Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />ending the probationary period for Sheldon Erdman and grant status as a full-time regular Patrol <br />Sergeant. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Jeffrey, Olson, Dehen, Elvig, and <br />Look. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Strommen. <br /> <br />Additional Staff Input <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich indicated discussion is needed regarding a personnel issue. Direction <br />has been made to consider termination of an EDA member. Since that action was taken by <br />Council it has been determined that EDA members are appointed under State Statute, and there is <br />a different process on terminating those members. He recommends the City retain the service of <br />a hearing examiner to make it more formal. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired about the term limit of the individual. <br /> <br />Interim City Administrator Nelson replied she believes the term is over the end of2008. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig questioned why this direction is being established, rather than talking with <br />the individual first. He stated he thinks this is the wrong move and message to send to a member <br />of a Commission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated this particular person lives in his ward. Since 1992 there are <br />allegations that the City is requiring this property to be cleaned up. It's horrible. There are <br />substantial property values affected, and he has received a number of calls regarding the clean up <br />on this property. The second point is that it was brought to his attention that this individual is <br />representing the City on the EDA. If they do not think that puts a smear on the face of the City <br />and this Council he disagrees. He does not think people should be fighting the City when the <br />City is making a reasonable request. This has been going on for 15 years. It reflects on the <br />Council as to what they are doing and whether they are having this individual fight the City on <br />enforcement matters, rather than getting to the crux of the problem, which is the affect on the <br />neighbors in the area and their property values. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated he does not want to excuse what has happened for the last 15 years, <br />and he would also point a finger at the City's ability to enforce its own ordinances. To a certain <br />degree, shame on the City for not enforcing the ordinances or having the tools. He thinks they <br />have that coming on line and thinks this matter will be quickly resolved from an abatement <br />standpoint. As far as what impression people may have of the City, at this point that has been <br />built over the last 15 years and he does not know if it will change. If this individual was <br />terminated from a commission without an abatement ordinance he does not know that it would <br />be cleaned up any faster; the abatement ordinance is the key, but he does not think it will be <br />necessary to take it to abatement. Hopefully there is a resolution they can come to. He <br />understands that Councilmember Dehen feels it reflects poorly on him, but he would say perhaps <br />if they give it one last shot, the individual is really in a corner in terms of the abatement now. He <br />would like to play out the abatement portion of this and see if they can come to a resolution on <br />that. <br /> <br />City Council / August 28, 2007 <br />Page 30 of 33 <br />