My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2003/01/27
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
Agenda Packets - 2003/01/27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:08 PM
Creation date
8/8/2018 9:34:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
1/27/2003
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
1/27/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
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
Mounds View City Council December 30, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br />A Representative of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik addressed Council and provided information 270 <br />on the requirements of the NPDES Phase II Permit. 271 <br /> 272 <br />Mayor Sonterre asked whether it was possible at all for Staff to meet the deadline regardless of 273 <br />the cost savings to use BRAA. 274 <br /> 275 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated he would need to devote 100% of his time and it is not 276 <br />realistically possible. 277 <br /> 278 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5911, a 279 <br />Resolution Authorizing the Engineering Firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates 280 <br />(BRAA) to Assist in the Preparation of the NPDES Phase II Permit. 281 <br /> 282 <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 283 <br /> 284 <br />D. Resolution 5898 Authorizing the Execution of the Contract for Catering and 285 <br />Banquet Management Services Between the City of Mounds View and 286 <br />Elegant Thymes 287 <br /> 288 <br />City Administrator Miller indicated that Council had directed Staff to work with the City 289 <br />Attorney to provide a contract for review in this matter. She then explained that the contract that 290 <br />is before Council combines the catering and management aspects and changes the method in 291 <br />which payment is made in order to make things less confusing. She further explained that the 292 <br />payment had been changed to a flat dollar amount and all references to gross or net revenues 293 <br />have been removed from the contract. 294 <br /> 295 <br />City Attorney Riggs explained that the contract is a combination of the two agreements that 296 <br />existed for catering and management of the facility providing a vast simplification of the 297 <br />payments and minor revisions to a number of aspects to make the language consistent as well as 298 <br />to simplify interpretation of the contract. 299 <br /> 300 <br />Council Member Stigney asked why this method would be better for the City. 301 <br /> 302 <br />City Attorney Riggs explained that this contract is better because it simplifies the payment 303 <br />method. He also indicated that Staff discussed the incentive to generate revenue and there is a 304 <br />clause requiring a meeting with Council to set a goal. 305 <br /> 306 <br />City Administrator Miller indicated it would simplify the administration of the contract and the 307 <br />finance director felt that would be helpful. She also noted that MMKR’s audit had indicated that 308 <br />the contract language was confusing and this contract would simplify the language. 309 <br /> 310 <br />Council Member Stigney commented that the contractor could do nothing and still get a flat rate. 311 <br /> 312 <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated the contract requires the contractor to meet with Council to set 313 <br />objectives and the contract can be terminated if Council’s goals are not met. 314
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.