My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2003_0512
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2003
>
CC_Minutes_2003_0512
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:34:45 AM
Creation date
3/8/2006 12:02:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/12/2003
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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 />Regular City Council Minutes - 5/12/03 <br />Page 26 <br /> <br />notification date, and actual contract term expiration of <br />December 31, 2004 and reviewed some of the language in <br />the agreement regarding the intent of both parties, with <br />annual funding between $40 - 50,000. Mr. Anderson's <br />concern was in the language summarized as, " . . . the <br />agreement shall remain in full force and effect...; can be <br />extended or modified for two to five years thereafter...; <br />unless six (6) months written notice of intent by either <br />party;" with his interpretation that notice from the City <br />would be required by June 30, 2003. Mr. .A.nderson <br />opined his concern regarding the City putting itself in a <br />position for potential litigation without providing such <br />notice by June 30, 2003. <br /> <br />Following discussion regarding the discrepancy in the <br />notification date and advice of City Attorney Anderson, <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn withdrew his motion, given that the <br />June 30, 2003 date would be adequate for notice following <br />the legislative session. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson concurred with the Mayor's <br />motion withdrawal, further stating that he wanted to <br />review the agreement further, particularly the language in <br />the renewal clause, to ensure there would be no future <br />litigation potential regarding that language. <br /> <br />c. Non-Agenda Item Discussion <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn commented regarding status of recent <br />litigation of the State of Minnesota vs. John Kysylyczyn; <br />and opined he was pleased that it had been thrown out of <br />court, given that it was a personal attack similar to that <br />seen in the Public Comment portion of tonight's meeting, <br />and that it had been an unnecessary use of taxpayer <br />money, an embarrassment to the City, and it was time to <br />move forward. <br /> <br />Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded, to direct City <br />Attorney Anderson to draft a resolution for Council <br />consideration regarding Minnesota State Statute 465.76, <br />Subd. 2 regarding reimbursement of attorney fees for a <br />government official; and that in doing so, the City <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.