Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.04.10 Council Minutes ICL COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR October 4,2010 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Larson at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Larson led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Larson, Donnelly, Fogarty, May, Wilson None Andrea Poehler, City Attorney; Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator; Teresa Walters, Finance Director; Kevin Schorzman, City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant David & Doris Dahl, Kathy Plumley, Chris Buckley, Mary Scheide, Jerry Ristow, David PritzlafI, Craig Strahan, Justine Jacobson, Colin Garvey 4. APPROVE AGENDA City Administrator Herlofsky pulled item l1a) Listing Agreement 431 Third Street and added the Pilot Knob trail ribbon cutting to Roundtable. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Mary Scheide, Dakota County Library, Farmington Ms. Mary Scheide, Branch Manager Dakota County Farmington Library, gave some updates on events and programs at the Library during October. There will be a traveling display on Ellis Island, and also a workshop on beginning genealogy. The Library is partnering with the MN Secretary of State to host an Introduction to Voting workshop. The Library offers a number of adult computer classes and also programs for teens and children. All programs are free, but some do require registration. Councilmember Wilson asked that the information on Ellis Island be placed on the City's website. He noted the Library is a nice asset to have in town. He asked ifthere has been a change in usage of the Library due to the economy. Ms. Scheide noted they have seen an increase in usage. In September, circulation was up 15% from last September. Overall from 2009 to 2008 there was a 12% increase. They offer free computers, internet, and WiFi. 8 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 2 Ms. Justine Jacobson, representing the Farmington Fire Department, was in attendance to promote Fire Prevention Week activities October 3 - 9,2010. The Fire Department will be visiting 4th grade classes, on October 7, the American Red Cross will offer a blood drive at Fire Station 1, and there will be an open house at Fire Station 2. Mr. Chris Buckley, representing the business community, was sure the Council has heard plenty about wasteful spending. It is an election year and it is budget time. He doubted the constituents are angry about the money being spent on things like smooth running elections or even more importantly, the investment in the long term success of the community's economy and the investment of having a dedicated staff member. What has people concerned is looking at items such as capital acquisition plans in the 2010 budget and things like $18,000 for a laser leveler for a ballfield, or that $23,000 is unreasonable for a sign for a fire station. The plain fact ofthe matter is you are not getting the results you want with economic development because you do not have enough boots on the ground. The EDA currently being comprised of Councilmembers and the Mayor only, really does not have the ability to act as a resource to the Council and instead is left to the whims of the Council and the Mayor by it's organization alone. By my count that would leave us short five heads that are in the game towards developing our local economy. Proposed cuts as reported in the Independent last week will leave us six people short. The Economic Development Specialist position is valuable to the existing business community and also the City itself as a leg up to other communities when it comes to attracting investment dollars. Cutting the position places a sign on City Hall that says "closed for businesses - come back and see us after we have re-evaluated in 2012." Investment dollars looking to come into the City of Farmington are not going to wait to determine whether or not the City is willing to take economic development seriously and the local businesses that are looking to grow and expand and further invest in the community are not going to be able to wait around either. He asked that Council not surrender in the battle for investment dollars. Part of what it means to be a Minnesotan is in the face of adversity we don't just give up. We suck it up, redouble our efforts and we get the results we need by doing the work that is required. I am not ready to give up on the City of Farmington and hope you are not either. Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, at the last meeting he requested some information and there was no response so he expected an answer tonight. In the budget reductions there were two staff positions labeled confidential. This was four weeks ago when the preliminary budget was approved. He asked about it two weeks ago, and with no response, he again asked what two positions are eliminated from that portion of the budget. There is a list of $400,000 worth of reductions and these two positions are at the bottom of the list. This does not 9 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 3 include the two positions later in the agenda. City Administrator Herlofsky stated because it is confidentia~ Council does not know. Mr. Pritzlaff stated this leaves the City staff in limbo with whether they do or do not have a job. Mayor Larson asked City Attorney Poehler to advise why we are not giving out the information. City Attorney Poehler stated at this point it has been determined by staff they have yet to bring forward a recommendation and that is why it is confidential at this point. It will be brought forward in the future. From a public data standpoint, it is not data that is available. Mr. Pritzlaff stated it shows $130,000 for these two positions. You have to have it narrowed down to two people that total $130,000. The reduction is already approved. If you have a dollar amount on two people and you have approved the reductions, at what point are the positions brought forward to cut. This has to be tearing at the morale of City workers. You have two people walking through the door wondering if this is the day. It has to come out. It has been four weeks since this reduction has taken place. He asked for it two weeks ago. You have to name these people. If these positions will be cut, they are losing opportunities to look for other jobs. It is the morale of the City that is not working well. How would you feel if you were on pins and needles everyday coming to your job wondering if you are the one. He asked when it will come out. Councilmember Fogarty stated the preliminary budget was approved. How we get to that reduction was not approved. Mayor Larson stated we have not approved the budget. Those were suggestions by staff. Councilmember Donnelly stated all we have done officially is set the levy. Mr. Pritzlaff asked if the levy is over and above the $400,000. Mayor Larson stated we approved a $400,000 reduction, but we are still debating how. Mr. Pritzlaff stated it is narrowed down to two people and particular wages. Two people have to be wondering. The morale is going and they are losing an opportunity to fmd employment elsewhere. When will the positions be brought up? Mayor Larson stated we are working on it. It is a work in progress. It has not been approved. The names are not out because it is not a done deal. City Administrator Herlofsky stated at this point it is not public information. It has been worked out with the employees, and will not harm anyone unexpectedly. Data practice only allows certain information to be public. What we have right now is not public. Mr. Pritzlaffthen asked if Council was aware of the actual plans and placement of the trail on the west side of Pilot Knob Road when you approved the contract for the County to spend $169,000, and the City portion of$129,000. Mayor Larson stated he saw the plans. Mr. Pritzlaff stated Council has no regard for public safety. You approved a trail that runs right against Pilot Knob Road. They put a curb along Pilot Knob Road and the trail is on the back side ofthat curb. Before people were walking on the shoulder and at their risk. Today you have a trail which invites people to walk with kids along the trail. When they get to the area with the water, they are abutting a road with 55 mph speeds. It is very unsafe and a total disregard for public safety. This could have been delayed and brought back when development happens and/or ifplans would have been changed to place a boardwalk to move the trail away from a road with 55 mph speeds. This was total disregard for public safety. Council has said before, public safety, 10 Council~mesoregul~) October 4, 2010 Page 4 public safety. It is totally disregarded in this case. He did not understand why Council approved this plan. When you approved the money, you approved the plan. The Mayor saw the plan so he approved placing kids along 55 mph speeds. Mr. Colin Garvey, 22098 Canton Court, was disappointed at what he saw at the last meeting. Council tried to take an assessment policy and slip it underneath a new City ordinance with totally erroneous numbers. Mr. Garvey was referring to the seal coat project and franchise fees. Mr. Garvey stated we have never had $400,000 worth of seal coating done in town. In 2008 it jumped the highest from $325/ton to over $695/ton when there was a shortage. The seal coating came in at $115,058 for an estimate and the actual was $108,000. He understood this year is a large cost of$222,958. That is the total gross cost of the seal coat, but in that you have six developments contributing. They pay when they get their Development Contracts upfront and it is put into an interest bearing account. Mr. Garvey asked how staff came up with the numbers for the franchise fees that you need $400,000/year for seal coating. How can that be a fair analysis? Councilmember Wilson stated he voted against it, so he made his position clear, but he was under the impression Council was going to continue discussing it. Mayor Larson asked staff to explain how they came to $400,000. City Engineer Schorzman explained he looked at the square yards of seal coating we do over the seven year cycle program. He looked at the cost to do the seal coat this year, and then inflated that by 5%/year which has been reasonable inflation over the time we have done the seal coat. He applied those costs to the amount of square yards we do each year, reached a grand total, divided that by seven and that was $400,000. Mr. Garvey stated you are making the seal coating almost double every time. In seven years that is $2.8 million. The highest point was in 2008 with $115,000. In seven years that is over $700,000. That is a far cry from $2.8 million. Mr. Garvey felt the City was trying to create another fund. He understood we use the road and bridge fund for these projects. Mayor Larson stated the purpose was not to create another fund. It is for the seal coating. Mr. Garvey stated the road and bridge fund is running dry. He asked if the City took out $2.3 million last year for the Denmark sanitary sewer extension project. City Engineer Schorzman replied no. The project last year was funded by the utilities that were being replaced, not by the road and bridge fund. Mr. Garvey asked if the road and bridge fund was used for the Pilot Knob trail project. Staff replied yes. Mr. Garvey asked if you know the fund is going dry, why would you use it on a trail when it is supposed to be for seal coating. Councilmember Fogarty stated the fund is not exclusively for seal coating. Mr. Garvey asked what is the guarantee this new fund will be used exactly for seal coating and only for seal coating. Finance Director Walters stated it will be a separate fund and the franchise fees will go into that fund. The only thing that will come out of the fund is the seal coating project. The road and bridge fund is used for several things. We receive money from Dakota County, for assessments, a lot of things. It is not just used for seal coating. We also pay a bond out ofthat, we transfer the money 11 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 5 to the debt service fund to pay the bond. The fund will be kept separate and used only for that purpose. Mr. Garvey asked if that will be the same as the storm water runoff fund. We took $700,000 out of that in 2007. Mayor Larson stated it was for the comp plan update to do the work mandated by the State. Mr. Garvey stated a salary was also taken out of there. There is a lot of excess money being taken out of there. Mayor Larson stated the money taken out ofthe fund was justified and accounted for. The franchise fees are still under review; we have not set anything up. Council did not like the numbers, so we need to do more work on it before we can pass it. It is not a done deal. Mr. Garvey applauded Councilmembers Wilson and May for sticking up for the citizens, but if it would not have been tabled, you would have voted on it last week. Mayor Larson stated he would not have, because the numbers did not make sense after talking to a business owner. Mr. Garvey stated watching the meeting, it appeared Council was ready to vote on it. Mr. Jerry Ristow, 516 Lower Heritage Way, stated the road and bridge fund does concern him. He knew there were questions asked at the last meeting, but he did not hear the right question asked; what happened to all the money? He has heard many comments and did ask staff about the road and bridge fund. It has been a fund that has been around for quite some time. He is concerned because he had heard there was $2.5 - $4 million in the fund. Now it is depleted down to $239,000. It appears to have decreased and it is important to note that most of the road and bridge fund revenue is restricted for various purposes, including projects that have already occurred. The road and bridge fund receives revenues from special assessments, State aid, Dakota County, and dedicated fees. Mr. Ristow asked if our water runoff fees or any portion of our City tax was included in the water runoff fees that go into the road and bridge fund. The fund is used to account for all major street construction projects and street rehabilitation or reconstruction of activities. He asked if 65/35 has been taken out of the road and bridge fund for projects such as Walnut Street, Elm Street, and Ash Street. The 2008A and B bond payments are also funded through the road and bridge fund with the County and assessments. He asked if Council was satisfied that the road and bridge money was spent properly. He asked if Council was satisfied with where this money has gone, which has been a policy of the Council for 20 years. One Councilmember said last time she would table the issue as long as they have a plan. The plan was working for quite some time and now it has failed. Mr. Craig Strahan, 5850 Upper 182nd Street, regarding seal coat, he received something in the mail three weeks ago about Upper 182nd Street being assessed again. It seems their street has been hit numerous times. There have been at least three assessments so far within the last 10 years. They were assessed four years ago for $7,000 and there are still problems with the road. He received something in the mail a year ago regarding a special assessment on seal coating for $220. He has not heard if that was resolved. Three weeks ago he received a letter that it 12 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 6 would be discussed tonight. There have been a number of questions on seal coating and asked if someone could explain what is going on. Mayor Larson stated what has been discussed tonight has been another way to fund seal coating rather than assessing the properties as it happens. We are talking about a Citywide assessment where you pay a little every year. We are trying to spread it out. The current policy is to seal coat and assess every seven years. Now we are talking about a franchise fee of$I.60/month. Ms. Kathy Plumley, Cameron Woods, 18500 Euclid Avenue, was also here about the seal coating on Euclid Avenue. They were assessed $108 x 84 units. She did not understand why they were assessed that amount of money. She thought the amount for any seal coating came from the property taxes. She was surprised to fmd they were all assessed that amount. Down the street, in Nelson Hills, they were not assessed. She did not understand why they were assessed and at such a high rate. That is almost $10,000 for the two buildings. Ms. Plumley also stated she is a school bus driver in Farmington and travels Flagstaff Avenue, 195th Street and to Country View. There is no stop light at Country View and no light at Flagstaff and 195th Street. She was not sure why as it seems it is a hazard. When coming out of Country View she has to cross to go in the opposite direction, going north out of Country View. She is certain someone will get hurt coming out ofthere. Between Country View and the other trailer park, there must be a couple thousand people. She did not understand why we have not considered putting a stop light there as well as 195th Street and Pilot Knob Road, having three schools in the area with Farmington High School, Meadowview, and Akin Elementary. There are a lot of cars trying to get across the traffic. She would like this to be considered. Councilmember Fogarty noted part of that area is in Lakeville. Neither Farmington nor Lakeville have any control over placement of traffic lights. We advocate every year with the County, but the City is not allowed to make those decisions. We have advocated for years for 195th Street and Pilot Knob Road. Ms. Plumley was advised to contact the County. Mr. Colin Garvey, 22098 Canton Court, stated regarding the storm water fund, the reply he received was: In 2007 expenditures, $161,139 was taken out for salaries. He was told inspections were handled by the Natural Resources Specialist. He doubted she makes $161,000. He stated $9,317 was building supplies; uniforms, landscaping material, vehicles, supplies and parts, etc. for $581,000. The majority of this was for ongoing pond maintenance. All these things were taken out of this fund. You can appreciate why I check the credibility when you are going to set up a new fund for seal coating that it not get dipped into. Mayor Larson asked City Engineer Schorzman to break down the 13 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 7 salaries and where they come from. City Engineer Schorzman stated it is not just the Natural Resources Specialist salary; it is anyone related to storm water that works for the City, charges their time there. Mr. Garvey stated their salaries are not budgeted out of this fund. Staff replied actually they are. Mr. Garvey stated without the rest of the budget and taxes paid in, their salaries only come out of this fund? City Administrator Herlofsky stated all our utility funds have salaries associated with them because we have Public Works employees and Engineers that do work within each of those areas. Mr. Garvey stated you take money out of this fund to reimburse them for the work they have done. The same with engineering. When you put in a road project, you bond for it and then take money out for engineering. You put in three projects where the engineers are getting paid three times the original amount of their wages from the taxpayers. Mayor Larson asked staff to break this down for him. City Administrator asked that Mr. Garvey provide staff with the projects he is referring to so staff can respond to his questions. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by May to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (9/20/10 Regular) (9/27/10 Workshop) b) Adopted RESOLUTION R54-10 accepting Donation Pollution Prevention Day- Municipal Services c) Adopted RESOLUTION R55-10 approving Gambling Event Permit Fire Department - Administration d) Adopted RESOLUTION R56-10 appointing 2010 General Election judges Councilmember Wilson thanked those serving as election judges. e) Authorized declaring default on Swanson Acres - Engineering f) Approved Tobacco License Super America - Administration g) Adopted RESOLUTION R57-10 accepting donation Rambling River Center- Parks & Recreation h) Approved Temporary Liquor License Knights of Columbus - Administration i) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Approve On-Sale Wine License Ugly Mug - Administration D&K Properties of Rose mount have submitted an application for a wine license for the Ugly Mug. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to close the public hearing APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to approve an on-sale wine license for D&K Properties of Rose mount for the Ugly Mug. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Seal Coat Assessment Hearing - Engineering The 2010 seal coat project was ordered at the March 15, 2010, Council meeting. The project was completed this summer. The total cost of the project was $222,938 which resulted in an assessment of $108.44 per residential unit for the majority of those being assessed. The Sunnyside / Chateau Manor area 14 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4,2010 Page 8 assessment is proposed to be $31.75. This was reduced because ofa contribution by Bonestroo toward the seal coating of that project. The seal coating on streets is done 2-3 years after the wear course is put on, and then a seven year cycle after that. Mr. Jerry Ristow, 516 Lower Heritage Way, stated 3/5 of the Council were not here for the mill and overlay project. The project was against City policy because the road met City standards. The road should not have been done so he was trying to get some consideration from at least three Councilmembers. Councilmember Fogarty did give residents some consideration to see that the stability ofthe road was put back the way it should have been. The road was a total nightmare. The residents fought with it all summer. The milling was not done properly and there were no inspections done. Moving on from that, Mr. Ristow read a quote from Councilmember Wilson: Councilmember Wilson heard the project was a fiasco. After a heavy rain he and his wife drove down Heritage Way to take a look. I saw what I needed right away. My wife made the comment, why is the water sitting in the middle of the road? Mr. Ristow stated the water is still sitting in the middle of the road, even after the seal coat. A road has a crown so the water runs to the curb. Lower Heritage Way has three dips and the water sits there and runs down the middle of the road. Hardly any water gets to the curb, unless it gets so deep it runs over. He appreciated the fact they tried to seal coat it, but it doesn't work. The water will sit there and we will have a worse road than we had before. His point is the assessment has been reduced, but still it is an assessment from someone who promised us we would not get assessed. Two of the Councilmembers that were there at the time voted against this, because as Councilmember Wilson stated he would not charge anyone for this. At the end, he flip flopped and charged us the assessment of$985. This is the third assessment within four years you have nailed us with; from Ash Street, the assessment for the road, and now a seal coat. It is time it is over. Mr. Pete Gerten called Mr. Ristow today. Mr. Gerten came to the Council on March 15,2010. Mr. Ristow read from those minutes: Councilmember Wilson recalled there were three Councilmembers pushing to have the entire seal coat covered. The $12,500 was the most we could receive. Councilmember Fogarty did remember the conversation about the area being seal coated previously. She recalled Council discussing it should come off their assessment. (Mr. Ristow stated this was referring to 2003 where they paid for a seal coat and then came back and tore up the road). Councilmember Fogarty thought that had happened. She wanted staff to research whether or not the credit actually happened, as that will affect her decision. City Engineer Schorzman stated there was another meeting where the Mayor at that time did indicated that was done. Staff will verify if the 2003 seal coat amount was taken off the 2006 assessment. Councilmember Fogarty stated if it was not reduced then, the residents should receive credit now. Mr. Gerten stated there are seven houses in Centennial Circle. 15 Council~ures~gul~) October 4, 2010 Page 9 Mr. Gerten had asked Mr. Ristow to make sure they received the credit as he did not think it has been received. Mr. Craig Strahan, 5850 Upper 182nd Street, stated based on the $7,000 assessment four years ago, you said the cycle was to seal coat 2-3 years later and after that it is a seven year cycle. He asked how Hill Dee is assessed for a seal coat now. We will be assessed $108? Staff replied yes. Mr. Strahan stated this was done four years ago and we are out of the cycle. He did not mind paying, but there have been three assessments within ten years. It sounds like their neighborhood should not be seal coated for a few years yet. Mayor Larson stated the reconstruction was done 3-4 years ago. After 2-3 years it is seal coated and then the seven year cycle starts. City Engineer Schorzman stated the seal coat oil lasts seven years and provides protection to the road. When new asphalt is placed, the asphalt content is much lower than the 100% asphalt you put on with a seal coat so the surface breaks down faster. We have found that 2-3 years after is the time to do the initial seal coat and that will last seven years. The wear course in Hill Dee was placed in the spring of2007. Mr. Stral1an stated on Upper 182nd Street there was gravel and oil put down. Staff noted that is the seal coat. Mr. Strahan stated we have already been seal coated so what is coming is whether this is charged monthly or for $108. Mayor Larson stated they will be assessed $108, then the seven year cycle will start. Mr. Stral1an thanked Council for the explanation. Mr. Colin Garvey, 22098 Canton Court, stated the project came in at $373,000 for the original estimate and we ended up paying $963,000. Bonestroo's contribution was $12,500. He asked why there is no accountability to the taxpayers. He understood the people paying for their assessments, but who picks up the tab for the rest. Why is there no accountability for the rest of the taxpayers and these residents? At the time he was living at 1206 Sunnyside and he was assured that in a couple years the project would be fmished, so he put a curb in. Either the City ran out of money, or there was a problem, but we never fmished the whole project. All that curb sits there and the water sits there. Sunnyside was the worst part of the whole project. It is still not fIxed. City Engineer Schorzman stated that is part of the CIP Council reviewed at the workshop. He recalled both lifts were done in the fall of2006 in the Sunnyside / Chateau Manor area. Mr. Garvey wanted Council to note that address and when it freezes, drive through there and see where the water sits. When the water freezes the curb and the driveways will break up. A brand new driveway is pitted from the ice backing up on that street. He never would have put in the curb if they were not going to redo the street. Mr. David Pritzlafl: 20255 Akin Road, saw the estimated assessment number for this project of$136. The current assessment will be $108, and $31.75 for Sunnyside / Chateau Manor. When he was on the Council, he recalled the $12,500 was to go against their seal coat. He asked about the price per square yard this year. Is it per square yard of gravel, or is it 3 ft x 3 ft on the road? Staff 16 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 10 replied it is by surface area. The price was $.92/sq. yard for recycled aggregate. Mr. Pritzlaff asked for the total square yardage of the Sunnyside area. His point was ifwe take the square yardage for that area x $.92/sq. yard what does that come out to and is that under or over $12,500 to the point where the residents have to pay $31.75. If it is under they should be paying nothing. The $12,500 went strictly for that area to be seal coated because of the mix-up of the road. Council worked hard to get something from Bonestroo and the best we could do was to get a $12,500 accountability for that project. Taking the total square yardage x $.92, we should know right now if that is over $12,500. If it is under, they should not be billed $31.75. City Engineer Schorzman noted it is over and that is why the amount is $31.75. Staff did exactly as Mr. Pritzlaff described; we figured out the Sunnyside area x the price and subtracted $12,500 from the total and divided it by the residential units in that area. It came out to $31.75. Mr. Pritzlaff recalled there were approximately 100 residents in that area. Staff did not recall the specific number of units, but did exactly as Mr. Pritzlaff described. MOTION by Fogarty, second by May to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Wilson stated one reason he voiced his displeasure over the assessment last week, was last year we were looking at $130 - $140 per unit. Staff recalled $120 per unit. Councilmember Wilson did not believe any assessment would go into an investment fund and the money would be used appropriately. The amount does vary year by year due to the mix of properties. With regard to Mr. Ristow's comments, he voiced an opinion during Citizen Comments about the use of the road and bridge fund. The option four years ago was do we repair the road, which everyone agreed was a mess and it was a fiasco. The option was do we assess $985 or try to get a reduction of $12,500. Ifwe had tom out the road, the cost could have been double. Because we used significant road and bridge dollars to buy down the cost to the residents, he would argue that for Mr. Ristow's neighborhood there is a substantial benefrt from the road and bridge fund. It was a good use of the funds to do that because the project did not work out well. There has been a perception tonight that the road and bridge fund is being improperly allocated. From his opinion, he could not disagree more. Council looks closely at how the money is used and the use of that fund is very limited. Mr. Ristow was not debating that. At the time, Councilmember Wilson was having a tough time because the road was a mess. Councilmember Fogarty took the stance and said we will fix the road right. You did not contribute to that, Councilmember Fogarty had to push you to do that. To begin with, the road met the pavement management standards. You spent tons of money for the study. The road exceeded the standards and you tore it up anyway. You talk about a misuse of road and bridge fund. Councilmember Wilson noted that is a good point. The Council at that time was not aware there was a 2003 Pavement Management Study. As we all expressed at that time, we were embarrassed that 17 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 11 there was a study showing your road did not need a mill and overlay, but a full replacement. Mr. Ristow stated it did not say that at all. The road exceeded the standards. The minutes stated we need to bring this road back up to standards now because once we milled and overlayed an inch of blacktop, some of the black dirt had not been removed from when the road was originally built. Councilmember Wilson stood out there and told all the residents they would not be charged for this. Then hit us between the eyes. Councilmember Wilson stated the Council as a whole including myself went to bat for that. Councilmember May stated regarding Mr. Strahan's issue, when it is a new reconstruct the seal coat after 2-3 years is not part of the initial assessment. Staff confIrmed that is correct because it is future work. Councilmember May stated if you are in a certain group in that cycle, can you move to a different group if your street is reconstructed. Staff agreed this would happen. Councilmember May stated that was part of her issue ofit not being the same for everyone year to year and it not being related to the cost, but who is in your group. Those groups can continually change. City Engineer Schorzman stated one thing we discussed in having a ten year CIP versus a five year CIP, would be to avoid the potential duplication of seal coating one year and two years later tearing it up with a reconstruct. But whenever a reconstruct happens, you will fall into a cycle three years after that and then seven years later. Councilmember May stated regarding the Sunnyside area, she recalled they discussed whether those residents would have to pay, but Council did not promise they would not have any payment. City Engineer Schorzman stated the direction was to take the contribution Bonestroo had promised and apply it to the assessment for that area. Councilmember May stated that was her only concern was if there was an implication they would not be assessed. There were a handful ofproperties that were not part of the overlay. Staff stated there were one or two residents on comer lots that received notices for the seal coating, but after review because of their addresses, they were removed from the list. Mr. Jerry Ristow clarified earlier he was talking only about Centennial Circle. Their seal coat had been done two years prior to that and assessed. Mr. Gerten's point was that if they were charged at the March 15, 2010, meeting, they should not be charged for another seal coat. Mayor Larson recalled it was pro-rated. Mr. Ristow noted Mr. Gerten's assessment is the same $31.75. City Engineer Schorzman has done some research from that meeting and there was no official Council action taken to take the remaining life of the seal coat and apply it to the assessment for the mill and overlay project or to a future seal coat. There was a lot of discussion, but no action taken. Mr. Ristow had minutes from the March 15,2010, meeting where the Mayor at that time did indicate that was done. City Engineer Schorzman stated he did verify that was discussed, but not acted on. Council can chose to do that tonight. Councilmember Fogarty thought the Council left the impression regarding the 2003 seal coat that occurred prior to the project, that we would pro-rate the 18 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 12 number of years and either take it off their next seal coat or take it off the assessment at that time. Staff is saying neither was done. She wanted to advocate that be done now. She was left with the understanding that was going to be done for those people. They deserve to get that portion of their seal coating back. If Council did not make a motion, she was in part to blame for that. She was under the impression that would happen. She wanted to advocate for that today. Councilmember Fogarty asked if after a reconstruction is done, a line could be put in the notices that in 2-3 years the road will be seal coated and there will be an assessment. Mr. Strahan stated what upset his neighborhood was they received a letter a year ago that they would receive an assessment for a seal coat. Their street had been tom up and they paid $7,000 and then received this notice. He has been told others were assessed $220. Now he has received a third letter, second one within a year, that his street will be seal coated again. He came to fmd out the process. He wanted to confrrm he is getting charged the $7,000 and another $108 and not an additional $220. Staff confrrmed that is correct. Mr. David Pritzlaffnoted Councilmember May asked staff when work is done 2-3 years after seal coat they are moved to a different group. Councilmember May clarified after the initial reconstruction, then residents fall into a different cycle. Mr. Pritzlaff stated ifwe are going to do a full reconstruct in two years and you are on the seven year cycle, then the seal coat would not be done two years prior to the reconstruct. He noted that is not true to plan. On 4th and 5th Streets we seal coated that and did some curbing and then two years later tore that up. Mr. Pritzlaff asked when the $12,500 was received from Bonestroo. City Engineer Schorzman stated two weeks ago. Mr. Pritzlaffrecalled when he was on the Council, the previous Finance Director stated they received the check from Bonestroo back then. Council was adamant back then to get the money in hand because things can change. Council fought hard for that money and we were told the check was in hand that many years ago. Ifwe had $12,500 for the seal coat, what would have been the interest that could have gone towards that seal coat? The biggest thing back in March was where is the check, and now we are told it was received two weeks ago. Mayor Larson stated unfortunately that Finance Director is not here anymore. Mr. Pritzlaff asked why we were told one thing then, and now something totally different. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adopt RESOLUTION R58-10 approving the assessment roll for the 2010 Seal Coat project and accepting the change in the seal coat assessment to pro-rate the properties in Centennial Circle. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 19 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 13 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Authorize Elimination of Positions for 2011 - Administration Mayor Larson felt this is an item that needs a lot of discussion. Council has heard from some of the business people on one position. His suggestion is to continue taking discussion, leave this open, and continue working on it until we explore all options. Councilmember Wilson felt this was a reasonable idea. One of the things identified by the City Administrator was a notice of positions being eliminated. Council's dialogue has suggested the proposed elimination of one or more positions. At the same time, Council had a workshop last week where we had ideas such as closing the warming houses, making sure park and rec programs did not get eliminated, and there are a lot of open items. He did not want to close any budget items until we resolve the full picture of what we are looking at. One thing that came up that made some publicity is the elimination of Kleenex, toilet paper, and hand soap for the Rambling River Center which is something he would never support. Ifwe are down to that type oflevel of reduction, it clearly indicates Council needs to have more discussion on the budget. He would be uncomfortable acting on two independent positions tonight without having a full dialogue of the budget. We are not just planning for 2011. We are trying to plan for the next 2-3 years and be very strategic about how we do it. He wanted to know what the impacts are, pros and cons, of eliminating two positions, retaining two positions, modifying how they look, etc. A resident also pointed out an item that Council has been informed on regarding the $130,300 worth of staff reductions. Another item that is open is the potential funding for the Deputy Registrar. There is about $750,000 to be applied to debt service and our revenues are declining. We will need to do something, but the idea of continuing the dialogue is good and he would welcome the business owners to continue to have a conversation with Councilmembers. It is our job to work with staff and articulate our game plan for the next two years. Councilmember May was fme with discussing this more. We have a workshop next Monday, but Council does need to make some decisions on Monday. Not only for all of the residents and businesses in the community, but for potentially some individuals that are involved. She wanted to make sure everyone understands a big reason why we are discussing staff cuts. Council is faced with a $750,000 debt payment on Vermillion River Crossing. This year, more than last year, we have had very detailed budget discussions. The fIrst thing was how are we going to tackle this big bill that is due. The options recommended by staff was to borrow from funds that are carrying positive balances and pay ourselves back with interest, or pay it and be done, because there are other debts that will be owed as well. Council made a responsible decision that it is best to pay the debt and move forward. There is no way we could expect the residents and businesses to pay the entire debt. It will be a combination of an increase in taxes in addition to some cuts. When 85% of your budget is labor, that is where we are. We all 20 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 14 agree we want to focus on economic development, but what the City desperately needs is an Economic Development Director. We are at a big disadvantage, and she was not speaking down about anyone that does work in the City, but that is a position that the community desperately needs. We cannot afford both positions, so that is why that position was brought up. She has confidence that the City Administrator can make sure we all still get the services the residents and the businesses expect ifwe do have to make cuts. It is not an easy thing to suggest, but the hard decisions have to be made. If the stafIis not going to present something other than paper supply cuts, Council will have to do it. Ifwe are going to wait until the workshop, then we can have more discussions about it. It is tough economic times and we have a big debt to pay and we have to figure out how to do that. Councilmember Fogarty supported more conversation and has received a lot of information within the last 24 hours that she would like more time to digest. She agreed with Councilmember May, that there is a misrepresentation that Council takes eliminating positions lightly or that it does not weigh on us. We understand the market and the challenges. It is not an easy decision. No decision has been fmalized, but we do have to consider everything. Councilmember Donnelly agreed it is a tough decision. He does not feel it is his job as a Councilmember to pick positions. The only person that works for the City Council is the City Administrator. That is the only person we hire or fire. He was not competent to decide how the City is run, or if this is a good model. He was very uncomfortable with picking a position and saying we don't need that one or that one. He was not here everyday and does not know what people do. He relies on the City Administrator to make those decisions; that is his job. He was open for discussion, but we have a budget we have to live within and we will do that. We have not decided for sure what stays and what goes. The whole idea ofthe Council picking positions is very uncomfortable. He felt it sets a bad precedent. He was on the School Board for seven years and teachers came and went. That was the Superintendent's job to decide that, not the School Board. This is the same model. When you go to the LMC training that is the first thing they tell you; the only person you hire and fire is the City Administrator. We will have more discussions. These are people and have careers; they are owed an answer. We cannot make a decision at a workshop, we can only discuss it. Mayor Larson agreed with Councilmember Donnelly. It is the City Administrator's job to pick and choose. The only thing is, when staff asked Council for our opinion what to do with the budget, four out of the five Councilmembers turned in suggestions and the majority said unfortunately we will have to make staff reductions. That is when staff went to work on the latest budget and it came back with no staff reductions. Council asked the City Administrator to reduce staff, and he didn't. As Councilmember May said, now Council has to do it. No one likes to do it. Mayor Larson was uncomfortable with what staff brought to Council for the $400,000 reductions. It was 21 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 15 professional services and office supplies. We are looking for a long term fix, not a short term bandaid. That was Council's vision going into it, and that is what Council gave staff and we did not get that back. That was really disappointing. Unfortunately, we have to take matters into our own hands. One reason why is because the City Administrator asked us to. He said if Council wants that done, you will have to direct me to do it, so that is what Council is doing as far as staff reductions. Councilmember May brought up a good point, we got into this mess because of the bond payment for Vermillion River Crossing. Unfortunately, the former Finance Director did not have a plan for it and now we have to deal with it. On another issue, he does not appreciate reading in the paper from staff that the City Council does not know what they are doing. Council gives direction. Unfortunately, in the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Farmington Independent, he read where the Council does not know what they are doing, and what the result of their actions will mean. It was very disappointing to him and he does not want to see that happen anymore. We give direction for a reason and we do not take it lightly. It is not an easy decision to make and it is a serious decision. We are looking out for the City long term, not short term. In his opinion, the last budget document that cut $400,000 was not satisfactory. It was not what Council asked for and it will not help anything in the long term. As Councilmember Wilson said, we do need to talk about this and leave it open. Whether those positions get eliminated or not, that is yet to be decided and we will talk about it at the workshop. Hopefully staff will come back to us with better recommendations than office supplies and professional services. Councilmember Wilson noted two years ago we laid off someone from our Parks Department and that was clearly identified in the budget at that time. The longer we go without being given direction as to what the $130,300 is, the more that puts us into a box as well. He hoped there will be dialogue about that next week. In order to have dialogue about any position, we need to know what staff is proposing. Councilmember Fogarty stated in the last budget discussion we realized quickly there were a lot of questions the City Administrator could not answer. She suggested that if department heads can be at the next workshop, that would be helpful. City Administrator Herlofsky stated the issue regarding reductions in staff is a very sensitive one for all of us. The issue he is concerned about is that there were specific positions noted by the Council. If the Council wished to say we need to reduce two people, then that puts him in a very interesting position. Ifhe comes to Council with two positions, and Council says we don't want those two, we want these two, it creates some real issues for him. The reason for the item being placed on the agenda in this format is that at the last workshop we said what does Council wish? Is it a reduction of two positions, or are there two positions the Council has decided are not necessary? We have a situation where the main issue is sensitivity to the employees. He is at a disadvantage ifhe says I will remove 22 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 16 these two positions, and Council says no, come back with another two. That creates some morale issues and makes his effectiveness and the Council's effectiveness really difficult. We have had some very interesting budget sessions over the last couple years. There is more than toilet paper in the budget reductions. There is $400,000 in budget reductions that were brought back in good faith. There were a variety of professional services and training and things of substance. $400,000 was a lot. After we brought that back, Council said we need more and that is when we got into the issue with individuals. The reference made to the $400,000 does include $130,300 in staff'mg. He was looking for some direction from Council because we still have the Deputy Registrar office to see if that is part of it. He needed to find out whether the Council was willing to say we will reduce two positions and we will trust the City Administrator to select those positions in an appropriate way. He was not given that much; it was Peter, reduce these two positions. He has to recommend what he feels comfortable with. He will not recommend what one, two, or three Councilmembers have suggested to him. That has happened in the last couple budget sessions. He has not recommended those two specific positions; he needs much more room to do that. He does not want to argue with Council, but he has his own ethical standards. If it is going to be his recommendation, it needs to be his recommendation, not a recommendation that has been told to him by someone else. He works for the Council, not any individual Councilmember. He would like to fmd a way to work this out. Mayor Larson stated Council was confused because we did talk about staff reductions last year and the City Administrator said to trust you and those were your decisions to make. This year when we talked about staff reductions, the City Administrator said he will not recommend any, Council has to recommend them. So that is what Council did. Councilmember May stated to give staff some direction, there was extensive conversation that we needed to look at one position in the management level. We can discuss more later without having to name a particular position, but looking at long term cuts. What she is hearing the City Administrator saying, is he wants Council to tell him. We need to get it all out Monday night and figure it out so we can move forward. Mr. David Pritzlaff stated two years ago these cuts were proposed and Councilmembers Fogarty and Wilson did not want to look at these cuts or any cuts. When Councilmember May brings up the money for Vermillion River Crossing, over the last 2-3 years we have not reduced any positions. In the paper it was stated these two positions would save about $200,000 a year. Any positions proposed 2-3 years ago would look real good because we had a downturn in the economy. We should have been looking at cuts three years ago rather than when we are in the worst times and we could have had $600,000 in the budget by making those cuts. It is true, this is not Council's place to do this. Council made the recommendation at the last budget workshop to the City Administrator to do this. Now for him to bring it back and put it to a vote in front of the Council, is not your job. As Councilmember Donnelly said, you are in 23 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 17 charge of the City Administrator and he is in charge of everyone else. What Council recommends to him, he needs to follow it. Otherwise Council is getting into personnel matters. Which it has always been said Council does not deal with staff Whatever is recommended in upcoming workshops needs to be done and not brought back to Council to vote. It puts Council in a bad position, gets Council tied into personnel matters, and Council is not the boss of the staff: the City Administrator is. He needs to say this is what Council wants me to do. The fIrst recommendation from the City Administrator was to propose no staffmg cuts this year. All we have done in recent years is looked at people who have retired as far as staffmg reductions aside from a Parks and Rec employee. That is money out of the budget, but that is not making cuts. Council did recommend a cut to the City Administrator and that is where it has to stay. Keep Council out of personnel matters and let the City Administrator do his job according to your request. Councilmember Fogarty wanted to clarify that removing a position from the City budget because someone retires is a positive stand. It is eliminating a position from the City. Just because it was done voluntarily and not as a layoff does not mean it does not count. It very much counts. It is positions that are no longer within the City and every other staff member has to do that much more. She will not pretend like those don't exist and they don't affect our staff; they absolutely do. Mr. Pritzlaffwas not saying they do not make a budget impact, but over the course of the downtown and the economy, looking at neighboring cities, Lakeville is at current staff levels of2001. That does not happen from retirements. They saw a downturn in the economy beforehand, took some initiative and made cuts. Sometimes more than just retirements are needed. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Donnelly: Regarding Mr. Garvey's comments, the franchise fee is not an attempt to build a slush fund. It is another means to fmance the seal coating projects in a fair way. To insinuate we will raid it for other things bothers him. We are trying to come up with a fair way to fund the work that has to be done. We are not trying to cheat people. It is not fmalized yet, but as you can see the assessment problem is not golden either. It is an attempt to streamline that, make it fair for everyone, and to cover the cost. We are not trying to build a big fund. That is not the intent of this Council or City staff Councilmember Wilson: In the six years he has been on the Counci~ regardless of the dynamic of who the Councilmembers are or the issues that come up, all of us try to work as a team. He hoped that as we work through the budget issues, we continue to have open dialogue about this. He feels like we are getting into a situation we have had the last couple years which he fmds frustrating that it is Council versus the administration. He views the City Administrator and staff as part of a team that is trying to work for the best interests of the citizens of Farmington. Whether we have individual disagreements about issues it is because we all care about the City and we are looking out for the best interest ofthe taxpayers. He hoped we can approach the next couple weeks of budget discussions with the perspective that even if a position is eliminated, it is not 24 Council Minutes (Regular) October 4, 2010 Page 18 something any of us takes lightly. It is done in the best interest of the City and we all need to be on the same page with what needs to get done. Councilmember Fogarty: She attended the ribbon cutting at the Ice Arena. There were several dozen people in attendance and she appreciated them coming. Tryouts are starting for the hockey season and she is hearing nothing but great things about the ice. People are very happy with the investment made in our community. She has had no less than a dozen people thanking her and Council for the trail. She has yet to go down Pilot Knob and not see several people on the trail. It was a nice addition to the community. She thanked everyone for great homecoming events. Councilmember May: Promised to keep an open mind and stay positive and wanted to reach out to those employees who feel they are on the fence. It has to be very difficult. She promised she will do her best to work with Council and staff to come up with the best solutions for everyone. There are decisions to make and she promises to do her best and keep an open mind. City Administrator Herlofsky: Suggested having the ribbon cutting for the Pilot Knob trail on October 18,2010, at 6:00 p.m. at the intersection of200th Street and Pilot Knob Road. We will contact county representatives so they are aware of the event. Mayor Larson: The Haunted House for the troops will be held this weekend. It is a tremendous event and well supported by the community. He thanked the VFW for inviting him to the annual dinner. A resident stopped him regarding the Pilot Knob trail and said it was the worst decision ever made and no one will use that trail. On his way home, he noted there were five different families using the trail. Then he knew it was the right decision. He encouraged residents to shop locally. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adjourn at 9:02 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 25