My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-04-84 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1984
>
12-04-84 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 8:08:40 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:03:32 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 12-4-84 PAGE 10 <br />City Council Reports <br />A. Fraser <br />Fraser stated that for most of the four years she has been on the Cit <br />Council, she has been involved in the personnel committee. To her <br />knowledge, the City does not have a structured, standardized, formal <br />method which the Administrator uses in evaluating the employees, and <br />feels it would be well for that to be addressed. Along the same <br />lines, the Council has never set forth a system for evaluating the <br />Administrator and thinks that in this day and age that is the sort of <br />thing that any company ought to have and thinks it would be well if we <br />do that. With regards to the Administrator, we ought to address more <br />specifically what jobs to expect the Administrator to do directly, <br />what jobs do we see delegated, what is appropriate sort of response to <br />Council requests, so that all the Council members know and the <br />Administrator knows whats what and how it will be evaluated. <br />Eder stated this proposal has a good aspect of making sure everyone <br />knows just what the role and responsibilities of the Administrator <br />are. This would help evaluate the policies that govern the <br />responsibilites that the Administrator has. It would be beneficial to <br />both the Administrator and the Council - to make a fair evaluation and <br />know what is expected of one versus the other. <br />B. Eder - Cable Commission <br />Group W bid to put in cable television in all of the communities that <br />were part of the Joint Powers Agreement, and they set the date <br />(January 15, 1985) to have this all done, despite the fact that the c <br />Joint Powers Commission thought it might take three years. When Group <br />W wanted to renegotiate the contract earlier this year, they brought <br />up the subject that they will be late, and that was not allowed to be <br />part of that negotiation. As a result, they have a request before the <br />Commission to extend that January 15, 1985 date until November 15, <br />1985. A recommendation will probably be made to the full Joint Powers <br />Group by the Executive Committee to continue the process of evaluating <br />that continuation. That always holds open the possibility that they <br />can be fined, and the agreement allows for a fine of up to $400 a day <br />for every day they are late after January 15, 1985. It probably won't <br />be a reality, but something negotiated. Most of Lake Elmo will be <br />wired in 1985, the latter part of the completion of the system. Not <br />all areas in Lake Elmo will be provided cable because there are some <br />sparsely populated areas. They are having some problems with <br />Cimarron. The owners of Cimarron don't want them to go into Cimarron, <br />except if they pay them a fee, so there may be a little hassle. <br />Cimarron owners want to bring in their own cable, but are not <br />permitted by law to do this. The Council may want to look at the <br />development agreement to see if things beyond NSP and Northwestern <br />Bell are authorized under the original development agreement, as there <br />may be citizens before the Council putting some pressure to find an <br />answer to the problem. The problem may be unique to Cimarron because <br />in multiple dwellings, they do have to go to the owners and get <br />permission, and the State allows that to be a negotiable item. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.