My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 01/11/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2016
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 01/11/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 2:16:08 PM
Creation date
2/12/2016 11:29:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
01/11/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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. Administrator Ulrich responded he does not have a list of the Tinklenberg Group's other <br />clients. He said he is aware there are other clients. He offered to check to see who they are to <br />make sure they are not in direct competition with the City of Ramsey. <br />3. TOPICS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION <br />None. <br />4. MAYOR / COUNCIL / STAFF INPUT <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated there have been some updates to the case of discussing Civil <br />Legal Services. The proposal was basically the same as last year's. However, there could be <br />some savings if the attorney attended meetings as needed. Many cases are more mundane and <br />legal counsel is not needed. He said he felt it was a fair proposal. He pointed out one of the <br />drawbacks could be that if the attorney attended only a few meetings per month, he could lose <br />continuity in the direction of the Council. If he attended just enough meetings to stay in touch <br />with the Council, it could work well. There are enough items identified where he could be <br />requested to attend. Mr. Ulrich suggested if the Council would like to try having the attorney <br />"on call", a pilot project could be set up to see how it works. The contract is a 30 day contract <br />now. There is not an urgency to make a decision tonight. He said he would support taking a <br />look at this option, as he predicted there would be a lot of meetings the attorney's presence would <br />be requested. He said it is a matter of the Council's comfort level. <br />City Attorney Joe Langel said he has always tried to be flexible, and he would like to provide the <br />service that is needed. <br />Councilmember Shryock asked how common this arrangement is for the City Attorney. <br />City Attorney Langel stated he has worked in this fashion with other cities. In this case, the <br />Council and staff have a lot of experience. He said he thought the Council would know the <br />answer to many procedural issues. <br />Councilmember Kuzma commented he likes having the attorney present. One misstep could cost <br />a lot. He said he has mixed feelings about trying to save some money. Everything the Council <br />does is scrutinized by the public, and the Council needs to do everything by the letter of the law. <br />He concluded he was in favor of having the City Attorney at all meetings. <br />Councilmember Riley stated he thinks of it as being in the preparation ahead of time. The <br />discussion happens in the meetings and agreements ahead of time. Not as much is decided in the <br />meeting. <br />Mayor Strommen noted there haven't been many complex issues or rules that have come up. <br />City Attorney Langel has always been a great help in guiding the Council through such issues. If <br />it is decided to reduce his time, we would want to make sure it is the right times. She said she <br />likes the idea of a trial basis. She noted it could be a challenge to make sure items are on the <br />agenda in the timeframe they need to be for the deadline of the item and while the City Attorney <br />City Council Work Session / January 11, 2016 <br />Page4of5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.