FAIRMONT– The Fairmont Charter Commission met after a three month break on Tuesday evening and spent a good amount of time talking about the city’s purchasing policy. The charter commission had recommended several changes to the city council during its last meeting in November. Following that, the December meeting fell through due to lack of a quorum and the January meeting was cancelled.

There were just six members of the 12 member board present on Tuesday including Robynn Buhmann, Bob Gunther, Conrad Anderson, Richard Bradley, Jay Maynard and Alice Maday. Also present were Interim City Administrator Jeff O’Neill and Finance Director Paul Hoye.

O’Neill explained why the requests from the charter commission that came to the city council were tabled to provide an opportunity for staff to come back to the charter commission and talk about the proposed amendments and how it falls into the city’s process of updating the charter.

The recommendations were as is follows: Consideration on an Amendment to Section 3.12 of the Fairmont (105) Charter to Reduce the Civil Penalty from $2,000 to $1,000 to match State Statutory limits and to Increase the Required Minimum for Obtaining Bids from $5,000 to $25,000.

“Both of those amendments would be easy to process individually, they’re really housekeeping matters that require public hearings, multiple readings… we thought it would make more sense if we brought it into the overall discussion and do them all at once,” O’Neill said.

He said the amendments could also be looked over by the charter review team which is in the process of forming in conjunction with the city council.

O’Neill said he wanted to spend some time talking to the charter commission about its amendment to the city’s bidding process which would turn the threshold from $5,000 to $25,000.

“The charter is just one element of the control. There’s also the purchasing policy, state statutes and there’s also local ordinances that all involve purchasing,” O’Neill explained.

Hoye then spent some time going over the city’s purchasing policy with the charter commission members that were present.

He specifically focused on Chapter 6- Administration of City Affairs, Section 6.03, purchase and contracts, where the code says, “All city purchases and contracts shall be made in compliance with the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law.”

“That’s Minnesota statute and really the charter is saying we’re going to comply with state statute,” Hoye explained.

In Section 6.04, contracts, how let, it says, “In all cases of work to be done by contract, of any kind, where the amount involved is more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), unless otherwise provided by an emergency ordinance, the council shall procure bids in such manner as may be designated by the council.”

Hoye admitted that that section was not in compliance with Minnesota statute but is actually more restrictive than what the state calls for and more restrictive than the city’s purchasing policy.

“Our purchase policy matches up exactly to Minnesota statute. They have thresholds on when it’s required to do bids and when it’s required to do quotes,” Hoye said.

He added that included in Minnesota state statute 471, bids are only required for a contract that exceeds $175,000.

“That’s currently how our purchase policy is spelled out, too,” Hoye said.

He spent a time talking about the multiple steps in a bid process and said ultimately it can delay a purchase so the city doesn’t want to make the purchase policy so restrictive that items can’t be purchased when needed.

Hoye suggested that if the charter commission wants to comply with Minnesota statute it could eliminate Section 6.04 and say it’s going to go by 6.03 and follow what the state does.

He and O’Neill also explained that they need at least two bids and typically go with the lowest bid but are also allowed to go for the bid with the best value, which may mean going with a company that’s more expensive but also more experienced.

“Best value alternative is the language they use,” Hoye said. “We would have to go through an RFP (request for proposal) to do that.”

O’Neill said from an administrative standpoint it’s always more efficient to say that the charter is going to follow state statutes and that the purchasing policy is consistent with state statutes.

“That way, as a charter commission, you don’t always have to be up to date on changes with inflation… you just basically trust that the city is going to be following state statute,” O’Neill said.

Buhmann said, “with what’s happened in the last few years, maybe the charter does want to have some type of… I feel it does give the city council– “

“Too much more power,” interjected Maday.

Buhmann asked about the charter commission’s recommendation to increase the required minimum for obtaining bids from $5,000 to $25,000.

Hoye said, “that could be a lawnmower. If we have to bid out things over $25,000 we’d be bidding out our lawnmowers. It’s anything we purchase, not just a construction contract. It’s not just big projects it could be a small piece of equipment.”

Charter commission members asked a few more questions on how they could word the amendment but O’Neill reminded them they did not need to make a decision on Tuesday evening as the charter review team will be looking over the changes, too.

“There’s an opportunity for the small group to weigh in together on what may be the best way to go,” O’Neill said.

The group will review the codification document. O’Neill said that the city has gotten the report back on everything that needs to be examined in the charter and has a deadline of March 21 to get the basics done. He shared that about 75 percent of the changes to the city ordinances are small errors including wrong numbers or spelling errors but that 25 percent are fairly significant changes and will take some time.

He said the city is attempting to make all of the updates where small changes are needed by March 21, but that changes to the charter will take longer as it requires hearings, etc.

“The charter review team is not going to have a hard set deadline. It will get it done at its own pace,” O’Neill said.

Bradley asked why there’s another team reviewing the charter as he said that’s the charter commission’s purpose.

“The goal of it, and it goes back a ways… the purpose of this group (review team) is to go through those areas where there’s conflict between the city code, the charter and state statute,” O’Neill said.

He said that group will then come back to the whole charter commission with what it believes needs to be changed.

O’Neill said, “this purchasing policy is a really good policy but no one ever checked the charter to see if it was consistent with the charter.”

He said there are some similar examples the city has run into lately.

Next, the board discussed which of its members will sit on the review team and determined that Conrad Anderson and Richard Bradley will join City Councilors Wayne Hasek and James Kotewa. The city will look for at least one citizen volunteer to join the review team which the council will need to approve of. The charter commission also needs to appoint one citizen to the board.

In closing, the board discussed how to find three more members as Buhmann shared that Ron Lindberg has resigned and another member, Kacey Kale, has missed the last several meetings and members are unsure if she would still like to be part of the charter commission.

Charter commission members also voiced concern with how names have been left off of lists in the past and discussed how names should be submitted going forward. The general consensus was that potential names will still go to the city council first and it will select its top choices but all names will be sent to a judge who will then make the actual appointments to the charter commission.

The full Fairmont Charter Commission will meet next at 6 p.m. on March 18.