Laserfiche WebLink
focusing on the existing system but there would be a possibility to connect the parks buildings in <br />the future if desired. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma asked for details on the camera system and whether that would be connected, or if <br />the existing system would continue to be used. <br /> <br />I.T. Manager Fredrickson replied that the Honeywell system that the City has does not tie into the <br />cameras and staff would propose to continue to use that separate system rather than tying the <br />systems together at this time as it would simply cause an additional cost that is not necessary. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff commented that the system quotes seem similar and stated that there <br />seems to be a cost savings to moving to the cloud. He asked if two factors would be a requirement <br />for either system. <br /> <br />I.T. Manager Fredrickson commented that the current access to the door system includes himself, <br />I.T Support Technician Kubat and the facilities team and provided additional details. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Council to support moving forward with PDK. <br /> <br />2.03: Review Date for Annual Planning Session <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich reviewed the staff report. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman commented that he will be on 30-day military orders and therefore <br />would be available remotely. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Council was to move forward with the date as proposed in the staff report. <br /> <br />3. TOPICS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION <br /> <br />3.01: Review Future Topics/ Calendar <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich reviewed the future topics calendar. <br /> <br />4. MAYOR / COUNCIL / STAFF INPUT <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill noted that the property owner for the abatement case on <br />tonight’s regular agenda reached out to at least one Councilmember stating that they would like to <br />speak tonight, so that item will be removed from Consent to provide that ability. He provided <br />background information on the property and the code enforcement history. He noted that the <br />property owner felt they were being treated unfairly and provided three other properties in the area <br />in violation, noting that staff was not aware of those properties and code enforcement will be <br />following up on those properties as well. He noted that this property owner does not dispute that <br />the property is in violation, noting that staff has been working on the case since 2019 and this is <br />the first response from the property owner. He noted that an extension could be considered now <br />City Council Work Session / April 13, 2021 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br />