My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2018 12 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2018 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2018 12 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:12:30 PM
Creation date
1/16/2019 9:14:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
8D6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2018 12 18
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
380
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 4, 2018 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br />is based on the estimated cost of wages, benefits, supplies and services. The proposed <br />changes were provided in the packet. Staff recommends approval. <br />Councilmember Maloney noted the Finance Committee has been discussing fees <br />addressing costs better. They decided there should be an annual review as some fees <br />have not been adjusted in many years. Fees should reflect costs over time. <br />Councilmember Maloney moved Council approve Resolution No. 58, Series 2018; <br />seconded by Councilmember Loo. Roll Call Vote 6-0 passed. Lipton absent. <br />DISCUSSION/DIRECTION/ACTION — CITY MANAGER ONE-YEAR REVIEW <br />EVALUATION TOOL <br />Mayor Muckle asked if Council wanted to make changes to the evaluation tool and <br />whether they wanted to use a process that involves the City Attorney and Council or <br />hire a facilitator. He noted Councilmember Maloney had done a lot of work on this. <br />Councilmember Maloney felt it important to have a tool to evaluate what the Council and <br />the Manager want to see in an evaluation. Several sources were reviewed to write this <br />draft. It includes a tool for each Councilmember to evaluate the Manager and then those <br />are consolidated for review by Council. The other option would be to have a third party <br />facilitator design and implement an evaluation with all Councilmembers taking part. <br />Councilmember Maloney noted the tool should be reviewed and modified each year as <br />a part of the annual contract with the Manager. He supported a 360 process. <br />City Manager Balser appreciated being able to work with Councilmember Maloney. She <br />asked if there were additional items the Council would like included in the evaluation <br />form and inquired if Council thought having a facilitator would be helpful. <br />Councilmember Loo asked City Attorney Kelly if this process would be confidential. The <br />answer was yes the performance review would be conducted in executive session. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann asked if the individual worksheets filled out by each <br />Councilmember could be part of the public record if the tool was used. City Attorney <br />Kelly didn't think so but asked for time to look into that for a more definitive answer. <br />Mayor Muckle stated he likes the idea. <br />Councilmember Maloney liked the idea of picking and using a facilitator. This allows the <br />Mayor to participate more. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann saw merits to both options. She wanted to talk as a group <br />regardless of the option used. Mayor Muckle agreed. <br />42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.