Laserfiche WebLink
that the property owner has responded. He reviewed the amount of staff time that has gone into <br />this case. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that if there are results in bringing cases to the Council, <br />perhaps cases should escalate to the Council sooner in an attempt to reduce staff time. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill confirmed that is included in the new process, noting that this <br />case began before that time. He provided additional details related to the possible extension length, <br />estimating two to four weeks would be sufficient. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked why an extension would be considered when the property owner <br />has not been working with City staff as of this time. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that it sounds like there are health issues and the <br />property owner did reach out. He stated that the extension would allow time to work through a <br />plan and for the property owner to comply. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked for details on touring the public works facility. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich noted that is still on the agenda for some time in May, as the concrete <br />would be poured. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley referenced case 7.07 on the regular agenda. He stated that the case contains <br />no information and asked for input on the intention of the case. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman stated that during the initial vote on the resolution there were questions <br />asked of the City Attorney that he does not believe were sufficient and wanted to clarify and/or <br />address those items with the City Attorney. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley asked if Councilmember Heineman felt the best approach was at a Council <br />meeting rather than by talking to the City Attorney in person. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman commented that he believes this would be helpful in an open meeting <br />setting because of the current environment, the questions the community continues to have, and to <br />ensure proper legal advice is being provided. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell commented that this case received a lot of attention in the media, noting <br />that headlines and content do not always match facts. She did not believe all the comments made <br />by the City Attorney were accurate and that the residents should have the opportunity to have these <br />questions asked in an open meeting. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman commented that there was a notice of action brought forth in regard to <br />the resolution that was adopted, and he has questions for the City Attorney related to the League <br />of Minnesota Cities. He stated that the City Attorney is supposed to represent the City and <br />Councilmembers and if his advice is not in the best interest of the City and City Council, or if it is <br />City Council Work Session / April 13, 2021 <br />Page 6 of 8 <br /> <br />