The council’s conversation on employee evaluations revealed deep concerns about fairness and potential biases. One council member questioned whether performance reviews should be strictly based on job performance or if they were influenced by subjective factors, such as personal biases. It was emphasized that evaluations should remain impartial and focused on job descriptions, with the potential for bias and unfair assessments highlighted by public comments from city employees. Amos Henderson, a city employee, criticized the evaluation process for failing to accurately reflect the quality of work, particularly in specialized roles like utility workers. He stressed the need for immediate feedback rather than relying on periodic evaluations, especially in high-stakes jobs where safety is paramount.

Albert Fuller, another public participant, suggested incorporating self-evaluations into the process to provide employees with a chance to present their perspectives. Joey Whitehead, also from the public, raised concerns about potential bias in evaluations, questioning the safeguards in place to protect employees from unjust reviews based on personal conflicts.

One member noted that evaluations were tied to raises, which could lead to biased results, and suggested separating the two to maintain objectivity. The city manager advocated for a more structured approach to evaluations, proposing mid-year reviews to address performance issues proactively. This approach aimed to prevent employees from being blindsided by unexpected negative evaluations at the end of the year, encouraging continuous dialogue between supervisors and employees.

Attention then shifted to the city’s procurement processes, particularly concerning credit card limits for city employees. The city manager introduced a proposal to increase these limits, which had not been updated since 2021. Specific departments, including those managed by Laura, the city planner, and Donald, the Public Works Supervisor, requested higher limits to meet operational needs. A council member suggested that limits be raised to between $2,500 and $5,000, sparking a discussion about the role of the purchasing agent in procurement.

The dialogue revealed some confusion about who holds purchasing responsibilities across departments, highlighting the need for a clearer system. Concerns were raised about the potential inefficiencies of not having a central authority handle transactions. Jonathan, a staff member, clarified that while Jason Lee is the procurement officer, staff sometimes assist with purchasing to expedite the process during busy periods or emergencies. The council recognized the need for credit card limit adjustments to accommodate departmental operations, particularly in light of inflationary pressures.

In addition to internal matters, the council tackled the issue of vacation payouts for city employees. A proposal was presented to pay out employees with over 288 carryover hours as of December 1, 2024, with the aim of reducing the financial burden from over $77,000 to approximately $37,438. However, this proposal sparked a debate about combining vacation and sick time into a single pool of paid time off (PTO). While some council members supported this dual approach to alleviate future liabilities, others raised concerns about the impact on employees who might need significant time off for illness.

The council also addressed the complexities of accrued hours, particularly concerning employees like Fortney, who had accumulated significant hours due to staffing shortages in the police department. Discussions centered around whether it was permissible to mandate employees to reduce their hours to 200, given the policy limit of 288 hours. Ultimately, the council decided to table the vacation payout discussion to gather more information and ensure an informed decision balancing employee benefits and fiscal responsibilities.

As the meeting progressed, the council approved a second reading of ordinance 2025-755, related to fire services assessments, and addressed other resolutions, including a land lease agreement and surplus of a ground power unit at the airport. Public participation included expressions of gratitude for support during hardships and announcements about upcoming community events, such as a Juneteenth celebration and a July 3rd parade.