Laserfiche WebLink
By: <br /> <br /> USE OF CITY ATTORNEY <br />Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator <br /> <br />CASE # <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />Our current City Administrator was hired on June 3, 1991. One of the major objectives of Council <br />during that process was a reduction in contractual services. The two largest line items in 1990 in <br />the area of contractual services was Hakanson Anderson (City Engineering) and Randall, Dehn, <br />and Goodrich (legal Services). <br /> <br />Given Council concern for budget overages in this area we began holding a fairly tight reign on use <br />of consultant time. We also took bids on legal prosecution work and entered into a three-year <br />contract with Randall, Dehn, and Goodrich for these services with annual "not to exceed" <br />numbers. Further, there was direction for staff to utilize the free services of the League of <br />Minnesota Cities as an alternative. <br /> <br />Thc result of the above was a reduction in the t990 legal bill for "normal" services from $80,050 <br />to $48,191 in 1991. This level of expenditure has remained fairly constant since then (see <br />attached). <br /> <br />Recently, a concern has been expressed that staffs concern for the bottom line is penny-wise and <br />pound foolish. Further, that the lack of use of the attorney is a problem waiting to happen. At this <br />point I am requesting direction from the Personnel Committee. While this is a somewhat esoteric <br />request, I'd like to discuss whether my position on use of the attorney needs to be changed. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br />Based on discussion. <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br />Based on discussion. <br /> <br />Review Checklist: <br /> <br />City Administrator <br />City Attorney <br /> <br />PC: 04/12/94 <br /> <br /> <br />