Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council appoints new city attorney but declines to finalize engineering services contract amid concerns
Summary
Aldermen voted to adopt an ordinance appointing a new city attorney with a 4–2 roll call, while debate over a master services agreement with Shive Hattery exposed questions about packet detail, attorney review and data‑center experience; the Shive Hattery motion failed after amendment and roll call.
The Board of Aldermen approved an ordinance to appoint a new city attorney and authorize the mayor to execute a contract for legal services (Bill 5326) after a roll‑call vote. Council members asked about fee schedules and whether the interview rate discussed for a named attorney would be written into the contract; staff said the lower interview rate was discussed in interviews but not inserted into the contract form. The ordinance passed on the roll call (motion carried, ordinance recorded in the minutes).
Shortly afterward the council considered a master services agreement with Shive Hattery for engineering, plan review, design review and inspection services (Bill 5327). Representatives from Shive Hattery, including Leslie Sawyer, said the firm would provide engineering and floodplain management, would attend meetings as needed, perform plan review and offer one day per week onsite. Aldermen pressed the firm and staff for more detail about fees, staffing, whether the firm had experience with data‑center projects and whether the city attorney had reviewed the proposed contract.
Alderman Cleave moved and Alderman Lesh seconded an amendment requiring the city attorney to review the contract and to return it to the board if any critical items were found. The amendment passed on a roll call. After discussion the council took a final roll call on Bill 5327 and the motion failed (three yes, one abstain, two no as recorded); the master services agreement was not adopted.
Council debate centered on whether the packet provided enough detail for an informed decision and whether the action was being rushed. Multiple aldermen said they would not object to changing firms if staff returned with fuller documentation and if the contract were reviewed by legal counsel before signing. Several members also emphasized that experience and reliability could justify paying somewhat higher hourly rates if that improved service levels for residents.
Next steps: the city will maintain current legal and engineering arrangements until staff can provide a contract draft that the city attorney has reviewed and the council finds sufficiently documented.
