My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 1998/11/09
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
Minutes - 1998/11/09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2025 1:25:42 PM
Creation date
8/1/2007 10:57:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
11/9/1998
Description
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
Page 13 <br />November 9, 1998 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />asked. Whiting stated he could not support, as City Administrator, opening up Images contract <br />for public bid. <br />Ms. Olson stated the process should be opened up for public bid. <br />Dan Coughlin suggested offering the banquet manager a "probationary period" which would <br />give both the contractor and the City the ability to assess operation successes and failures. He <br />stated he would not be in favor of a five-year contract. <br />City Attorney Long stated the first term, whether it be six months or a year, couldn't really be <br />covered in a termination clause. "As a policy matter the term of the contract is important and <br />separate from the termination clause," he added. <br />Quick stated, "Image's owner has a track record with the City and I feel perfectly comfortable <br />with this individual handling this job...I don't see any problem. I don't see any need for a <br />probationary period. I think we're drawing at straws. I think there might be some political <br />undertones here, considering what happened here in the last couple of weeks (the election), and <br />I'm sick and tired of hearing it....All's we're doing is burning time." <br />Stigney stated the issue can be carried over and Quick was out of order. <br />Mr. Coughlin stated the issue wasn't politically motivated. But, "Are we going to set a precedent <br />where we just base things off of our own personal impressions of individuals here in town. Or <br />do we basically say, this is an agreement, forget the personalities involved, but this is an <br />agreement that the City is entering into that may or may not work out. On that basis, and on that <br />basis alone, I raise the concern of entering into a long term contract when we have no track <br />record with a facility that hasn't opened yet." <br />Long stated if the Council's wish is to have the ability to renegotiate the contract at any point, <br />that statement would have to be added to the contract. <br />Stigney stated Images would be a good choice for the job; however, they have no experience in <br />managing a banquet facility. If we're going to look at this individual for this job maybe we <br />should go out for RFPs and see what else might be out there. "And the bottom line is, whoever <br />looks like they've presented the best overall package for the City perhaps that would be the way <br />to go," he added. Stigney suggested holding off on a decision on the banquet facility. <br />Gunn stated she was in favor of a two year contract because it would take more than one year to <br />get the facility "up and running" to the point of profitability. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.