Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Schroe, der stated the employees don't want to be paid on the performance system but they <br />didn't have a problem with anything else. He stated there is an extra 2 to 3% increase proposed <br />based on performance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Beyer stated she has a problem with this plan and that she doesn't feel pay based <br />on performance appraisals are fair. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hardin felt the plan made good sense to him. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson stated it appears the employees are in favor of comparable worth unless it <br />doesnLt help them. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that Council asked for a performance system to be used. However, if it's not <br />wanted now it could be "thrown out" and the AFSCME group would get a 3.19% increase and the <br />exempt 2.3% increase. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson stated the other item for discussion is the use of a City vehicle by the City <br />Engineer. He stated there are copies of correspondence supporting what was offered to and <br />accepted by the City Engineer with regard to salaD', moving expenses and a car to use to and from <br />work and also for personal use with some limitations. <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder stated he would recommend that Mr. Jankowski have the use of this <br />City vehicle, or be compensated $350 to $400 per month to make up for the toss of the car. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson felt that $350 to $400 a month was high; but suggested an increase in <br />salary should take place for Mr. Jankowski. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that regardless of the figure used to compensate for the loss of the use of the <br />car, he questioned how the City would benefit from it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson suggested looking at a one-time adjustment to the City Engineer's salary <br />and that since other employees do not have a car, this may be perceived as unfair. He added that <br />nothing, however, indicates that Mr. Jankowski has abused this privilege. <br /> <br />Councilmember Beyer felt that Mr. Jankowski should have to pick up his vehicle when he gets to <br />City Hall like everyone else does. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hardin stated he doesn't have a problem with a one-time adjustment or the intent <br />to treat ail employees the same; however, if a decision is made, Mr. Jankowski has to be fairly <br />compensated. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated to have to purchase a second car would be a quantum expense for <br />him and added it is not unusual for a City Engineer to have a City vehicle at his disposal. <br /> <br />Finance Officer Helling expressed concern about an employee who has accepted an offer and when <br />the membership of the Council changes, the position of the employee changes. She suggested that <br />perhaps the agreement continue until the car needs replacing and added that this is more economical <br />for the City of Ramsey right now anyway. <br /> <br />Councitmember Pcterson commented that the car could maybe last longer if there wasn't personal <br />mileage on it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Beyer felt it was unfortunate the previous Council made this arrangement as no <br />other employee has this benefit. <br /> <br />Negotiating Committee/May 26, 1992 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />