Loading...
CC 2008 09 08 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman McDonald COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Ernst STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Greg Sticha and Todd Hoffman STUDENTS FROM HOLY FAMILY HIGH SCHOOL GOVERNMENT CLASS. Erik Elton Samantha Lochner Paige Polinsky Nicole Saylor Alex Dalsin Charlie Felmlee Elin Pool Carli Chadderdon Kelli Burrows Taylor Van Clay Carly Gerads Erin Steiner Simon McCurry Kevin Fafinski Tommy Rice Charlie McCulloch PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to everyone joining us here in the council chambers. We do have a group from the government’s class at Holy Family High School so welcome to all of you and others and those at home watching, instead of watching the Vikings-Packers game. We’re glad that you joined us as well. With that, let’s move on with our agenda. At this time I would ask members of the council if there are any changes or modifications to the agenda. If not, we will proceed with the agenda as published without objection. First item this evening, there is, I should mention too, there are additional agendas over on the table there. There’s also a sign up list being passed around so I encourage all visitors to sign up on the sign up list. The nd City Council will be cancelling our September 22 meeting due to lack of agenda items. Our th next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on Monday, October 13. 7:00 at the City Council City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 chambers. If you have any questions, please contract our city manager, Mr. Gerhardt. Move now to our items of consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: I think staff had mentioned 1(b), they wish to remove for purposes of tabling it. Is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: Table to our next meeting. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. So if, without objection, motion to adopt the consent agenda would also include a motion to table item 1(b) to our next meeting. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes: -City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 25, 2008 -City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated August 25, 2008 Receive Commission Minutes: -Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated August 12, 2008 b. Table the Amendments to Chapter 20 of the City Code Concerning Zoning Regulations, including Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION ON GOCARVERGO, ALLISON ISHIZAKI, CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH. Mayor Furlong: We do have a representative here from Carver County Public Health who wants to give a presentation to the council and to our residents on the GoCarverGo program so start with the staff report. Todd Hoffman: Mayor and council members. GoCarverGo is a new initiative and it’s being put out by Carver County Public Health and other partners throughout the county. City planners. City parks and recreation and other health providers throughout the area. It’s important to note that this is funded by Prevention Minnesota. A Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota initiative st and it was rolled out on August 1 of this year so it’s basically a site for folks to take a look at who want to participate in active living in their community or in their life. Trails. Health planning and wellness and those type of things so we have Allison Ishizaki here tonight from Carver County Public Health and she’s going to run through a very short power point and then go over some of the actual online applications for the council and the audience. 2 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Allison Ishizaki: So again my name is Allison. I’m from Carver County Public Health. I want to thank you for taking the time to let me come here tonight and speak about GoCarverGo. I’m just going to give you a brief overview of where we started with this whole initiative. Like Todd said, we received some funding from Blue Cross Blue Shield to do some active living stuff within Carver County. During the course of the past year and a half we conducted an active living workshop for planners and professionals. We’ve also done some walkable community workshops and those have been in Victoria, Watertown, Norwood-Young America and we’re doing one next week in Waconia. Through the Blue Cross Blue Shield grant we received, the funding we used was to, or we received some funding and some of that funding was used to hire a consultant who worked with the city to develop some city parks and open space recommendations and some of those recommendations were put into the 2030 comprehensive plan. We have also developed a GIS database. And then the final grant dollars were used to create this web site, GoCarverGo. The web site just contains some information about active living. There’s resources on the web site for planners and community members. There’s information about physical activity resources and events in Carver County and then there’s a mapping application, and I’m not going to spend a lot of time talking about this because I’m actually going to go on the web site and show you firsthand how to use the web site. So I’ll take you to GoCarverGo.org and there’s some sort of problem with the computer. It’s not downloading these pictures but if you go to the web site on a different computer it should be flashing different pictures of people doing physical activity type activities. So this is the home page. As you can see we wanted to have it have a very clean feel. Active living can get very technical. There’s lots of different, different terminology we could use but this is for the public so we tried to keep it as simple as possible. We wanted to make it a fun web site. Down here we have, we’ve launched, because we just created the web site and launched it in August, this is kind of just saying we launched. Check back for features and events that are going to keep being updated, but as the web site becomes, as we start adding more things to the web site, this is the area where we would include information about check back for this specific event. Chanhassen’s having a walking event. Check it out. And then down here there’s information saying if you’d like to provide some feedback or if you have questions, email info at GoCarverGo.org and if you email that address it will go to me and I can respond. Or if you have events that you’d like added to the web site, I will do that as well. So up here at the top, you can click on us and as Todd said, this is an initiative that we’ve embarked upon with all the cities and if you go down further it includes links to all the cities that have participated in the web site and the City of Chanhassen is right here and if you click on that, it will take you to the City of Chanhassen home page. We have Go Walk. Go Bike. Go Run. Go Play and Go Swim. And I’m not going to take you through all the different pages but just to kind of give you an idea of what the pages look like. The whole idea of active living is to try and get people to incorporate daily activity into their lives, so not necessarily going to the fitness center for 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week. It’s more walking to work. Walking to school. Biking. Walking to the grocery store. Things like that. We’ve tried to include as many local resources as we can. As you can see down here we have local trails and routes and Chanhassen and the Carver Beach nature trail is on here. Information about local walking clubs. We have information about two events at the Arboretum. For resources we have events that are happening within the County and we, right now it’s just a list but we’re working on a calendar of features so people can check. Click on different days throughout the year and see what events are happening and this happened this past weekend. There’s a Fall Fitness and Fun Fest event in Chanhassen, so that was added to the web 3 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 site. And if there was a link to another web site with information about this event, we would add that link to this web site as well. Under resources we also have a directory page, so just different places within the county that you can go to be active. As you can see as we scroll down here, there’s the Chanhassen Recreation Center. Lifetime Fitness. And this is just a lot of stuff that I found that I added to the web site but we’re hoping that the city, what the cities can do is email us with different events that are happening in the county. Different places in the county or the city that people can go to be active. And then we have different resources for communities and health professionals, and we take you to different web sites that contain more information about how to make your city more bike able. How to make it more walkable. Where you can go to get funding to do these types of activities. If you click on interactive map, this will, it will take you to this launch page which explains what the interactive maps do, and there’s a user guide up here, if you want to learn more how to use the mapping. But if you click on this agree, which I’ve already done, it will take you to a mapping web site and there’s some, lots of different features on here. I’m only going to quickly go over some of the ones that people will use the most. But if you click up here on trails, it lists a lot of trails within the county. So if I go to Chanhassen, the Bluff Creek trail and click on that. What it will do is it will zoom in on that trail and then if cities have provided more information about that trail, we would include that in this box here. The different cameras here are photos that the city has provided to the county, and if you click on the photo, it shows you what the trails look like. What the park looks like. And as you can see Chanhassen has provided a lot of different photos. This is great. You can do the same thing for parks. You can zoom in on a particular park. And another thing that you can do is there’s this measure tool up here and let’s say you want to create your own walking or biking route. You can use the measuring tool to click along and it will tell you the distance that you’ve gone. So you don’t necessarily have to run on these specific trails that are on the web site. You can make your, create your own trail. Todd Hoffman: One of the most requested features that we get phone calls on, mapping a route. The distance. Allison Ishizaki: Currently this is a new system that I don’t really understand a lot of the GIS stuff behind it but because it’s a new system there are some glitches and we’re having trouble printing off the maps, but after that glitch is fixed, people will be able to go on. Zoom in on a trail. Print it off and use that as their biking or walking along the different trails. So that would be a great asset to the people who are using the trails and parks. Another, just one last feature that I’m going to show you is, up here on the right you can type in an address and then you can select a distance to search for parks or trails within a certain distance of that address. So I’ve typed in City Hall and I say I want to search for parks or trails within 2 miles. And what it will do is it will zoom in and show you all the different parks and trails within that 2 mile radius. So it’s taking a little bit of time but, and that could be because there’s quite a few parks and trails within 2 miles of the building but. Mayor Furlong: Let me write that down. Todd Hoffman: That’s a good thing. Allison Ishizaki: So does anyone have any questions? 4 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: What has your response been so far? st Allison Ishizaki: Well as I said we just launched on August 1 so we’re really still just getting things going but so far we’ve had very positive feedback and we’ve had people emailing the web site saying you know, giving us events and things that they want listed and saying that it has been beneficial. As we continue on we hope to you know partner with bike shops and some fitness places and different things just to do some more promotion of the web site. Mayor Furlong: Very good. It looks very comprehensive and appreciate your initiative and help. I know that our staff has been coordinating and providing information. Looks like a lot of pictures, which is good. Allison Ishizaki: Yeah. Chanhassen has done a lot of great things. A lot of pictures and stuff out from the city. Todd Hoffman: Give thanks to Jolene Devens, our GIS coordinator here at the city and then Mitch Johnson, our summer intern did most of the work… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Please extend our appreciation to them as well. Very good. Any questions? Any other questions? Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Anyone else for visitor presentations this evening? Okay. We’ll move on to our items of business then. PUBLIC HEARING: LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK: VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. The applicant, which is a developer, K. Hovnanian has requested a portion of the drainage utility easement located on Lot 27, Block 1 of Liberty on Bluff Creek be vacated. The easement in question is shown on this drawing here. If you can zoom in. The easement is located in, Liberty on Bluff Creek is just east of Audubon and south of new Bluff Creek Boulevard. The road that was constructed about a year and a half ago. The drainage utility easement was granted to the city in 2006 with the Liberty on Bluff Creek strd final plat. Four lots within the 1 Addition are being replatted with the 3 Addition which was recently approved by council. The lot configuration changed and therefore a portion of the st drainage utilities has been dedicated with the 1 Addition must be vacated. Now I’m showing what the vacation area looks like. It’s a rectangular easement. That’s about a third of an acre that the applicant is requesting to be vacated. There are no public or private utilities located in the easement at this time. Staff concurs with the applicant and recommends that the easement be vacated at this time, so if there’s any questions I’d be happy to try to answer them for you. Otherwise I’d request that a public hearing be open at this time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? No need in the future for anything in this area that we can anticipate? Paul Oehme: Not that we are planning for or can think of. 5 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? If not I’ll go ahead and open up the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward to the podium. Please state your name and address before addressing the council. Seeing no one I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing without objection and bring it back to council for discussion. Any issues or thoughts or comments on this? Fairly straight forward. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I think it’s fairly straight forward. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman McDonald: No comments. Everything seems fine to me. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Is there a motion to adopt staff’s recommendation? Councilman Litsey: Make a motion that the City Council approve the easement vacation for Lot rd 27, Block 1, Liberty on Bluff Creek subject to the filing Liberty on Bluff Creek 3 Addition plat and development contract. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion? Resolution #2008- 46: Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approve the easement vacation for Lot 27, Block 1, Liberty on Bluff Creek rd subject to the filing Liberty on Bluff Creek 3 Addition plat and development contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, PARK PLACE: A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR ISSUANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. B. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF $7,550,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). C.CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL CONTRACT (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). D.CONSIDER APPROVAL OF INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING (NOT A PUBLIC HEARING). Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and City Council members. We’ll start with item 4(a) but before we get to that I just kind of want to give a little time line on the process that we have in regards to the public works building. City Council has directed staff to look into funding for a 6 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 public works building. As part of that process, and as discussion with City Council, we recommended issuing what are called G.O. Capital Improvement Program Bonds. With that in mind we’ve begun the process of putting together the data for the public hearings and eventual issuance of the bonds. Item 4(a) is the first step in that process for issuing the debt for the public works facility. Upon finishing my staff report we’ll open the public hearing for discussion on the actual capital improvement program. The capital improvement program is slightly different than the CIP which you approve later this year. This particular capital improvement program deals specifically with capital improvements to public buildings that we plan on issuing general obligation debt for within the next 5 years. It does not have all of our CIP items in it. The passing of that capital improvement program then therefore allows us to eventually issue what are called G.O. CIP Bonds in the future for any of the facilities that are listed in that program. Passing the actual CIP program does not limit you in the future from adding or deleting items from that CIP program. It’s just setting that CIP program up as of today with the items that staff and council’s anticipating issuing general obligation debt for in the future. After the public hearing is closed and we pass the resolution approving the creation of the CIP plan, along within that resolution is also approval of the, preliminary approval of the issuance of the actual G.O. CIP bonds not to exceed $8.5 million. The second step in the process is to actually, as item 4(b) which would be to have the City Council adopt a resolution providing for the sale of the actual debt itself. That needs to be a separate resolution after the first resolution is passed. The other items on the agenda tonight Paul Oehme will be discussing, are not within the realm of the actual financing of the facility itself. Questions at this point? Mayor Furlong: If I, anybody else? If I may. Mr. Sticha, the item 1(a) which is the capital improvement plan, that’s a 5 year plan that includes all items that we believe we’ll be bonding for over the next 5 years. This year inclusive. Greg Sticha: Issuing general obligation bonds for public facilities, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And maybe you’re going to get into this but that’s two items and it’s for a total of about $8.5-$8.6 million. Greg Sticha: It’s two items. One item is the actual public works facility itself. We have listed the total of the two items correct is $8.5. $7.5 for the public works facility and around $995,000 for the fire station. Third fire station. Mayor Furlong: And if I’m jumping ahead just tell me, but then item (b), which is after we adopt the plan, that authorizes providing for the sale of the bonds only related to the public works facility. Greg Sticha: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Greg Sticha: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: Just for clarification on what we’re… 7 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Okay, go ahead. Greg Sticha: Sticking with item 4(a), there’s a couple changes that I want to note to council. We found two items within the CIP program itself that we are going to be deleting. On page 5, in the first paragraph, starting in the middle of that paragraph approximately. After the comment, and is not centrally located within the city for the most efficient operations. That sentence will be deleted from the CIP program. And then on page 6 of that, of the same document, item number 2 under operating costs of the proposed improvements. That will be stricken from the CIP program as well. Those are not relevant to our situation. In addition, we provided you with a copy of the actual resolution. After our city attorney had a chance to review the resolution late last week, there was one small modification to the resolution. Mr. Knutson recommended adding a sentence at the very bottom of the resolution, and I’ve handed out a copy of the resolution and highlighted the change that he has recommended. The capital improvements have no relationship to the city’s comprehensive plan is the sentence that has been added to that resolution. For comment on that I would let Roger answer any questions you may have on that particular item. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: Mayor. The statute provides that you either have to send this to the Planning Commission for their review, and you should do that if you find it has a relationship with the comprehensive plan. That’s the language of the statute. So I understand that to mean is that if it’s in conflict with your comprehensive plan, then you’d better send it over to Planning Commission to have them iron that out. But if you find it’s not necessary or appropriate to send it to your Planning Commission before you’re acting, then you should insert that sentence because that’s what the statute says you should do. Mayor Furlong: And something that might relate to the comprehensive plan might be a change in land use or. Roger Knutson: Well you know it could be many things. Like if you’re going to do a waste water treatment plant a long way from the end of the sewer pipe, someone would say wait a minute. If you’re putting that way out there, that’s going to have real implications for how the community develops. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Greg Sticha: Okay. I’ll proceed with the rest of the process in regards to financing the facility. After the public hearing is closed and resolution in item 4(a) and 4(b) assumingly are passed, there would be then a 30 day window for our residents to circulate a petition in regards to the bonding for the facility. If that petition would generate more than 522 signatures and come back to council within 30 days, a reverse referendum has essentially taken place and the issuance of the CIP bonds would no longer be an option and we would have to put it out there for a general 8 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 referendum election and issue just plain G.O. debt in regards to bonding for the facility. After that 30 day window has closed and if a petition has not been signed, then we can proceed with the actual sale of the bonds. The current calendar has us reviewing our financial information with our rating agencies in the middle of October. Then coming back for actual award of bid on th the bonds on the October 27 council meeting. At that point we would then receive the funds for the bonding of the facility sometime in late November. That’s kind of the whole map of the process in funding for the facility. At this point I certainly welcome any questions or if there are none I’ll go ahead and open the public hearing in regards to item 4(a). Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Questions for staff on any items 1, or 4(a) through (d) at this point. No? Okay. If that’s the case then we’ll proceed and open the public hearing with regard to consideration and approval of the proposed capital improvement plan for public facilities and preliminary approval of issuance for capital improvement program general obligation bonds. I would invite any interested party to come forward and address the council on this matter. Seeing nobody, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Move to close the public hearing. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: I’ll second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The public hearing to consider approval of a proposed Capital Improvement Program for Public Facilities and preliminary approval for issuance of Capital Improvement Program General Obligation Bonds was closed. Mayor Furlong: With that, let’s bring it back then to council. Anything else Mr. Sticha or do you want to talk anymore about (b)? Greg Sticha: Ah no. We need to pass the resolution in 4(a) before we can talk about 4(b). Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so you want, before we do that let’s make sure we’ve addressed items (c) and (d) as well, just so we get all the questions out on the table. So Mr. Oehme, if that falls onto your shoulders. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Item 4(c) is recommendation to approve an architectural contract with Oertel Architects. About 2 months ago staff solicited proposals to architectural engineering firms for services for the new public works facility. On nd August 22 of this year architectural proposals were received to the city and the city did receive 3 proposals. One from Architectural Alliance, Oertel Architects and TKDA. A selection committee here at city hall reviewed the proposals and rated each firm according to a selection criteria that was established in the proposal of request, and Oertel Architects had the lost cost 9 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 proposal and was rated the highest by the selection committee in terms of their background knowledge in the preparation of the proposal. Staff has called the references for Oertel Architects as well and the firm has been rated highly by others who have worked with them on nd similar public works facility projects… And then again last Monday, September 2 Oertel Architects was interviewed by staff for this project as well. Oertel Architects has designed and built several public works facilities in the last 8 years in all. They’ve worked on over 24 facilities here in the last 8 years. And staff does recommend, if this project moves forward, using Oertel Architects on this project. The recommendations, if council wants to move forward with this project is to direct staff to enter into a contract with Oertel Architects in the amount of $429,485 for these services, and that includes design, construction and designing and construction administration services and close out documents for the project, so that includes everything from schematic design all the way through final completion, as-builts and what have you so. Anytime along the way you know this contract will be written that we can get out of the contract. If for whatever reason we don’t want to move forward with the contract anymore, and it is a time and materials contract that we are proposing so staff would be receiving monthly, by- monthly requests from the architect. We will be reviewing their requests. Hours. Those type of things and checking for accuracy and recommending denial or approval at that time so. At this time I stand for any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilman Litsey: I just had one quick observation more than anything. Why the big difference between Oertel Architects and the other two were considerably higher. Paul Oehme: Yeah, that’s a great question and that’s one of the questions that we asked Oertel Architects when we interviewed them on Monday, and their come back was that we’ve designed you know several, you know over 2 dozen public works buildings here in the last 8 years. We’ve got the background. The expertise for this. We don’t have to go in books and call up vendors and ask them questions and spend time researching different ideas and new techniques. They already have the background and knowledge to move forward on this project so. Councilman Litsey: That’s great. I just, it seemed like a big difference. Paul Oehme: Yeah, it is. Councilman Litsey: It makes sense. Paul Oehme: It’s over 2,000 hours worth of time that we think we can save by using Oertel. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. Oertel is also familiar with this. They helped us with some of the preliminary legwork as we were going through the justification for the public works. I think that also helps them. I think they also understand the scope of the work. That they’re going to get a prepped site ready for footings the day the contractor would come on site. So you know that’s a very cost saving measure when it comes to an architect also because they have to take into account soil borings and soil correction that might be related to this project, and having that site prepped prior to is also a cost savings measure. Oertel, like Paul has mentioned, this is their 10 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 area of expertise is public works buildings and they’ve done a lot of them and they know what is involved with designing and administering construction of a public works facility. I’m excited to have staff, to have the opportunity to recommend them to you and they understand the whole scope. From cranes to the systems for maintaining the thickness of concrete. They’ve got a tight spec and a good spec to bid out this project so, as Paul stated we recommend Oertel and the price that is one that is not to exceed the dollar amount that they’re proposing so there is some flex of about $40,000 in there that they would have to justify that additional $40,000 for that to occur. Mayor Furlong: So I guess to clarify that, because that was one of my questions. Mr. Oehme you mentioned that it’s time and materials but it’s also not to exceed. Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Alright. You were able to check references for this one as well? Paul Oehme: Yes. I’ve checked several cities, communities that they’ve worked with in the past and most recently the one, the public works building that they designed and helped construct in Waconia and the city manager highly recommends them. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions on this item at this time? Okay. Why don’t we go ahead and talk about item 4(d) as well. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. This item is an interim use permit application request to work the site. Removing poor soils from the site and bringing in potentially new structural fill in the amount of approximately 15,000 cubic yards to prep the site for a future public works facility. nd The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 2 to review the IUP and the Planning Commission had no issues or concerns with the proposed project. The drawing here, I’ll briefly show you is the proposed site on the public works facility. It’s off of Park Place which is north of Park Road and south of Trunk Highway 5. Audubon Road is right here. So it’s approximately 10 acres of land that potentially will be needed for the future public works facility, but about only 2/3 of the property right now is recommended to be included in the IUP for grading at this time. We discovered that there are some additional wetlands that weren’t originally on our drawings or on our city maps so we need to address those before we can potentially redevelop the site at this time. So staff and Planning Commission recommended adoption and the recommendations are on page 7 and 8 of your package so. The drawing that was included in your packet has been updated with all of the recommended contingencies or the recommendations that were discussed at the Planning Commission have been updated on this drawing so we are in full compliance and concur with the recommendations that are included in the package. Mayor Furlong: This item did go through the Planning Commission, is that correct? Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: And Planning Commission had approval, recommended approval? 11 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. As we’re going through all these four items it occurs to me now, perhaps taking a step back, while the City Council and staff have been working on our options relating to public works facilities, those watching at home or in the audience maybe haven’t had a chance of how we’ve gotten here. It’s been an item that we’ve been talking about for a number of months. We’ve evaluated a number of alternatives. I know you don’t have any presentation prepared Mr. Oehme, but maybe you could just give a quick executive summary on what brought us to today with all these different four items and bonding and correcting soils and architects and such like that. Paul Oehme: Yep, absolutely. This discussion actually at a staff level has been going on since 2006, and actually prior to that in 1990 a small addition to the public works, existing public works building was proposed at that time but we never, was never built upon. Staff had drafted in 2007 a feasibility study, a needs study for the public works, and that includes a park and maintenance departments as well. Utilities is included and streets and fleet maintenance. And the recommendation that came out of that report was to, well actually there’s four options that were looked at. One was to expand upon the existing site. The existing site is only about 5 acres of property and the existing building structures are only about 24,000 square feet of space. Currently the facility is over capacity. Thus the need for the new public works facility. It’s kind of a mess out there. There’s, we have to park vehicles outside right now which, especially in the wintertime is very problematic. Our lifts are very old. Our roof leaks. They’re over capacity. The building originally was built in 1980 and had one addition to it since then, but the feasibility study that we looked at justified that with the current fleet size and the amount of growth that we are expecting here in the city up until 2030, we couldn’t recommend adding onto that facility knowing that you know, if we built an addition onto the existing facility. One, we wouldn’t have room to begin with for current needs. And then two, we just don’t have the space available to plan for future growth as well. So that was one option that we looked at. Another couple options we looked at, was it 3 or 4 existing facilities in the city. Warehouse type facilities and trying to retrofit a warehouse facility to a public works application, and what we found was it’s very difficult and costly to make those type of transitions from one type of use to a facility that would need vehicles to run in and out with exhaust and everything. HVAC is a problem. You know typically where we’re running bigger trucks, bigger loaders and the warehouse type facilities are just not set up for those type of applications so cost wise if we were to have to buy a facility and make the improvements necessary for a public works facility, it just didn’t pan out for us. The facilities that we looked at. So we do have this site that’s available that the city currently owns. It’s about, I think it was 24 acres, but only about 10 of it is developable. The site currently is used for, we call it a bone yard to stockpile material with brush, tree limbs, dirt piles, sealcoat aggregate we stock there on occasion. And when we looked at this site, looked at what our needs, where currently and into the future, this site came out as our best option for a new facility and going through the process in 2007 and this year with the council, that’s how we came to this recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Appreciate the summary. Any questions then with regard to the interim use permit for the grading. At this point. Okay. Alright. At this point then we’ve 12 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 discussed or received staff’s reports on each of the items. 4(a) through (d) for a variety of purposes. Let’s take these as individual motions rather than a single motion, even though based on the staff report a simple majority is required for each item to approve. So are there any other questions at this point? Otherwise is there a motion for item 4(a)? Councilman McDonald: Yes Your Honor. I’ll make a motion for item 4(a). I would make the following motion. The City Council adopts a resolution approving the creation of a CIP plan and adoption of a resolution giving preliminary approval of issuance of General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, not to exceed $8.5 million from 2008 to 2012. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion? Resolution #2008-46A: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution approving the creation of a CIP plan and adoption of a resolution giving preliminary approval of issuance of General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, not to exceed $8.5 million from 2008 to 2012. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Let’s move on now then to item 4(b). Are there any questions on this item? If not, is there a motion? Councilman McDonald: I’ll make a motion on this one also Your Honor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman McDonald: I make the following motion. The City Council adopts a resolution providing for the sale of $7,550,000 of General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any, is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on this motion? Resolution #2008-47: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution providing for the sale of $7,550,000 of General Obligation Capital Improvement Bonds. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Move now to item 4(c). 13 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, just on those first two items. The suggested changes that staff proposed prior to were included in those motions? Mayor Furlong: That’s my understanding. Does anybody not have that understanding? Councilman Litsey: That’s my understanding. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Thank you. 4(c) then. Is there any questions on this? If not, is there a motion? Councilman McDonald: Okay, I’ll make the motion for 4(c) also Your Honor. I would make the following motion. The City Council is recommended to direct staff to enter into an architectural contract with Oertel Architects, Ltd. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on this motion? Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council direct staff to enter into an architectural contract with Oertel Architects, Ltd. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails 4-0. And the last item, item 4(d). Councilman Litsey: Sure I’ll do it. Mayor Furlong: Might as well get in the minutes. Councilman Litsey: You were on a roll but, don’t want to interrupt the flow here but Chanhassen City Council approves an Interim Use Permit to permit up to 15,000 cubic yards of fill, plans prepared by the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department dated August 4, 2008, subject to conditions 1 through 18 and adopting of the attached Findings of Fact. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any discussion on this item? Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves an Interim Use Permit to permit up to 15,000 cubic yards of fill, plans prepared by the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department dated August 4, 2008 and adopts the attached Findings of Fact, subject to the following conditions: 14 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 1.A demolition permit is required for the removal of any structure(s). 2.If future construction in this area is anticipated, these soils must be engineered for the intended structural loads and their placement must be properly compacted and tested as required by such soil engineering. A report, verifying placement, compaction and soil suitability, from the testing agency will be required before building permits will be issued. 3.Install tree protection fencing at grading limits on north, where applicable, and west sides prior to grading. 4.Clearing limits shall be inspected by the Environmental Resources Specialist prior to any tree removal. 5.Wetland boundary, as field identified, needs to be shown on the drawing. 6.Grading limits need to be modified to avoid impacts to the revised wetland boundary. 7.Category 2 erosion control blanket needs to be shown on the slope in the northeast corner of the property. 8.All exposed soil areas must be stabilized within seven (7) days after the construction activity in that portion has temporarily or permanently ceased. 9.All disturbed areas shall be seeded with Mn/DOT Mixture 150 at 40 lbs/acre and mulched with Type 2 mulch disc-anchored at 2 tons/acre upon completion of grading for the interim use permit. 10.The grading plan should be adjusted so that the drainage areas will not be altered, otherwise drainage calculations are required. 11.The existing sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer and drainage and utility easements must be shown on the plan. 12.The grading limits in the northeast corner of Lot 6 must be shifted in order to maintain minimum 7.5 feet of cover over the watermain. 13.Provide additional information to the Metropolitan Council in order to determine the maximum extent of grading allowed over the sanitary sewer. 14.Abide by the Metropolitan Council’s conditions of approval, if any. 15.Permitted hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with no work permitted on Sunday or legal holidays. 15 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 16.The interim use permit will expire one year from the date of City Council approval. The permit may be renewed on an annual basis subject to City Council approval. Request for an extension must be submitted 45 days prior to the expiration date. 17.All permits must be acquired prior to grading, including but not limited to a watershed district permit, and a Minnesota Pollution Control NPDES stormwater permit. A stormwater pollution prevention plan must be submitted to the City for review by Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. 18.The grading plan must be signed by an engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for everyone involved. There’s a lot of work ahead of us but this is something that we’re going to need to pursue to support our growth and provide quality city services so thank you for everyone involved. 2009 BUDGET: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2009 PRELIMINARY LEVY. th Greg Sticha: Thanks again Mayor. At our August 28 work session staff reviewed the general fund budget and preliminary levy with City Council, and discussions were made about the setting of preliminary levy this evening. One of the requests that the City Council had made at that meeting was shifting the market value homestead credit out of the general fund and into the revolving assessment construction fund and we have done so with these documents. That revenue has now been shifted to the revolving assessment construction fund as per your request. A couple other items I just want to kind of note on and review, getting people caught up from our last work session meeting. Just a reminder that for 2009 the State legislature has put levy limits into place. In the staff memo I have listed the maximum increase in levy that we would be allowed by state law, and the amount that the proposed preliminary levy presented to you tonight. We are increasing by, a difference is about $36,000 between that and the maximum allowed by the legislature. It should be noted that even if we do not levy up to the maximum amount allowed by the legislature this year, we can capture that amount in future years. I confirmed that with the Department of Revenue. We are allowed to capture that difference in future years if we wish to do so. That’s currently in the state law. As with anything in the legislature, they could certainly change that law and take that provision away from us but currently within the law it does provide for us to capture the difference between what we do levy this year and what the levy limit is. I would also like to just take a quick opportunity to kind of review some of the budget numbers that have been presented to you in the previous work session meetings but kind of get people caught up at home as to what the budget includes for 2009. The preliminary budget for the general fund shows an increase of approximately $640,000 in expenditures. Of that increase, nearly $600,000 of the increase is for increased wages and benefits for employees in the general fund, an increase in the police services contract, and about $170,000 for increased, anticipated increase in utility and fuel costs to the city that we are planning for 2009. The budget does include 1.25 FTE police officers for next year, and all other services to remain the same based on the preliminary budget that is presented before you this 16 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 evening. Within my memo I’ve also attached a spread sheet that shows the tax rate for the City of Chanhassen the last 5 years. Just of note, the City’s tax rate has decreased by 40% over the last 5 years, and that’s something to certainly be proud of. Based on this preliminary levy, that tax rate should remain fairly close to the current tax rate for 2008. It might be a few tenths or hundredths of a point lower or higher depending on what we set the final levy at but it should, the final tax rate should be pretty close to the number for the final tax rate for 2008. Also included in that worksheet is a list of our total levy dollars that we’ve levied each of the last 6 years. Kind of an interesting note there. Over the past 6 years we’ve increased our levy on average, if you take from 2003 to 2009, an average of about 2.95% per year over the last 6 years. That’s I think another thing to be certainly very proud of over that time to keep the levy at such a low percentage number. I think there are very few communities who can probably brag as to having achieved the same things that we have here in Chanhassen so. With that information. Todd Gerhardt: Greg, before you move onto the next, can you just clarify what was written in the paper this last week in the Villager. Greg Sticha: Sure. Todd Gerhardt: You know the mistake that was made in there. Greg Sticha: Yep. There was one item within the Villager that a number got pulled from a wrong spot. The total levy that was noted in the paper for 2009 is the $10.1 million, but the paper had pulled a number from the staff report of what I guess they thought was the total levy from the previous year was actually the total general fund expenditure number from the previous year. The actual total levy from the previous year was $9.8 million. The difference between the final levy of last year and this preliminary levy is 3.45% or I think it’s just over $339,000 or so. Yep. $339,000 so, and that’s an increase of 3.45%. Mayor Furlong: And I guess can you clarify that because the schedule that showed your tax rates and your total tax levy schedule in the staff report shows. Greg Sticha: Yeah, the number in there is 3.25% but that’s because I made a transposition error in that spread sheet under 2008. That should be $9,854,965 instead of 695. So the actual number is 3.45%. Mayor Furlong: 965 so $300 difference? Greg Sticha: Yep. $9,854,965. No, $9,834,965 is the number that’s the 2008 on that spread sheet should be. And I typed in $9,854,695. Councilman Litsey: So for 2009 the correct percentage should be 3.4. Greg Sticha: 3.45%. Mayor Furlong: Can I ask a question? Since we’re on this sheet right now for the total tax levy. You noted that the average over the past 6 years is 2, just under 3%. 2.95% average annual 17 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 increase. In 2005 the levy increase was 9.3%. Now I don’t recall if you were on staff at this time but I believe that was the year Mr. Gerhardt was it not, that the downtown TIF district came back onto the tax rolls? Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct. Mayor Furlong: And had the, if I recall correctly, the total tax capacity of that coming back on, we did not levy the entire amount onto the tax. Those were a proportion. I want to say it was somewhere around 60-70%. About 2/3. Maybe it was a little bit more or less but we did not. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, you saw a rate decrease of almost a little over 5%. Mayor Furlong: Right. And that’s what’s driving the tax rate decrease up above. Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So while in one year there was a 9.3% increase, the actual because of that TIF district coming back onto the tax rolls. Greg Sticha: Tax rate decrease. Mayor Furlong: There was still a tax rate decrease because the effective growth in the tax base associated with that TIF district coming back on was double digits. Was much more than the 9.3%. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and also in that tax levy increase there were numerous items that the council took action on that saved the city money long term. Before we used to bond for our equipment purchasing. We levied straight levy dollars for our equipment purchasing that saved us interest and bonding costs over a period of time that you would sell those certificates. We also added a police officer that year so some of the delayed law enforcement services that we had at that time were made up. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Sticha, please continue. Greg Sticha: Well that for the most part I guess wraps up my presentation. I certainly would take any questions on the preliminary levy and budget. The preliminary levy that we have presented to you tonight would be for a total of $10,174,565 with total general fund expenditures of $9,959,100 for 2009. And I guess I’ll just take any questions at this point. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Sticha or Mr. Gerhardt, or others? Councilman McDonald: If I could, I have just one question. Again you have to apologize because I’m kind of new at all this so I’m trying to figure it out myself but the preliminary numbers that we approve tonight are not the final numbers because we’re still going through the process, is that correct? 18 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Greg Sticha: That is correct. This evening you’re just setting a preliminary levy and that amount th needs to be given to the county by September 15. That’s what they base the Truth in Taxation statements on when they send those out here in a couple months so we’re setting a preliminary levy for an amount not to exceed essentially. Between now and the final levy, which will be set th December 8, you can only come down from this number that we’re setting this evening. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Couple questions just to clarify information that’s in the staff report and some other things that we’ve talked about. The, we talked about growth in the tax base just with the TIF district with that question I asked earlier. Real growth in the tax base. Growth in the tax base based upon new construction, remodeling. This last year that was just under 2.5%. Greg Sticha: 2.4%, correct. Mayor Furlong: 2.4%? Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And what was the inflationary growth at our tax base based upon assessed values increasing, even though there was no, I want to say it was approximately zero. Greg Sticha: It was right around zero, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And then the other question I had in the, in the staff report immediately following I believe the resolution. Let me get to that page. There were details on all the expense categories but then there was also on the revenue side, can you find that? It’s the 2009 budget revenue schedule. Greg Sticha: Okay. Mayor Furlong: If you have that. There are four columns on here. The 2007 actual. Our original budget for 2008. It then says projected 2008, and then preliminary budget for 2009. There wasn’t a, or I didn’t see and maybe it’s in here and if it is you can point me to it. These two pages, these next two pages talk about or show the revenue side only. Not just tax levy but other revenue that the city receives. Please explain if you would the 2008 budget column versus the 2008 projected column. Greg Sticha: The 2008 budget column for all of the line items is the same as the 2008 projected. Staff did make two minor adjustments. We’re projected for 2008 the receiving of $120,000 market value homestead credit. At this point it is in the state legislature law and the statutes that we will receive the market value homestead credit and we are supposed to get those funds in December of this year. Barring a special session between now and then and the removal of the provision within the law, it is staff’s full anticipation that we will receive that, $120,000 yet this year. The other change we made was to the allowance for delinquent taxes to adjust that amount 19 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 to what we have been seeing historically in the past few years. We moved that number downward. Our delinquencies have not been as significant as we’ve been budgeting for in previous years. Mayor Furlong: And the net effect of that on the revenue side then of the budget, the budget column, am I correct to say, that was what the council approved last December? Greg Sticha: Correct. The budget, the 2008 budget column is what was approved by council last December. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and we haven’t made any, to my knowledge, we haven’t made any budget amendments to changes to that. To that budget. Greg Sticha: That’s just, that column is just basically staff’s projection of what we’re seeing for revenues for 2008. Mayor Furlong: That’s the second column. Greg Sticha: The projected column, yep. Mayor Furlong: and that shows a net increase over the budget of about $220,000. Greg Sticha: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Now if we did a comparable schedule for expenses, has there been any change in the budget in expenses overall? Now there may be some in one line item or another, but overall has there been any changes in the 2008 budget? Greg Sticha: For the most part budget expenditures for 2008 are tracking right on budget with the one exception being fuel costs for 2008 is going to end up being over what we budgeted for 2008. We have not made an amendment to that budget at this point. We’re hoping to, between now and year end, find other costs to offset that line item and the hope would be to not actually have to budget a decrease, or excuse me, an increase for that expenditure. Rather find other costs within the budget to offset that increase between now and then. Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, Mr. Gerhardt. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, for the past 7 years we’ve given you a balance budget at the end of the year and even exceeding that with surplus for the past 7 years. I expect again this year to have a surplus budget back to you. And those surplus dollars at the end of the year have been allocated to your reserve funds and also to pavement management as we explained during the recent Laredo reconstruction project. Explained that those excess funds go back into the revolving assessment fund. That’s what helps keep that project in the black. Mayor Furlong: And thank you and I guess that’s the, where I’m trying to understand the information that’s been presented. At this point we expect our revenues to come in about 20 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 $220,000 higher than what was originally budgeted. And even while fuel expenses and energy costs might be higher, we expect that there are other expense categories that are running below budget of a comparable amount. So our overall expense budget at this point is no change. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, as we get to November and December, you know department heads will sit down and if we’re over budget, you know we’ll look at some one time things that we can put off to make sure those expenditures do not exceed the budget. And you will have occasion where some departments will go over due to you know gasoline costs or whatever, but some other departments may be under and we look for some one time items to make sure that that balances. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Greg Sticha: So essentially we are projecting at this point a small surplus in the general fund budget. Mayor Furlong: Of that $220,000. Greg Sticha: Of the $220,000. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you. Appreciate that clarifying information. Any other questions at this point for staff? Okay. We’ve been talking about this at a number of our work sessions and again this evening. As was pointed out, this is not a final budget for the year but a preliminary levy. I’d be interested in comments from members of the City Council. Mr. Litsey, your thoughts? Councilman Litsey: Yeah, I’d be happy to start out. I too, I appreciate all the time and effort that’s gone into this. Preparation of this budget by staff and the work at the council through their work sessions and so forth. I mean it’s obviously a little bit of a struggle with the economy the way it is and housing values and so forth but I think the important thing is, in looking at the preliminary levy is minimal increase of a few bucks per household if it would go through, or stay this way and we’re still going to be, I mean we’re still in the budget process so we’re going to be looking for ways to clean it out even more so we’re just establishing a benchmark that we can’t exceed but we can certainly look for more cost savings to bring it down perhaps even more. But it does preserve services. The things that, the goals that we’ve set out to accomplish. I like the fact that we did that shift in the market value homestead credits so there’s no risk to the general fund now. I think that was a good accounting change. I was also a little concerned with levy limits. If we don’t levy the maximum then are we losing the benefit of that? Not that I want to necessarily go back and recapture that but if something came up where unforeseen circumstances where we need to have that kind of revenue available to us, we can now, at least the way the law currently exists, that we can go back and recapture that even if we don’t levy to the maximum. So I very much support this preliminary levy with the understanding, and I think that is the understanding, not to speak for everyone else, that we will continue to work hard between now and the time we set the final levy to look for further cost savings. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts, comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom. 21 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sure, I’ll jump in and I agree with everything that Councilman Litsey said. I think that anyone listening to this presentation tonight can clearly see that city staff and I think the council now and prior councils have been fiscally conservative. Watching where the money goes and how it’s spent while delivering those services our residents are paying for, and I think we do it on, with high quality services. And that being said, 4 years ago I was elected and we were really in different times. I mean we had a strong economy. I think our market values in our houses were strong and stable. And the economy overall I think was doing really well and now we move ahead 4 years and I think we’re in a different time where our housing values aren’t as steady. The economy isn’t as reliable as it used to be and because of that, you know I think sometimes government and business need to kind of work the same way. If you own a business and times are tough, you strap up your belt a little bit and you tighten, you figure out where you can control spending and reduce costs, and I think you know this year we’re going to have that challenge of controlling costs and tightening our belts and figuring out ways to alleviate the pressure we’re feeling from the economy while still delivering those services that we always have and doing it in the same manner. I guess I’m thinking that I’d like to start, instead of with a 3.45 increase, I’d like to start at 3 without giving up any of the obligations we’ve already made to public safety and any of those other things, like I said that our residents are relying and counting on us to provide for them. I know it’s not going to be an easy task but I think in the past you know councils have rolled up their sleeves and city staff has also and we have figured out a way to make it work, and so while it’s not a comfortable thing to be doing, I think it’s something we owe our residents to look into. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Well thank you very much and I guess first of all I am new to this entire process but I’ve run some rather big budgets in my lifetime and do own a small business so it’s very interesting to me to see the city come into these problems we’ve had with excess costs. You know fuel and things that you try to plan for but something else comes along and it, you know it becomes a lot worst than what you expected. And my hat’s off to staff in the fact that you have looked for ways to trim cost to reduce spending to live within the budget, and I think you’ve done a very good job doing all of that. And one of the reasons tonight you know we don’t raise a lot of questions about the public works facility and the budget and everything is that a lot of work has gone into this and I feel very knowledgeable as to what these items are. Why we’re spending the money. What the alternatives are. We’ve looked at a lot of different choices in all of this and constantly weighed what is the benefit of any expenditure to the city. You know is it in the City’s best interest? Does it fit our plan? And I think that we have done that. One of my, the question, the reason I had asked about the, where are we at as far as the budget limit we’re setting tonight. That becomes a goal I think for us. I would accept Councilwoman Tjornhom’s challenge to get it down to 3%. I think that’s something that we’re working as a council and also with staff that we can do that. I do understand that times are very difficult at this point and that we do need to be very I think judicious in the way that we spend the public’s money. I have all kinds of confidence in the staff and again the council in order to do that just because you know only being on the council for 3-4 months, we do seem to have that as a goal. We don’t just come in and decide we’re going to spend money. We do a very good 22 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 job I think of making sure of why we spend the money so I’m comfortable with this budget and I think it’s very workable and I think we can get it down to the 3%. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess some thoughts as we look at the budgeting process, and I appreciate comments from my fellow members of the council. One of the over riding goals is to make sure that we provide enough funds to the city to meet the needs to provide those necessary government services that we’re in charge to provide and our residents and businesses expect us to do so. Last year the, we set up and over the years we’ve set up a number of different policies and priorities as council and working in conjunction with our residents and businesses and staff to see those through. To grow our city the way we want to see it. To provide for today while planning for tomorrow. That’s the theme that we work under and that’s what we continue to do and the budget process is really the outgrowth of a number of long term planning tools and processes and activities that we undertake. I don’t know if other cities get involved with as much of the planning, long term planning from a financial plan as well as others as we do, but clearly it makes it, these processes a little more easier. That being said, while it’s our goal to provide the necessary government services, we also have to balance that with other policies and one of those main policies is our tax policy. As we heard earlier this evening the city tax rate, which is the amount of city property taxes that are paid per $1,000 of value in someone’s assessed value for their home or property has dropped in 2003 from over 39% down to under 24%. It’s a very noticeable drop. It’s a planned drop. It’s a result really of the policy that we’ve had the last few years of limiting the tax levy increase, the growth in the property tax levy to the real growth in the tax base. The difference between new construction or remodeling, real improvement in value to property rather than just assessed value. Councilwoman Tjornhom mentioned that 4 years ago we were in different times, and indeed we were. I think earlier tonight we heard that our inflationary value or the value, average value of homes didn’t change this last year. 4 years ago we were looking at double digit increases on the inflationary side. High single digits. 7, 8, 9, 10 percent or more that people were seeing their home value increase from assessed standpoint, even without making any improvements to it. Our real growth in our tax base has been right around that 2%, 3%, up and down and that’s where we’ve limited our levy growth in the past and that’s been our tax policy. This year the proposal in front of us from staff, the recommendation is a 3.45% increase. The real growth in the tax base was 2.4% so it’s already about a 100 basis points or a percentage point above that real growth on a preliminary basis. We can go down from the preliminary. It’s my expectation, and I’ve shared this with Mr. Gerhardt and I think in our conversation we think it’s an achievable goal, to get our final levy in December down to that 2.45%. Down to that real growth. Continue that. We may not do that tonight because we’re in the budget process, and we want to make sure that there is some flexibility. We’ve talked about that. That being said I think, as I hear the 3% being offered by Councilwoman Tjornhom tonight rather than 3.45, that difference in 4 to 5 tenths of 1 percent is about $40,000 to $50,000. We’re working with a $10 million budget. It’s $40,000 to $50,000 and that’s why I was so interested in where we’re tracking this year with our current budget. Our current budget right now, we’re projecting to run a surplus of about $220,000 for the year, or about 4 times the difference there of the proposed reduction in the preliminary levy, and I think that gives me some comfort to support the 3%. The key here though is we have to make sure we still provide good quality services. Included in this budget, and I would expect it to be there in December, is to continue to follow the commitment to the 3 year plan that we put forth with regard to public safety officers. That was something that we discussed as a council. That’s important. We’re in the middle of 23 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 that plan. I know we’ll be talking about that more in detail and get an update on that but barring some changes that I’m not anticipating, you know I certainly expect that we will continue to make our investments in public safety. We’ll continue to make our investments as, which was a policy commitment that we made last year with regard to setting aside funds for the roads to be upgraded and reconstructed in our city. We continue to grow. We continue to have needs for roads and transportation and I expect us to be able to do that. Bottom line is, I think the, by going with the 3% and eventually down to the 2.4-2.5% where I’d like to see us end up in a few months, is we have in our budget some uncontrollable costs. Fuel and energy is probably one of the largest uncontrollable costs that we have. But just like businesses need to absorb those as best they can by managing the controllable costs, and I think that will be our challenge as a council and city staff to do going forward here in the next few months to look for opportunities to finalize some of the numbers that are still a little bit gray, simply because we don’t have the information. To see how we can get there. What we need to do with this so there’s been a lot of work and effort here. We want to make sure that we provide some flexibility but I think we need to look at the whole picture and I think a 3% levy increase is a, provides flexibility not only from an increase standpoint but also in combination with our, how we’re tracking this year. With our now projected surplus this year which originally we approved a balanced budget. I believe that’s a supportable position. I guess my question to Mr. Gerhardt and Mr. Sticha, if you see any significant concerns with a 3% preliminary levy with regard to our ability to continue to provide the public services in next year’s budget. Todd Gerhardt: I wouldn’t say significant. I mean this is kind of a practice we’ve had over the years is to have the preliminary levy a little higher than the final levy to allow us 3-4 months to kind of see what might happen, and staff is already preparing a list to present to the City Council for your consideration and you know I would think that there’s at least $50,000 that we could find from that list that would still allow us to provide quality services to the residents, preserve law enforcement, and the other expenditures as proposed to the City Council. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And I think that $50,000 will get us to that 3% and again I think it’s my sense, my, and I think the sense from others here is if, you know to work towards that 2.4. Work towards that being consistent tax policies we’ve had in the past and so I think at that point, I don’t know if there’s other discussion on this. Any other thoughts? Mr. Litsey. Councilman Litsey: Well, I think that’s a good goal for us to work towards. I don’t think it’s prudent at this stage of the process, because we’re in a budget process and we haven’t completed that yet and this is just that. A preliminary tax levy so it’s to give us a little room to look further down the road as we proceed through this process to see if things might change up or down. Hopefully down in terms of cost and so forth. Finding real savings. But I, it’d be difficult for me not to go with staff’s recommendation going into this process because we’ve done a lot of hard work getting it to this point. And really to put it into context, if this levy that was the preliminary levy that was proposed tonight were to go through, on a $330,000 home, we’re talking $4 to $7 increase for the entire year to maintain services as they are to keep the city operating as is and again I have no problem working towards a smaller number down the road but I think we’re jumping to a lower number before we have all the information that we need to make that decision. I think we’ve made a good start. Everyone’s worked really hard to get to this point. I hope we can get to that benchmark that’s been raised here if it’s prudent. If it’s not, 24 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 I don’t know too many people are going to say a couple cups of coffee a year they’d go without wouldn’t be worth it to maintain services the way they are so, let’s continue the process. Let’s work hard to get to these benchmarks. If we can’t, then let’s state the reasons and if we want to keep going down that road, then what services are we going to do without or what’s going to be delayed? I like the fact that the last few years we’ve used some of that surplus to put into the road improvements. I think there’s still need there for some additional money to go into that so I hate to say well we’re going to have some savings this year but a minimal surplus isn’t that we wouldn’t use that in some way to offset the budget for next year which then will come back to haunt you the following year if you don’t have those surpluses available so, I like to look at this as an evolving process. A budget process. Quite frankly I think the one that’s being proposed maybe is a little too lean too but I’m willing to support what’s before us but nothing below that at this point. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know Councilman Litsey brings up some good points. He has experience with budgets with what he does and I understand his concerns. I guess I just feel confident that we can reach our goals that we talked about tonight and that 3% is a good place to start. There’s no way I would ever compromise public safety. We’ve made a commitment to that and I feel strongly in following through with all of those commitments. We’ve made commitments to roads. We’ve made commitments to our parks and trails. We’ve made commitments to our residents to provide them with a lifestyle they enjoy. That we all enjoy and I think that we can still do that starting out with a budget that’s 3% instead of 3.45. And so that’s kind of where I’m coming from. Councilman Litsey: Maybe just one last comment I’ll make if I could. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: I just don’t want to have an arbitrary number. I look at this as a number that we came up with through a process and I don’t want to change that number until I can put it to figures. Put it to things that make sense. Just to say we’ll go from 3.45 down to 3. Well what are we basing that on? We’re basing it on the hope that we can find those things in the budget, and I hope we can too but I don’t want to you know do that before I know we, that those are real things that make sense and aren’t going to compromise some of the things that we as a city desire in terms of services that we’ve been providing and so while I very much agree with that, you know working hard towards that, I just don’t want to kind of take an arbitrary number and say this is where we should start. I want to base it on real numbers that we as a council and we as staff have worked really hard to come up with. I just don’t want to throw that out the window now and say well now it’s starting at 3 after we’ve done all this work. We’ve come up with this as a, through work sessions and so forth, as the starting point in this process as we moved through the levy certification process so I just, I just don’t feel comfortable with doing that. Councilman McDonald: Well I guess the thing is, I’m not sure that we’re proposing that we put a 3% on this. I think what we’re saying is that we need to agree to a goal and to continue to look at this as we already have, and as I’ve said, you know I express a lot of confidence in staff’s 25 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 ability to continue looking at this budget, as I have a lot of confident in our ability to kind of go through and scrutinize each one of these line items. I mean we have done quite the job at this point to get it down to where it is at. I too would not agree upon an arbitrary number. That is not the way you do budgets. You go through it line item by line item and you justify up or down why you’re spending the money. That is what we’re doing. But again, as our goal I am perfectly comfortable with saying I will pledge to work to get it down to 3% and if the Mayor thinks we can go below that, then I think that that’s good. That’s part of our job as council people to do those kind of things and I think we are doing that so maybe that was a misconception but no, we’re not trying to put a motion on the table to say let’s start at 3% and let’s just arbitrarily put this number there. I think the point is, is that there is a lot of confidence in this number. We all have a lot of confidence in it. We do understand the goals of providing city services that have been budgeted and planned for and we’re all working very hard towards that goal so I think all this is just you know kind of a pledge by council to say that we’re not done with this. You know the number is what it is today because again there is the certification process and it does mandate by certain dates that we do certain things and at this point this is probably the best budget that we can come up with. But it does not mean that we are done with the budget either and so we will continue to work on this and I think all we’re saying is, is that we need to continue to push it down and there seems to be consensus to at least look at doing that. Councilman Litsey: Well I agree with that. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me. Councilman Litsey: Perhaps I heard it differently. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I guess clarification. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I need to clarify that too. I’m sorry Councilman McDonald. I suggested that we move down from the 3.4 number to 3% and start there and then as a goal work down and see where we can come to some meetings of the mind and I think normally, this is a new budget process for me where we don’t have options A, B and C. Usually we start with the high option. The inbetween option, which is usually what I do vote for so staff does have some wiggle room and we can all have some time to figure out you know where we’re headed and how we can make sure our budget, that we meet our goals for our budget. And then of course there’s that rock bottom number. And so I guess I’m just making my own agenda here and deciding that 3% is kind of that middle number for me and I, like I said, I feel comfortable starting there and then reviewing things and going from there. And like I said, when I was elected 4 years ago we were in different times. The whole city, I think families were experiencing different times and so because of that I think I feel at least personally obligated to make sure that I’ve done my part in making sure as a council person that I did everything I can to reduce costs and spending in city government. Mayor Furlong: And so to clarify then Councilwoman Tjornhom, what I understood based on your comments is that you’d be proposing to go forward with a preliminary levy this evening of a 3% increase. 26 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Over last year. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So I think that, so. And that was my understanding. I think from an arbitrary nature, I guess I would not agree with that. I think it again from a, knowing the amount of work that’s gone into this point of the numbers. We know that there is a lot of rounding taking place. That these are some estimates. They’re based upon history as well as this year, but at the same time, out of the $10 million overall levy, and approximately the same size general fund, I don’t think it’s necessarily arbitrary to make the suggestion that the numbers that are being proposed, as I understood them, were just that. They were the best guess at this time but that, you know in terms of you know we also know that there are hard numbers of what our tax base grew at. That’s not arbitrary as well. I think moving towards that and moving towards that this evening is something we can do. I have confidence that we can get there, maybe because I’ve been through it and I’ve seen how these numbers tend to solidify over the coming months and I think you know with Mr. Gerhardt this evening’s comments, that they’ve already identified or they’ve been working on this for the last couple weeks since we met last in work session. So I don’t necessarily think it’s arbitrary. I do think that it is moving us in the direction that I’d like to see us go, and it’s telling the residents that we’re, and our businesses too. All our taxpayers that we recognize that times are different this year than they have been in the past. That just as businesses and individuals are experiencing higher cost with fuel and with energy, so are we. But we’re not taking the position, or I would propose that the council not take the position that we’re just going to you know, based on what we have right now, just say well this is what our costs are so we’ll increase it. I’d like to see us move to the 3%. That’s what I heard Councilwoman Tjornhom say and move there this evening and I think that is still prudent. It is still within that, I’m confident that we can provide the necessary services. I don’t see us in a risk of not providing the services that our residents have come to expect again based, perhaps based upon have been through this a few more times, I’m confident that we can get there and I don’t think we’re putting unnecessary risk on the city at all. Especially because of where we’re tracking currently this year. We can’t ignore the fact that staff’s best estimate at this point is an over $200,000 surplus this year. Some of that money, and we’ve had surpluses the last few years. That money goes to cover our cash management as well as money that is not available or designated by the council to our roads so I think we’ll be in a similar position at the end of this year as we have been in the past. Maybe not with the same dollar amounts, because of the increase in cost for fuel and energy, but certainly from a process standpoint. So that. Councilman Litsey: Well let me just say that, you know from a budgeting standpoint, this is what I do full time as part of my responsibilities in my full time job, managing million dollar budgets, that there’s a process and I guess I’m disappointed in the fact that we worked through a process to get to this point. Working with staff to come up with what’s before us tonight. If that wasn’t comfortable then I wish we would have brought that out at work sessions to say you know, well then it should have come in at 3% I guess and we should have shown hard numbers as to how we can make that work. What I look at is, I think we’re all looking to achieve the same goals here. It’s just that at what point do we lock ourselves in and even with the 27 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 anticipated perhaps surpluses in this year’s budget, we’ll have better numbers. We’ll be able to get our arms around that better further on in the year. So we’re not, all we’re doing is abiding by a process that we’re obligated to do which is to set a preliminary levy early in the budget cycle with the understanding we’re going to work beyond that for a number of months to see where we can go. But why discard where we’ve gotten to to this point and say, I mean I do look at it as arbitrary at this point because we don’t have anything to specifically tie it to. Down the road if we can tie it specifically, you know great. But even this, I don’t see any kind of tax revolt when you’re talking a few bucks more a year, if we were even to keep it at this level. I think people understand. Yes, they’re tough times but you know they also want services that local government provides and so to do that for a few bucks more, or you know nine, even if we keep it the way it is, I don’t see people are going to be upset about that. I just, I look at it as a process. I don’t think we’re following the process the way we should. I think we’re all looking to achieve the same thing. I respect the hard work that’s gone into this budget process by both council and staff. I’m not discounting that. I think everyone’s working hard to do justice to this process but I just think that we’re making a reduction before we know all the information. Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts, comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom, anything else? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I started this didn’t I? Councilman Litsey: That’s okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’ve got to look down and apologize because I can hear the frustration and that’s certainly not my intent tonight to just suddenly change what we worked hard on. It just has you know, sometimes you go back and you chew on an issue for a while and you come up with a thought and I think that’s just where I am tonight. Is that I certainly am one that once I say something, I try to stick to my word and this is just one of those times where I just had a change of heart in reviewing the budget and what’s going on in the country in general and so I think that you know, sometimes it all starts with local government and if local government can control it’s spending and, while still delivering all those services that we do, and we do it very well, then I want to try to do that and do the best I can at working hard at making sure that we have you know beaten every bush to make sure that we are, reducing our costs, controlling our spending and being responsible. And I think we have in the past and I’m confident that we will in the future. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman McDonald, any additional thoughts or? Councilman McDonald: You know I guess the only thing that I will say is that, I mean I tend to agree with Councilman Litsey about the process of a budget. Having been through it so many times, I know what it takes to put a budget together and I’ve always fought against people just doing arbitrary numbers. However you know having said that, I do believe that again I’ve said, and everyone has said here, we’re not done with this and I think that’s the important thing to take away from this and also the fact that we’re not going to settle for this number. I think that unless there is very good justification, the number’s going down and you know what I’m, well what I was willing to support was, I think as a goal 3% is very doable. I’m not saying that as of tonight we just say 3% because again that goes against everything I’ve ever done with doing budgets, 28 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 you know from business, from everything and I just can’t do that but what I can do is if that’s the goal, then we need to look at the budget. And again as I said, it’s line item by line item to determine what can we cut without sacrificing services and I pledge to do that and I think it will be accomplished. That’s probably all I intend to get into all of this and I think that I do support you know Councilwoman Tjornhom on her goal here. I think it’s very good to set that goal and again to say we’re not done. I think that’s the important message. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Then I guess Mr. Sticha, we’re under some requirements here, is that correct? What’s our deadlines and what’s the effect of taking action? Greg Sticha: Well we need to pass a preliminary levy and have it certified to the county on th September 15, which is a week from today. So at some point we do need to adopt a resolution which sets our preliminary levy. Mayor Furlong: And I guess just for clarification, if there’s, we have 4 members of the council here this evening. Perhaps this is a question for Mr. Knutson. If there’s a 2-2 vote, then the motion is not agreed to? Whatever that motion is, is that correct? Roger Knutson: That is correct. Mayor Furlong: And if then the clarification if the council cannot by a majority, in this case it would be 3, adopt a motion, then what would the levy be for the city? Going forward to next year. Greg Sticha: As far as setting a preliminary levy? Mayor Furlong: If we do not adopt a motion on a preliminary levy, what would be the maximum levy that the city could adopt in December? Greg Sticha: I’m not really certain. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, would it not be the levy that, the prior year levy if there is no? Roger Knutson: From memory, that’s correct Mayor. Mayor Furlong: If there’s no motion for a preliminary levy prior to next Monday. Roger Knutson: It’d be zero increase. Mayor Furlong: Then it would be a zero increase automatically. Okay. So I guess at this point, any other thoughts or is there a motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question about how I’m going to make my motion because these numbers won’t be accurate. 29 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Greg Sticha: I’ve gotten an calculator and kind of figured out what the numbers would be at various levels. If you did decide to go with a 3% increase, the amount of the levy would have to decrease $44,551 to $10,130.014. And I’m assuming, if that was the case, that we would, the most logical place to take that money from would be the general fund expenditure column, which would mean we’d have to lower the general fund expenditures to $9,914,549. Mayor Furlong: Now question on that. I’m sorry, what was that number? $9 million. Greg Sticha: $9,914,549. Mayor Furlong: There’s no requirement for the council to adopt a general fund or even a preliminary general fund by next Monday, is that correct? Greg Sticha: No, the County does require us to list in detail the levies that we plan on levying for so we could not go ahead and, well actually we could. Change really any of the numbers between now and final levy time… Mayor Furlong: As long as the total does not exceed the preliminary. Greg Sticha: Right exactly, but we do have to put something into that, and the most logical place to stick that $44,000 would be in the largest number which is the general fund number. Mayor Furlong: Okay, but to clarify, and that was my understanding. The only number. Greg Sticha: We can shift the numbers between columns between now and the final levy. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Because we do have some other levy items and such. Todd Gerhardt: You’ve got debt service levies in there and specific assessment levies. Mayor Furlong: And there’s some other special funds. Greg Sticha: Yeah. The other levies would be very difficult to make changes in because like Mr. Gerhardt said, they are debt levies so those bond payments obviously have to be made. The only two levies, three levies actually that you could change that would make the most sense between now and final levy would be the general fund levy, the capital replacement fund levy and the sealcoating levy. Those 3 levies do not tie our hands to an actual bond payment or anything. Mayor Furlong: And the sealcoating levy’s over 200 and. Greg Sticha: 247. 267, excuse me. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And again, I’m not picking that but just the numbers. Greg Sticha: Right. Those would be the most three logical areas to. 30 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Mayor Furlong: Okay. But what I’m hearing you say is that if it’s the council’s, a majority of the council on 4 or the 3 percent, you gave us the levy number of $10,130,014 and it would be your recommendation to simply adjust the. Greg Sticha: The general fund. Mayor Furlong: General fund at this time. Greg Sticha: At this time. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. So I guess at this point is there any other discussion or is there a motion? Councilman McDonald: Well Mr. Mayor I have a question. If I understand then correctly, if we do not pass this by a majority, what we’re limited to is zero percent and we go back to the budget levy from last year. Is that where we’re at? Roger Knutson: Mayor. Unless something passes. Wouldn’t necessarily have to be this. It could be something inbetween or something else. If you do nothing, nothing, a resolution does not pass, that’s where you. Councilman Litsey: The other alternative would be to call a special meeting where all 5 people could be present. All 5 council members. Roger Knutson: Of course, yes. Mayor Furlong: So, and that’s the situation and I think what we need to do is, as we’ve discussed here, listen to each other as well as bring our experience to the table and consider staff’s recommendation as well as our overall goals and again I think to be clear for everybody watching and listening, this discussion is part of the process. And I know you agree with that Councilman Litsey and you’ve talked about the process but sometimes when we, while we may meet in a work session and City Council, we can discuss items but really it’s the open forum of the council meeting that is really the place for these types of discussions to take place. In setting a preliminary levy and a final levy in December, those are probably some of the most important votes city council considers during the year so I guess I want to make sure that. I guess at this point I would be open to a motion or further discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I will make a motion. That the City Council adopt the resolution establishing the 2009 preliminary levy at $10,130,014 and approves the, is that right? Greg Sticha: That’s the correct number, correct. 31 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Councilwoman Tjornhom: And approves the total general fund expenditures of $9,914,559. Greg Sticha: 49. Councilwoman Tjornhom: 49. Greg Sticha: That would be 3%. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: I’ll second that. Mayor Furlong: It’s been seconded. Is there any discussion? Councilman Litsey: Well I’ll just say the reason I’m going to oppose it is, like I’ve said, I think it’s a process issue and I think we’re all working towards the same goal. I just think it’s premature at this point to set the debt levels so I’ll be voting against it. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Resolution #2008-48: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council adopts a resolution establishing the 2009 preliminary levy at $10,130,014 and approves total general fund expenditures of $9,914,549. All voted in favor, except Councilman Litsey who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone and this is, as I said, it’s part of the process and I think we will continue working together as all of us have said. This is a step in the process and we all have the common goal of moving this budget forward as we’ve discussed earlier this evening. That completes our items of business this evening. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just really kind of, I enjoyed the CSO highlights for the month I guess. Those aren’t always in the correspondence packet so. On a lighter note. I did. It was kind of interesting to read those separate from just the regular sheriff reports so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I will bring up under council presentations, and it perhaps could have been something under public announcements and that is the Dave Huffman Memorial Race is this coming Saturday. It’s a 5K race I believe in the city. This is an annual event and if anyone is interested in participating, I would encourage them to take a look at the city web site. There’s probably information there or contact city hall. Talk to the Park and Recreation department. That’s a fun event. A lot of people turn out for that and Mr. Hoffman is not here 32 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 anymore, has guaranteed excellent weather on Saturday so, it should be a good event. Anything else for council presentations this evening? Mr. Gerhardt. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: Just a couple more announcements. We have our Senior Expo in the senior center this coming Friday from 9:00 to 1:00. The theme this year is Healthy Living so there will be a variety of different booths talking about senior healthy living and so should be a good time. Again, 9:00 in the morning to 1:00 in our senior center just across the hall. Also good news, our family’s growing here at City Hall. Laurie Hokkanen, the Assistant City Manager had a child on th August 29. 7 pounds, 6 ounces. Sean William, a boy. So mother and son are doing well and are at home now and so we wish them the best and excited to see that family expand and look forward to getting her back here August 1. As soon as possible would be great. Mayor Furlong: August 1? Todd Gerhardt: Or nope, December 1. I won’t extend it here. Not on the Alyson approach but December 1, and but we’re excited for her and the rest of her family. We also have an event coming up, I sent an email to council regarding a tour with the Planning Commission to look at a th variety of sites. Kate and our Planning Commission have selected a date of September 16. We’re going to meet here at City Hall at 6:30 so if that fits into your schedule, we’re going to tour a couple of construction sites. We’re also going to tour the high school so if you can fit that th into your schedule, it’ll be September 16 at 6:30 and. Councilman Litsey: That will be posted as a council night. Todd Gerhardt: We will also post it and send you an email just as a reminder. Mayor Furlong: Post it as a, for a quorum. Todd Gerhardt: Yes, it will be posted. I mentioned that. Kate Aanenson: If you would like to let me confirm, just so we can make sure. We’re going to use city vans. We have enough space and then probably order dinners for the Planning Commission so. Councilman Litsey: I’ll confirm. Kate Aanenson: Okay, good. Councilman Litsey: I look forward to that. That should be interesting. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else? 33 City Council Meeting - September 8, 2008 Todd Gerhardt: And we made the deadline for Laredo being paved up to the elementary school so the contractor did a great job on that and having a nice paved access and sidewalks in for the children to get to the elementary school was key there so. That project’s moving along nicely. Councilman Litsey: You’ve done a great job. I just had to chuckle because, and they truly have done a really nice job but first day of kindergarten for my son I rode the bus and of course we went that route and we waited for 2 trucks to load before we could go again so I, so other than that it was going very good. Todd Gerhardt: It’s still a construction zone. Councilman Litsey: And I was more impatient than the children actually so, I’ll leave it at that. Mayor Furlong: No I think that was, and I think we’ve talked about, perhaps talked about this at our last meeting but we do appreciate the efforts by our engineering department as well as the contractor for prioritizing that segment of road in front of the elementary school near the businesses. The fire department and post office as well. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and we have a variety of other construction projects that are moving on. Powers is open now down to Pioneer. That’s exciting. Todd Hoffman working on the trail over by Lifetime Fitness. Arboretum Business Park that meanders through what we call the Hundred Acre Woods and ultimately over to Galpin. The overlay of the existing trail has been completed and I’ve been told before the end of the week the rest of that trail should be completed up to Century Boulevard so, exciting project there. Went through there with Todd the other day and it’s just, it’s going to be a nice trail for the neighborhood and businesses in there that take a nice leisurely walk through the woods. That’s all I have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or his staff? CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilman Litsey moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 34