My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0718
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:27:26 AM
Creation date
8/19/2005 3:22:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/18/2005
Meeting Type
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />City Council Study Session - 07/18/05 <br />Minutes - Page 17 <br /> <br />Auditor (Kern DeWenter and Viere) will complete their six years <br />of service to the City. Mr. Beets noted that staff was preparing <br />RFP's for City Attorney, City Prosecutor, and City Auditor <br />services, pending the practical and policy direction of the City <br />Council as to whether the current firms should be included in the <br />RFP mailing soliciting their services, or sending them a thank <br />you for their service to-date, but notifying them that they were <br />not able to apply at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Beets provided an analysis via staff report dated July 18, <br />2005, with Councilmember Maschka concurring with Mr. Beets' <br />research from his historical background on the City Council. <br />The rationale in changing service contractors at least every six <br />years, appeared to be create an opportunity for other finns to <br />provide service to the City and preventing the City from <br />becoming too reliant or too close to one firm. <br /> <br />Discussion included whether or not to solicit applications from <br />the current service contractors. <br /> <br />City Manager Beets advised that he felt comfortable making <br />recommendation to the City Council on the cost and quality of <br />service, but in the final analysis, the City Council had to make <br />the final decision. Mr. Beets opined that a firm should not be <br />chosen on cost alone, but that availability of a firm was a key <br />factor, noting that the current attorney held office hours at City <br />Hall on a weekly basis, which was very important to staff and <br />residents. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that professional services policy <br />revisions for all services were necessary and should provide for <br />more City Council control over larger consulting contracts as <br />well; and that this appeared to be a good juncture to do so. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder opined that, he interpreted the policy <br />to apply to all professional services, and should continue to be <br />followed. Councilmember Schroeder further opined that he was <br />supportive of bringing fresh ideas into play after six years, which <br />provided one extension over the original contract. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined his agreement with the conclusions of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.