My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_1219_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_1219_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 2:56:06 PM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:11:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
173
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
City Council Regular Meeting —12/OS/OS <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 30 <br />Councilmember Kough opined his disapproval of things <br />eliminated in contracts; and wanted to make sure it was included <br />in the motion, even if action was delayed until the next meeting. <br />Mayor Klausing expressed concern with including the language <br />in the contract, if a future Council chose to remove the provision. <br />Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to the motion for the <br />unrelated reason of not hiring the same firm twice in a row. <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, tabling action on a contract <br />between the City of Roseville and the law firm of Jensen, Bell, <br />Converse & Eriekson, P.A., for 2006 prosecutorial legal services. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Kough; Ihlan and Klausing. <br />Nays: Maschka and Schroeder. <br />Motion carried. <br />Staff was directed to return to the Prosecuting Attorney firm and <br />negotiate contract language to ensure that the City Council <br />would be consulted prior to civil action for code violations. <br />Maschka moved, Ihlan seconded, approval of a contract between <br />the City of Roseville and Eureka Recycling, for cu�'bside <br />recycling collection services from December 26, 2005 through <br />December 3 �., 2010. <br />Councilmember Schroeder expressed concerns about the RFP, as <br />referenced in the contract, not being included as an appendix or <br />attachment to the contract; questioning whether the stipulations <br />in the RFP would be enforced without it being attached as a <br />visible reference tool. <br />City Manager Beets offered to attach the Request for Proposals <br />(RFP) as an attachment to the contract if so directed. <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that the provision of the <br />contract on Page 2, Item 6, incorporates the RFP by reference, <br />whether or not physically attached to the contract; and that <br />reference language and recognition of the RFP was a common <br />legal practice in contracts. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.