Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 25, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br />1 M. Cancel a Public Hearing Set for 7:10 p.m. on Monday, September 8, 2003 to <br />2 Receive Public Input and Pass Upon a Special Assessment Levy for Street Repairs <br />3 at 7832 Bona Road <br />4 N. Establish an Executive Session Immediately After the Council Meeting to Discuss <br />5 Current Litigation <br />7 Council Member Marty requested that Item H be removed for discussion. <br />s <br />9 Council Member Stigney requested that Item B be removed for discussion. <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />2 <br />~1 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />Council Member Quick asked if there were litigation cases to be discussed. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated that was correct. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Consent Agenda Items A, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, <br />L, M, and N as Presented. <br />Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. <br />Council Member Stigney asked that Resolution 6071 be read. He then asked why the full step <br />increase after six months and now a full step increase after one year and noted that was an <br />exception to the City's policy. <br />Council Member Stigney read Resolution 6071. <br />26 Council Member Stigney indicated he does not understand how the City hires employees with <br />27 circumstances that are exceptions to the personnel policy and in the future he would like the <br />28 policy followed more closely. He then indicated that he would like information on how a <br />29 satisfactory job performance determination is made because there were questions recently with <br />30 the performance of this employee on two occasions. <br />31 <br />32 Community Development Director Ericson indicated that generally speaking the evaluation <br />33 would be less than satisfactory if an employee's performance is less than what is expected from <br />34 them. He then said that an issue raised by a business owner or one mistake does not warrant an <br />35 unsatisfactory rating as during the evaluation the big picture should be looked at and this <br />36 employee was rated satisfactory or higher. <br />37 <br />3s City Administrator Ulrich indicated that this employee has met the satisfactory requirements and <br />39 if it is a case where an employee has individual issues those issues are addressed but if 90 or 95% <br />40 of the work is satisfactory or above then they do the majority of the work most of the time to a <br />41 level that meets or exceeds the city requirements and receive a satisfactory rating. <br />42 <br />3 Council Member Stigney indicated his question was not to this specific employee but in general <br />~4 how the City establishes the satisfactory or higher rating. <br />45 <br />