Minutes - 1999/11/15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council November ]5, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 31 this, because it serves to keep the retainer at the same level. He explained that if the non-retainer items are handled properly, they would be able to collect the majority of those fees from the third parties, unless the City decides to take on a project of their own. Council Member Marty stated this document clarifies a number of issues. He stated the Purchasing Authority Policy is good, and the rates are very fair. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To Approve Amendment to City Attorney Retainer and Non-Retainer Agreement. Council Member Stigney stated he was not certain why some of the items listed under non- retainer work, were not covered by the retainer, for example, the review of Charter Commission questions, research of matters pending meetings, facilitation of City Council and Charter Commission issues, and so forth. He indicated he was concerned why these items would not be considered the normal retainer type work in representing the City. City Attorney Long stated since 1995, when he became City Attorney, the six non-retainer items listed have always been non-retainer. He stated that none of the categories are new in the agreement. He explained the first six items are considered retainer because whether he works on them for one hour or six hours with staff everyday, they are all included within the monthly retainer. He stated this is provided because they want staff to have some certainty in the budget, and don't want to discourage staff from calling and obtaining legal advice. He explained the other six items are non-retainer, and are all, in their opinion, special project related, such as real estate transactions and TIF documents. He added that the EDA is outside of the City, and tends to generate more legal review because of statutory issues. He explained that labor and employment matters, such as a personnel questions would not fall under the non-retainer, however, if there is a termination proceeding, this would open up anon-retainer file, because it becomes something they can not measure during the course of their time in civil litigation. He stated the revision of the personnel policies is designated to the special projects, because it becomes somewhat of a moving target, and is not simply the drafting of ordinances or resolutions. He explained that all of the non-retainer items are deemed to be special project related, some of which will be paid by third parties, some of which would be a special non- retainer project. He reiterated these were not new non-retainer categories, however, they desired to identify for staff the items that would fall into that category. Council Member Stigney inquired if there was one contact person within the firm, which would allow the City to avoid having two people research the same issue, and provide there is no duplication of effort and duplication of costs. City Attorney Long stated they were fairly confident there were no duplications of services. He explained that the initial contacts of City staff are filed through City Attorney Riggs at this point. He explained he has begun to do more legislative practice in the previous year, and does not wish to leave calls unanswered on his voice mail for an extended period of time. He stated he has directed the majority of these calls to City Attorney Riggs, who is performing much of the day to day contact with staff, and he will leave a voice mail or e-mail if there is an issue, which requires further review. Cit Attorne Lon ex lained that Cit Attorne Ri s is handlin all matters u to the oint Y Y g p Y Y gg g P p where an issue might be regarding something for which he has some special knowledge, or there