Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Specht agreed that it would make sense to complete the RFP process to ensure <br />the City is receiving the best value. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove noted that an RFP was more recently completed for prosecuting <br />services and therefore would support leaving that service out and completing the RFP for civil <br />services. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff commented that if this purely related to budget, he would support this <br />but if there are other concerns driving this request, he would want those to come out now. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman stated that he did not bring this request forward so he cannot speak to <br />the motives of others. He stated that he has his own opinion on the advice of the City Attorney <br />and is not fully satisfied with that input. He stated that his decision is based solely on the reasoning <br />that an RFP has not been completed since 2013. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell agreed that this should be reviewed because of the length of the contract <br />and time since the last RFP was completed. She stated that she was concerned with discussions <br />related to franchise fees in the past and feels that the City opened itself up to possible legal <br />problems that were not brought forward by the City Attorney. She stated that she has not been <br />fully comfortable with the input received from the City Attorney on different topics, beginning <br />with the franchise fee discussions. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma confirmed that there is consensus to complete an RFP for civil legal services. <br /> <br />2.03: Review Citizen Survey <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich reviewed the staff report. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell asked if an online survey would be sent to the City email list as well. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich replied that the distribution could be done as desired and could include <br />that list. He stated that the survey list recommends that a base of respondents be built over time <br />and sampled to provide a better representation of the community. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that she believes that placing the survey online would skew <br />the results and the intent of completing this process to provide a random sampling. She stated that <br />if the intent is to provide the survey to the entire community each year, she would then not see <br />value in completing this random survey process. She asked if the survey was sent to individuals <br />over 18, noting the statement that the person with the most recent birthday was intended to fill out <br />the survey. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich believed the oldest adult in the household was meant to answer the <br />survey but confirmed he could follow up on that. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / April 27, 2021 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br />