Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1992 3 <br />MIS/ Mottaz/Mayor Johnson - to grant a 3% cost -of living pay <br />increase to all of the city employees retroactive to January <br />1, 1992 <br />Councilman Williams explained he believes the employees <br />deserve a raise, however, feels a straight cost of living <br />raise is not appropriate. He felt it should be a <br />combination of a cost -of -living raise and a merit related <br />raise. <br />MIS/ Williams/Hunt - to amend the motion to grant a 2% cost <br />of living pay increase to all city employees retroactive to <br />January 1, 1992, and up to a 3% merit increase effective <br />upon completion of performance appraisals by our city <br />administrator, and further, that the Council shall meet as a <br />whole as the personnel committee to review the appraisals <br />and approve the increases. <br />Dick Johnson suggested an amendment to the motion to include <br />the Council acting as a personnel committee should also do a <br />merit review on the city administrator. <br />Discussion followed: <br />Dick Johnson: I called the Research Dept. of the League <br />of MN Cities to assist me on salary ranges for comparable <br />positions for comparable size cities. There is a service <br />available from the league to assist in setting up <br />evaluations. The survey done on the current staff salaries <br />indicated that this city is in the range in all categories <br />with other cities. In some cases female positions are in <br />the bottom of the range. In case of the Building Inspector <br />and the Maintenance Supervisor, they were well within the <br />range. <br />Mottaz: I think it is interesting that you stated it was <br />the female employees that were at the bottom of the scale. I <br />think a goal would be to bring that up to equal. I don't <br />think we should cut back on the cost of living increases <br />because we are going to evaluate the employees and give them <br />a merit increase because you are doing a good job. I don't <br />think a 3% cost of living increase is hardly even fair, much <br />less generous; therefore, amended the motion as followed: <br />M/S/F Mottaz/Mayor Johnson - to amend the motion to grant a <br />3% cost of living increase and proceed with the merit <br />process allowing up to an additional 3%. (Motion failed: 2- <br />3: Hunt: I think that a merit increase is a very important <br />part of a persons development and would like to give the <br />ability for a good performance to bring them up to at least <br />the cost of living. All too often people in jobs that get <br />cost of living raises count on it year after year and they <br />lose the work incentive. In today's dwindling budget, we are <br />not able to give an actual cost of living and a merit <br />increase, Dick Johnson, Williams:we should not be aiming to <br />