My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 1999/11/15
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
Minutes - 1999/11/15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2025 1:24:50 PM
Creation date
8/1/2007 11:39:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
11/15/1999
Description
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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 November 15, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 30 <br />non-retainer questions. He stated they have compiled clerical policies that would be instituted <br />pending approval of the Council, pertaining to the overall retainer of the City Attorney's Office. <br />i City Administrator Whiting provided the Council with an e-mail from Attorney Riggs to himself, <br />as an example of this policy. He stated the second page of the e-mail correspondence indicates <br />the Purchasing Authority Policy staff has drafted and included in the consideration of the entire <br />Personnel Policies Manual. He explained that these policies were intended to provide some <br />direction, in terms of the use of the City Attorney. <br />City Administrator Whiting stated the general conditions of the retainer do not greatly differ <br />from the previous conditions, and basically, they indicate a $3,000 per month retainer for general <br />City work. He pointed out however, some of the questions that have come forward have <br />probably arisen out of what is considered to be non-retainer work. He stated the proposed <br />system, which is currently being practiced, provides that if a certain type of work the City <br />Attorney performs is outside of the retainer, the appropriate member of staff or Council, <br />depending upon the issue, would have to grant approval, prior to taking any action. <br />City Administrator Whiting stated staff indicated by notation that the information provided the <br />Council in their packet was somewhat different from what they have worked on in the interim, <br />however, this information is somewhat substantive, and staff is recommending approval of this <br />amendment. <br />City Attorney Long stated the changes were indicated in two sentences added to the Council's <br />information, which were both good suggestions made after the meeting with staff. He explained <br />that a sentence would be added under the first paragraph in Item B of the Agreement, to indicate <br />"The non-retainer matters will receive prior approval from the City, on the agreed upon e-mail <br />approval form, before work begins on the matter." He advised that this provided a good example <br />of situations in which they were not necessarily focused upon communication. He explained that <br />an issue might come forward regarding the review of an easement, or the review of a survey for a <br />private development, and they would open this up in an a-mail, non-retainer file because of the <br />agreement, and were just doing this automatically. He stated staff raised a good point in that <br />they were uncertain as to when the non-retainer clock started running, and now they have a good <br />system in place, which indicates this. <br />City Attorney Long pointed out the other change, which is also to the City's benefit is the <br />addition of a sentence to Page 3, Item 6, which indicates "If the City has to pay any portion of <br />this cost, the City's portion will be billed at the lower rate." He stated Finance Director Kessel <br />pointed out that if there is a dispute, and they are unable to collect the money from a third party, <br />this policy would promote they collect the money from the private developer, who is causing the <br />legal bills to be incurred. He explained this would be billed at the standard third-party rate. He <br />stated the premise is that all of the costs would be paid for by the third party, however, in an <br />instance where work is performed, and the City for some reason has to pay for that, it would be <br />billed at the lower rate. <br />City Attorney Long stated they have enjoyed working for the City, and there has been much <br />work in the last several years, in terms of the Community Center, the budget, and other such <br />matters, which generate legal bills. He stated they do not like to see the bills be higher than what <br />they have been in the past. He stated it was always enjoyable to be involved with some of the <br />issues such as the golf course and the Airport litigation, and he was personally very happy with <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.