My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2001/08/13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
Agenda Packets - 2001/08/13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:33 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 10:19:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/13/2001
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/13/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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 July 9, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 16 <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney questioned the wording in Section 2.3 in relation to a drastic <br />adjustment in any utilities due to inflation, act of God, etc. City Administrator Miller suggested <br />the wording be changed to “There should be an adjustment in any utilities,” etc. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs explained that this provision was intended to cover the drastic spikes in <br />utility costs. He added that the word “inflation” is taking into account the CPI. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney felt the increase in utilities should be the tenant’s responsibility. <br />Council Member Marty pointed out that if the cost would increase drastically, it would likely be <br />brought before the Council. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre reviewed the changes discussed: Section 2.1.(a) should read “by the lesser of” <br />and “3% CPI”; 2.3 should read “There should be an adjustment in utilities”; 2.4 should read <br />“annually or upon request the accounting information.” <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve the Creative Kids Child Care Agreement as <br />amended. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br /> G. Payments to Seasonal Employee for Golf Lessons <br /> <br />Assistant to City Administrator Reed distributed papers with the first two pages intending to be <br />answers to questions the Council Members had at the last meeting. <br /> <br />Assistant to City Administrator Reed explained that in answer to Council Member Stigney’s <br />question of who were the card carrying PGA golf teachers, all four are. She included a small <br />flow chart in the handout, explaining how the pros are paid. <br /> <br />The following information sheet that was handed out outlined the fees received for golf lessons. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre raised the question of how the apprentice pro is paid. Assistant to City <br />Administrator Reed explained the apprentice is an employee of the City but wasn’t sure how the <br />apprentice was paid. She offered to find out. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney questioned item 5 on the handouts. He asked who the $40 <br />administrative fee is paid to. Assistant to City Administrator Reed replied that is paid to the <br />pros. Council Member Stigney asked if that is in addition to the wages they would already be <br />making. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed deferred this item to the Head Pro, who was <br />out of the office. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney questioned what the definition of “member” is in regard to card <br />carrying PGA members. Assistant to the City Administrator Reed explained all 4 teachers are <br />members. The PGA web site would likely have more information on member status. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.