My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2002/09/09
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
Agenda Packets - 2002/09/09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:56 PM
Creation date
8/15/2018 1:12:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
9/9/2002
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/9/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council August 26, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br /> <br />Council Member Quick commented that Council Member Marty is trying to make a private <br />document public and asked whether that was allowed. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated the evaluation has already been done and, if Council wants to <br />revisit that evaluation, that should be done in closed session. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre asked if any excerpts would be private. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated it is private personnel data. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty commented that there are 41 votes in this document and 40 votes <br />possible and there are 5 votes here and there are 41 in the document. He then said that he does <br />not feel that all of his comments were put in and feels that Mr. Bremeier only placed before <br />Council the comments he chose. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney asked if the City Administrator has a contract that supports the <br />increases listed in the Resolution. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney asked if when the City hired the City Administrator by contract a <br />Resolution was adopted. <br /> <br />Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated she was not sure if a Resolution approving the <br />hiring of the City Administrator was adopted. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney commented that the contract states she starts at $73,000 then moves to <br />$75,00 after 6 months and after that there are only cost of living increases. He then said that, if a <br />Resolution was not adopted outlining the other steps they are inappropriate. <br /> <br />Assistant City Administrator Reed indicated that the Staff report references the City <br />Administrator’s contract as well as the City’s personnel policy. She then indicated the City’s <br />policy manual indicates that increases will be given yearly on anniversary dates. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney commented that is for those hired within the step scale and is specified <br />by Resolution. He then indicated that the contract is her working document and he sees no <br />increases other than cost of living after the first year. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney said he questions how the figures were arrived at if no Resolution was <br />located. He then said that the contract is signed by the City Administrator, the acting City <br />Administrator and the Mayor. He further commented that anytime you increase from $73,000 to <br />$87,965 plus a $300 monthly car allowance and mileage for leaving the metro area he feels it is <br />completely out of line for a town of 12,600 people. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick said that is your opinion. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.