12-02-80 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 1980 PERSONNEL MATTERS: He recommended Mr. Carroll be paid $8.12 per hour during the time he is performing Light Equipment Operator duties, as provided by the Personnel Policy. The Council discussed Mr. Carroll's extra duties, the policy as it related to this situation, and changing pay rates after they are set by Budget. Several Councillors disagreed with the $8.12 increase; but did feel Mr. Carrol should be given a bonus for his extra effort. The Administrator said if the Council does not agree with the policy , the policy should be changed. Mottaz moved, to pay Ken Carrol and additional $2.12 per hour for the time he performs Light Equipment Operator duties and serves as supervisor over temporary employees. Motion died for lack of a second. The Council discussed the confusion created by overlapping duties and compensation for such work, whether employees should be allowed to change pay rates on a daily basis or during vacations. Mottaz moved, to.+change the policy. Motion died for lack of a second. Armstrong moved, seconded by Novak, to re write that section of the Personnel Policy to reflect that a person is paid at a rate of the job they are employed for and in that position; and, that the Admin- istrator will bring to the Council's attention any employee who is performing above.that-,posit:bn;_,.in'a higher paid position and per- forming the necessary work in the higher paid position for more than five days in succession. The Council, at that point, will make a determination on pay. As recognition of the work Mr. Carrol has done during the past two week period, the Council will award him a $100 pay differential. Motion carried 3-2. Mottaz and Pott opposed. Mottaz opposed this motion, as he feels Mr. Carroll deserves and qualifies for the proposed $2.12 rate difference. Pott does not feel pay rates should be renegotiated once set in the pay plan. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Cable TV The Administrator reported that the Cable Service at Cimarron may be in violation of Minnesota Cable Board regulations, as it is operating without benefit of a City approved franchise or service territory. He is meeting with the Cable Board later this week. Cimarron may fall into the same catagory as apartment buildings, which are excluded from cable regulation. The City''s position is that Cimarron is a Single family complex and would not fall under the apartment catagory, therefore, this company should comply with all the standards, and, if necessary, hold public hearings on the issue. The Cimarron Homeowners Association will discuss this at their next meeting. The City will keep Cimarron informed on the outcome of the meeting with the Cable Board. Anorther homeowners group is being formed in Cimarron called Concerned Cimarron residents. The Homeowners As- sociation will elect officers December 9; and this group will slate candidates. Residents in Cimarron voiced complaints about the cable company servicing them. They are dissatisified about the rates charged, the programs available, and the repair service provided by Harbor Vision. They indicated the majority of the residents now using this service are dissatisified; but, they still want cable TV if an alternative system is available. This company was advised by letter that they would require a service territory and franchise.