CC_Minutes_2008_1020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 20, 2008 Page 10 Councilmember Pust requested additional information from the City's perspec- tive, for her analysis of legal bills and determination of the number of hours billed to the City, staff's analysis of the number of hours that staff and/or the City Coun- cil had access to the City's Attorneys (i.e., set office hours during which to funnel questions; monthly hours provided; and the negotiated standard amount versus the number of hours being utilized). Councilmember Pust noted a breakdown of standardized rates, based on proposals, equaled 15-17 hours per week for Council meetings; weekly office hours; and how those costs were allocated. City Manager Malinen advised that senior staff (i.e., Department and/or Assistant Department Head level) was able to engage the Attorney's, in addition to their regular office hours on a weekly basis, averaging 3-5 hours weekly, depending on staff s workload at any given time; with further analysis available by staff for Councilmembers on when attorneys were being utilized above those hours. Klausing moved ratification of the City Manager's Appointment and Authorizing the City Manager to negotiate an acceptable contract for City Attorney services with the law firm of Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mayor Klausing suggested that applicants be asked to make their information public to provide a more transparent process. Councilmember Ihlan requested consent for disclosure from the firms for at a minimum their major terms to allow for comparisons; and suggested that staff rank their top three firms to provide for more competitive review and analysis, along with their rationale for those rankings. Mayor Klausing requested that the City Manager return to the City Council with additional information, as previously noted, in addition to: • Analysis for the City Manager recommendation, under current policy, for his recommendation to continue with the incumbents in spite of their terms longer than called for in the policy; • Cost benefit analysis and a further explanation: what we're getting and what it means; • Authorization from the bidding firms to make that information public; and • Staff's ranking of their top three firms. Councilmember Pust suggested that following consent from those firms and since there were so few bid responses, other communities named as references be con- tacted. Councilmember Pust advised that she had other questions and concerns from the proposals; however, advised that she could not make them part of the public record, due to data privacy issues, until the firms provided permission to make their proposals public.