My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2001/11/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
Minutes - 2001/11/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2025 2:25:28 PM
Creation date
2/27/2025 2:25:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
11/26/2001
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council November 26, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br />Council Member Thomas indicated that this matter was discussed at two or possibly three work <br />sessions along with two other positions. She then indicated that the positions, though not <br />presented as finalized, were specifically discussed at those meetings that were televised. She <br />then commented that for Council Members to say that the positions have not been discussed is <br />disingenuous and frustrating. <br />Council Member Marty agreed that the matter had come up during budget discussions but said it <br />was not presented at a work session for discussion as to the pros and cons of the matter. He then <br />indicated that the matter should have been presented under Council Business rather than the <br />Consent Agenda because Council has a responsibility to taxpayers to make sure that any increase <br />to the budget is justified. <br /> <br />City Administrator Miller indicated that this matter was placed on the Consent Agenda because <br />matters of this type are always placed on the Consent Agenda. <br />Council Member Quick noted that Council had directed Staff to place this type of matter on the <br />Consent Agenda. <br />City Administrator Miller indicated that all positions in the City will increase by 4% as of <br />January 1, 2001. <br />Mayor Sonterre questioned whether making the change effective January 2, 2001 would <br />circumvent the 4% increase for the newly created position. <br />City Administrator Miller indicated that would appear to be the case. <br />Mayor Sonterre suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to make the effective date January <br />2, 2002. <br />Council Member Thomas clarified that she would receive a 4% increase in her current position. <br />City Administrator Miller clarified that the 4% increase is for all positions and, as such, the <br />newly created position would increase 4%. <br />Mayor Sonterre withdrew his request to make the change effective January 2, 2002 and suggested <br />that the employee begin at Step 1 rather than Step 2. <br />Council Member Quick accepted the friendly amendment to his motion. <br />Council Member Thomas accepted the friendly amendment as the seconder of the motion. <br />Council Member Quick indicated that he agreed with Council Member Thomas' comment that <br />the City needs to pay its employees for what they are doing. He then indicated that this employee <br />has demonstrated a team ability to perform in this position and he thinks it is high time that the <br />City recognize her due diligence in her position. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.