Edmonson asked Crandall again about amending the motion to pull the COLA item. But he refused, saying he felt the information was enough for the council to make a decision.

The council asked City Attorney Dave Lenhardt to weigh in on the discussion.

 

“I think because the motion was made to approve the consent agenda as it is, that motion probably needs to be called to a vote at some point,” said Lenhardt. “If the motion fails because enough council members want to discuss a particular item in the consent agenda, the next step would be whether or not to pull that one and approve the rest of the consent agenda. I think you can have successive motions.”

 

Ritzer said he wanted more information that wasn’t immediately available at the meeting.

 

“The League of Minnesota Cities has a survey of benefits and wages that we all have access to,” he said. “I think I’d like to do a little research as far as what equitable pay is around the area. I think we owe it to our citizens.” 

 

“Honestly, I take acception with the fact that it’s in the consent agenda to begin with and not a separate agenda. I think it warrants a little more discussion than a quick motion in the consent agenda,” he said.

 

“I guess I’m curious,” said Edmonson. “We have a step program, so why would we approve a cost of living adjustment? We haven’t in the past. I’m curious why it’s here now.”

 

“I understand that the cost of living would go into the program. That’s the way I thought it was intended to go from the beginning,” said Crandall. “So the way it’s written I don’t see a reason to have to go over it again.”

 

Councilman Lange said there was a motion on the table and there should be a vote.

 

When the vote was taken, Lange, Crandall and Councilman Ranum approved the consent agenda. Edmonson and Ritzer voted against.