My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-28-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1991
>
10-28-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2024 1:42:05 PM
Creation date
7/19/2024 1:39:53 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
247
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
r <br />i-v <br />r <br />iI <br />HXNUTIS Of THI llldULAR ORONO COUNCIL MIITZNO - OCTOIIR U, 1001 <br />SELECTION OF A FIRM TO PROVIDE PROSECUTION SERVICES - CONT. <br />Callahan noted he would like to see the final contract before <br />approve 1. <br />Moorse Indicated he would put together the contract and bring it <br />back for approval. <br />Mayor Peterson asked in what position did the Popham, Haik firm <br />rank In regard to cost. <br />Hoorsa noted they were in the top range as far as price goes. <br />It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to direct staff to <br />work with the City of Minnetonka to develop a contract for <br />prosecution services, to be returned to the City Council for <br />approval. Said contract foe is not to exceed $30,000 for the <br />first year, and the Increase for the second year and any year <br />thereafter Is to he consistent with the regular wage increase of <br />the City of Minnetonka. Ayes 4, nays 0. <br />Callahan commented that although this reflects a substantial <br />savings for the City, the credit for bringing this issue to the <br />Council‘s attention goes to the current counsel. He also felt <br />that the current contract with the law firm probably reflects a <br />package deal and may not reflect true cost for service. <br />(#13) PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES FOR THE 1992 POLICE SERVICE <br />Moorse reported that they had received payment on October 10th <br />for the fourth quarter police service contract. Ho noted ho had <br />met with Long Lake's attorney and a couple of their Council <br />members to discuss the changes which are noted in the memo. He <br />noted they want the same language on late payments incorporated <br />within the fire contract. <br />Jabbour felt a deadline should be Included within the contract <br />for submittal of Invoices for service, and noted that the money <br />Issue was only the straw that broke the camels back but was not <br />the only reason for the requested changes. Jabbour expressed his <br />desire to see business conducted in a professional manner In the <br />future. <br />Callahan reviewed that the letter which was sent requesting <br />payment was not received by Long Lake. He noted the fire <br />contract Is In place and should not be changed. He indicated <br />that If the police service contract Is terminated, the <br />responsible party should be responsible for unemployment and <br />added expenses and non-payment should have that same stipulation. <br />Callahan felt that the City Administrator can delegate authority <br />to the police chief. but the administrator Is still the <br />responsible party where the police department Is concerned. <br />Callahan objected to the termination clause as stated In the memo <br />and felt that If the services haven't been paid within the 30 day <br />timeframe, the contract will be terminated and services will be <br />provided for 30 days more only. He noted this should not be a <br />matter of curing the default. Jabbour agreed with Callahan. <br />il';.,.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.