Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> CITY COUNCIL <br /> llECEMI3ER 16, 2009 <br /> The next area ranked was "Relationship with Mayor/Council" with the <br /> Council ranking the Administrator as "E". Comments included the <br /> Administrator's open door policy, professional relationship with the <br /> Council, thorough information to all Council Members, openness to <br /> suggestions, neutrality on issues. <br /> "Long Range Planning" was next discussed with Montour noting that the <br /> City does not have a 10 or 20 year plan in place and commenting that <br /> planning has been more reactive than proactive. Montour felt this was an <br /> area that the Council has not placed a high priority on, however. Blesener <br /> pointed out the City's Capital Improvement Plan, street improvement <br /> program, road rating system, Comprehensive Plan update, identification of <br /> potential redevelopment areas. Blesener felt a great deal of long range <br /> planning has been done; it is just not in one book McGraw felt it difficult <br /> to evaluate long range planning as the term is somewhat undefined from <br /> the City's perspective. McGraw stated that with a City the size of Little <br /> Canada, he is not sm~e how much long range planning is necessary. He <br /> felt the Administrator did a good job in this regard, and felt that this was <br /> more of an issue for the Council. Keis noted the update to the Comp Plan <br /> and the City's goal planning sessions. Keis stated that the City does not <br /> do long range planning formally, but it does do it. There was discussion <br /> relative to the City taking advantage of opportunities as they present <br /> themselves, i.e. the recent burying fiber to schools, as well as long-range <br /> planning efforts relative to the Rice Street/Little Canada Road area and <br /> acquisition of land for park and trail acquisitions. The Administrator <br /> noted that over the past 20 years these efforts have resulted in a great deal <br /> of progress in the City. Blesener noted that given the City is fiscally <br /> stable; it has been able to take advantage of opportunities. <br /> The next area ranked was "Relationship with Public/Public Relations". <br /> Blesener indicated that the City Administrator is very well thought of <br /> within the community. He treats people fairly and consistently. Blesener <br /> provided an "E" rating. McGraw agreed, and noted that he has not had <br /> one call of complaint relative to the City Administrator. Keis agreed with <br /> the comments made, and provided an "M" rating, Meets Expectations. <br /> Keis commented on the work the Administrator did with HIA groups, and <br /> felt that perhaps he did too much. Keis was concerned with the impact on <br /> the Adminish~ator's time in this effort and that this was somewhat outside <br /> the public scope. Montour agreed with the comments made and added <br /> that the Administrator is very professional in difficult situations. With <br /> regard to the comments relative to HIA efforts, the Administrator agreed <br /> the work he did was outside his job scope. He viewed this work as a <br /> challenge, and indicated that he could not stand by and let the Canabury <br /> Square project fall part when the work was definitely necessary. Blesener <br /> felt that the work the Administrator did in this regard may have saved the <br /> City from some difficult tasks in the future. <br /> 2 <br /> <br />