My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
01/09/91
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Economic Development Commission
>
Agendas
>
1991
>
01/09/91
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2025 12:49:33 PM
Creation date
12/11/2003 3:55:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Economic Development Commission
Document Date
01/09/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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).
View images
View plain text
Hr. Hartley also reviewed the Issue of Waste Management calling <br />some costs an~ fees as taxes and reauclng that amount from the <br />revenue. The City ge:s 10 percent of the gross revenue less taxes, <br />and the City does not necessarily agree that those costs and fees <br />are taxes. The City Attorney Is working on that matter now. <br /> <br />Hr. Hartley also reported that the Landfill Siting committee in <br />Anoka County has been adjourned Indefinitely because of political <br />1n-fighting and disagreement over the Environmental Impact Study. <br />He has no l~ea when that committee will De oatle~ Pack. Also, the <br />Federal EPA Is now promulgating rules nationally that deal with the <br />siting of landfills. Those guidelines may have a direct bearing on <br />the landfill siting process in Anoka County. <br /> <br />QOMPARABLE WORTH STUDY <br /> <br />Deputy Mayor Peterson explained In November the Personnel Committee <br />began working on the Commparable Worth Study. At that point there <br />were two groups that were willing to help update and redo the <br />study. Councllmember Clch noted the two groups are coming from <br />opposite directions. The Comparable Worth program must be in place <br />by December 31, 1991. The Intent Is the Personnel Committee will <br />recommenU some alternatives that would be acceptable to the <br />Council, the City personnel will be allowed to decide what plan <br />they want, after which the City Counci] will approve lt. <br /> <br />It was noted that there will be more on this Item in the near <br />future. <br /> <br />FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION <br /> <br />Councllmember Clch reported the Fire Department Is In the process <br />of forming a Relief Association and a private retirement fund. He <br />has not had a chance to review all of their proposals, but he will <br />be studying them very closely because he does have some questions <br />and concerns. Some of those concerns are on whether or not the <br />· City should contribute to a private retirement fund; if ]t does, <br />how much should be contributed; how much Is received from the <br />insurance rebate from the State; the practicality of a first-in, <br />first-out type retirement fund; and the question of whether-the <br />City's contribution should be retroactive two years when in fact <br />the Department has been only 18 percent functional for two years. <br /> <br />CouncilmemDer Cich stated he would ask at the December 1! meeting <br />to ~efer this until the first of the year for continued study. <br />Another concern of the Fire Department has to do with injuries on <br />the job and being covered by long-term disability. They are <br />covered if injured while acting as agents of the City, but what <br />about the long term? How can it De determined that the injury <br /> <br />SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/DECEMBER 5, !990 <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.