My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 01/11/2022
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2022
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 01/11/2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 10:23:57 AM
Creation date
1/5/2023 9:10:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
01/11/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
to implement the Senior Planner position again, as well as promoting from within for two City <br />Planner positions who would share equal responsibilities. The Planning Technician and Code <br />Enforcement Officer positions would not be back filled. The Planning Assistant would be retained <br />at 20 hours a week. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma questioned who would be handling Code enforcement. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator/ Community Dev. Director Hagen replied it would fall under the City <br />Planner roles. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that Administrative Services Director Lasher just sent an <br />email with an organizational chart. <br /> <br />Administrative Services Director Lasher stated that she just sent the current org chart, not one that <br />reflects the changes that are being proposed. She agreed that this would not be an addition in <br />FTE’s or personnel, it would be title changes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht commented that he is newer to the Council than some others but he <br />questioned what the reason was for bringing on a Code Enforcement Officer. He remembered it <br />being more recent. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma replied Tim Gladhill was elevated to Deputy Administrator to get him out of Code <br />enforcement so someone else was needed in that role. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht commented that it seems like it is going back to the structure it was before, <br />which may not be a bad thing but he questioned why it was changed initially. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff commented that retention is really important right now, losing a <br />handful of key staff in the department wasn’t good, so trying to keep the current employees would <br />be important. He stated that the institutional knowledge that has been lost and is about to be lost <br />again is tough so he favors trying to retain as much of the staff as possible. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove questioned for clarification, that consensus is sought now and that these <br />will come through as cases in the next meeting. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator/ Community Dev. Director Hagen confirmed this adding that right now <br />Staff is looking for direction and consensus of Council on how to proceed forward. Resolutions <br />would be brought back at the following meeting to implement the changes officially. At that time, <br />compensation adjustments could be discussed. From a budgeting standpoint, estimates are <br />dependent on filling the Planning Manager position and where they come in with experience. <br />Current estimates reflect about a $5,000 shortfall in the budget. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator/ Community Dev. Director Hagen next spoke about the Building <br />Inspection Division, noting currently there are full-time positions for a Building Official and <br />Building Inspector. There is also a standing contract for a contracted building inspection services. <br />The notion was that when an in-house building inspector was hired, the contracted building <br />City Council Work Session / January 11, 2022 <br />Page 3 of 15 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.