Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Schro4Rl~ ~ er grated the employees don't want to be paid on the performance system but they <br />didn't hav~ a p~blem with anything else. He stated there is an extra 2 to 3% increase proposed <br />based on p~rf6 ~rfiaance. <br /> <br />Councilm .~mbeg Beyer stated she has a problem with this plan and that she doesn't feel pay based <br />on perfom~ eeiappraisals are fair. <br />Councilme~tlbef Hardin felt the plan made good sense to him. <br /> <br />Councilm ~oBlberiPeterson stated it appears the employees are in favor of comparable worth unless it <br />doesn't he~p them. <br /> <br />Mr. SchrO~.r ~tated that Council asked for a performance system to be used. However, if it's not <br />wanted nogt it e. lpuld be "thrown out" and the AFSCME group would get a 3.19% increase and the <br />exempt 2.3~% in, ease. <br /> <br />Councilme~mbe~Peterson stated the other item for discussion is the use of a City vehicle by the City <br />Engineer. :i He ~tated there are copies of correspondence supporting what was offered to and <br />accepted b~ the ICity Engineer with regard to salary, moving expenses and a car to use to and from <br />work and ~so fOUr personal use with some limitations. <br /> <br />City Admi~istrgor Schroeder stated he would recommend that Mr. Jankowski have the use of this <br />City vehiclo, or ~e compensated $350 to $400 per month to make up for the loss of the car. <br /> <br />Councilmdmbe~ Peterson felt that $350 to $400 a month was high; but suggested an increase in <br />salary shot~ld take place for Mr. Jankowski. <br /> <br />Mr. Schro~der siated that regardless of the figure used to compensate for the loss of the use of the <br />car, he qu~tionq, d how the City would benefit from it. <br /> <br />Councilmeynbe~ Peterson suggested looking at a one-time adjustment to the City Engineer's salary <br />and that sifice other employees do not have a car, this may be perceived as unfair. He added that <br />nothing, hdwev~r, indicates that Mr. Jankowski has abused this privilege. <br /> <br />Councilme~rnbeg Beyer felt that Mr. Jankowski should have to pick up his vehicle when he gets to <br />City Hall like e~eryone else does. <br /> <br />Councilmember~Hardin stated he doesn't have a problem with a one-time adjustment or the intent <br />to treat all~mp[oyees the same; however, if a decision is made, Mr. Jankowski has to be fairly <br />compensated. <br /> <br />City Enginger Jankowski stated to have to purchase a second car would be a quantum expense for <br />him and ad,ed it is not unusual for a City Engineer to have a City vehicle at his disposal. <br /> <br />Finance Of~¢er Helling expressed concern about an employee who has accepted an offer and when <br />the member_hip iof the Council changes, the position of the employee changes. She suggested that <br />perhaps th~ agr~ment continue until the car needs replacing and added that this is more economical <br />for the Cit~ of l~amsey right now anyway. <br />Councilme~ber;Peterson commented that the car could maybe last longer if there wasn't personal <br />mileage on'it. <br /> <br />Councilmeraber~ Beyer felt it was unfortunate the previous Council made this arrangement as no <br />other empl4yee has this benefit. <br /> <br />Negotiating Committee/May 26, 1992 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />