Laserfiche WebLink
of conversation that could happen with feedback and by adding on other benefits, it is effective if <br />it is an additional attraction. He stated in a negotiation, starting with more on the table and having <br />the candidate ask for more. With the League contract, it is a simple contract and allows additions <br />to be made, based on what the current administrator is getting, and having a conversation. He <br />thought starting with the League’s contract would be an invitation to negotiation. He thought the <br />location, being Ramsey, that salary would be the main issue and the extras are extra. He asked if <br />that seemed correct. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich replied that is absolutely right. He stated if there was anything in the <br />current contract Council really wanted to keep, that should be identified and include it. He stated <br />there are things like moving expenses that will be necessary for some candidates and not for others. <br />He thought a hybrid contract, taking the League’s contract and filling in language where it is <br />appropriate and not offering benefits the candidate doesn’t want that are an expense to the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff agreed that the generic language is acceptable as every situation is <br />going to be different. He felt that health insurance is going to be the biggest alternative bargaining <br />chip as far as the City’s offer which would require more thought behind it. He argued that although <br />health insurance is different, there is no more administrative burden. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich commented the consensus was for Staff to use the model contract and <br />put in information from the current City Administrator’s contract to show Council how that would <br />look and get Council feedback. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley asked if there were still eight candidates. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove answered yes. She referenced the timeline and asked about the <br />selection at a Special Work Session, and the agreement negotiated. She stated she wasn’t sure if <br />negotiating the agreement meant the discussion they just had but it isn’t in the updated timeline. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich replied those can be added. He stated there was discussion at the last <br />meeting about having a subcommittee of the Council be more actively involved in the negotiation <br />and there was a question if that would be done as a group or subbed out to a committee. He stated <br />either way would be fine. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley replied the whole group. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich replied he will add those to the calendar. He asked when the timeline <br />she referred to was from. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove replied March 1, 2022. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell referenced number 5 where it says the second interviews have to end by <br />4:40 p.m. She asked if there is a way to make sure there is enough time on the front end, not <br />knowing how many second interview candidates they are going to have, to make sure they don’t <br />get cut short. That is one concern she had, not knowing how many candidates they will have and <br />ensuring they have enough time. <br />City Council Work Session /March 22, 2022 <br />Page 7 of 11 <br /> <br />