Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 08/28/06 <br />Minutes - Page 30 <br /> <br />ruling. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller opined that perhaps a request for City Council action <br />to guide or direct staff was not necessary, but he wanted to signal <br />the public that the City is keeping the process transparent, and <br />would be discussing and considering options at their September <br />11, 2006 meeting. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined that staff would normally research <br />options and ways to advise Council as a normal procedure. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan and Kough were of the opinion that the <br />City Council not take any action until the Supreme Court advised <br />if they would hear the case, and know where they stood legally. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan adamantly opined that the City Council's <br />first step should be to engage in a broad-based community effort; <br />and any other actions were premature until the Supreme Court <br />notified the City if they would hear the case. <br /> <br />Additional discussion included the City's need to be prepared for <br />various options and/or alternatives that may be presented by the <br />developer. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust opined that everyone would be thinking <br />about the next step; and should appreciate any advice received, <br />including staff and public comment. Councilmember Pust <br />questioned why staff would need formal Council authorization. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller noted that, if the Council was supportive of staff <br />exploring and presenting development options, formal action <br />wasn't required; however, he emphasized for the public's <br />information, that the City Council would be discussing the Twin <br />Lakes project at their September 11,2006 regular meeting. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that the petition would be <br />submitted to the Supreme Court by September 8, 2006. <br />