Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.07.04 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR September 7, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Soderberg Fogarty Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; David Urbia, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Lee Mann, Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Terry Merritt, Randall Pedersen, Dick Hansen, Terry Pierson, Mark Pierson, Arlo Finey, Arlyn Lamb, David McKnight, Randy Becker, Dan Iverson, Steve Wilson, Mike Zitek, Russell Zellman, Terry Flower, Jim Ozmun, Kay Cahill, Stuerbaults, Jim & Tara Hedlund, Jeff Krueger, Denise May 4. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Cordes pulled item 7a) Council Minutes 8/23/04 Special to abstain from voting. City Administrator Urbia added under 8a) a revised ordinance, 12a) a budget handout, lla) CIP memo, 5a) Presentation ofGFOA Award. City Engineer Mann added under 1 Oe) an update on the status of the Southeast Area Trunk Utility and Pond Project. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. s. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Presentation of GFOA Award City Administrator Urbia presented the GFOA Award to Finance Director Roland. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Terry Flower, 13586 Fisher Avenue, Nininger Township, stated he is running for Dakota County Commissioner in District 1. Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 2 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fitch to approve Council Minutes (8/23/04 Special). Voting for: Ristow, Fitch, Soderberg. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fitch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Adopted RESOLUTION R67-04 - Accept Donation - Parks and Recreation c) Approved Cardboard Recycling Program Agreement - Parks and Recreation d) Authorized Staff to Re- Advertise Sale of Garbage Truck - Parks and Recreation e) Information Received Capital Outlay - Parks f) Approved School and Conference - Fire Department g) Acknowledged Retirement - Human Resources h) Acknowledged Resignation Parks and Recreation - Human Resources i) Received Information Capital Outlay Liquor Operations - Finance j) 2004 Seal Coat Project - Set October 4,2004 Assessment Hearing - Engineering k) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Proposed Garvey/Empey Annexation Petitions - Community Development The City has received two separate petitions for annexations. The first property consists of three parcels south ofHwy 50, east ofHwy 3 and north of225th Street. The applicant is Mr. Colin Garvey and he proposes commercial uses on the property. The second annexation is for adjoining property owned by Ms. Judith Empey located to the south of Mr. Garvey's property. The potential annexation of Mr. Garvey's property was envisioned when the negotiations were entered into regarding the Ash Street project. There was a Joint Powers Agreement for this project and these three parcels are included in an area that was considered for annexation. The understanding in the agreement is that if Mr. Garvey wanted to seek annexation it would be done through a joint resolution between the City and the Castle Rock Town Board. The Joint Powers Agreement does not specifically talk about the Empey property or address the issue of annexation. An ordinance would be needed for annexation of this property. The Garvey and Empey properties have been recommended to receive MUSA. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the Garvey request had any impact on the Empey request. Staff stated Mr. Garvey's plan is to develop both properties. From Mr. Garvey's perspective they are linked, but from a legal standpoint the annexation of one property does not require the annexation of the other. The Garvey property is 40 acres and the Empey property is 45 acres. Mr. Arlo Finey, Berring Avenue, asked where the golf course is. He heard a rumor it has been built by a developer and homes will be built there. Staff showed the golf course is to the east. Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 3 Ms. Terry Pierson, 225th Street, asked if it was too premature to ask what is being proposed for the Garvey and Empey sites. Mayor Ristow stated commercial has been proposed for the Garvey property. Staff replied for the Empey property, Mr. Garvey has indicated it will be residential development with 15,000 sq. ft. lots. Ms. Pierson stated her concern is the density of housing and whether or not the rumor Mr. Finey has heard is true. She stated the citizens know there is nothing they can do about the sale of the properties, and hoped Farmington is not stretching themselves too thin and wanted to see good planning. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to close the Garvey hearing. Mr. Colin Garvey stated both properties relate to the Ash Street project and he does not want to bring in one without the other. Councilmember Fitch stated staff shows two separate actions being requested. Mr. Garvey stated he went through the whole process with the two properties together and he has not heard of them being separated until tonight. Councilmember Soderberg stated they are two separate legal documents so they have to be considered separately. Mr. Garvey asked what if one comes in and not the other. He cannot develop them separately because ofthe Ash Street project and the cost. City Attorney Jamnik stated if the Garvey property comes in, it's in. If the Empey property does not come in, it stays out. Council is not required to authorize the annexation of either or both. It is two separate legal petitions by separate owners and separate legal proceedings. Council's authority is to make the decision for one, both, or neither. Mayor Ristow stated Mr. Garvey has the authority to act for Ms. Empey. City Attorney J amnik stated he has seen no agency authority and we have a petition from Ms. Empey that gives us jurisdiction to act on her property. Mr. Garvey stated the properties are being developed in conjunction with the Ash Street project. Mayor Ristow stated it is Mr. Garvey's call as to whether he wants his property annexed. Mr. Garvey then asked Council to vote on the Empey property first. Attorney Jamnik stated so far the hearing has been on the Garvey property. The Empey property has not been discussed. Mayor Ristow stated we could go on to the Empey property now and then vote after that. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Terry Merritt, 7300 14ih Street, Apple Valley, Attorney for Castle Rock Township, stated the Joint Powers Agreement covers the jurisdictional basis for the Garvey property. During the discussions on the agreement there was no mention of the Empey property. The Township is opposing the Empey property because they question whether it is necessary or appropriate, and also because of the work that went into the initial planning of the Joint Powers Agreement. The township is willing to continue discussions with Farmington in dealing with this and future annexation issues. Mr. Colin Garvey, stated he believes the Empey property was considered to be developed. He showed a map from the township's engineer showing all the areas Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 4 considered for the storm water pond, including the west side of the golf course, ponds 7, 6 on the Empey property and pond 55 on the Empey property. The township paid in excess of $50,000 in fees to the engineering firm for this study which he believed Farmington paid for. At that time, the township wanted him to give them an easement for his property. He told them he would sell them the easement, but they did not have the money to buy it. They did anticipate the property being developed fairly soon or they would not have done the study. He then showed a map from 1964 showing it was all vacant land and the township has developed it over the years. This was the reason for the storm water management plan. In 1998 the township signed an agreement with Farmington and the Met Council when Canton Court was developed that the township participate in the storm water runoff plan. Mr. Garvey does not believe the township has fulfilled their obligation with this, because Farmington is also paying for that. Another concern he had was the delay ofthe project. He had a bid for the ponding and the excavating ofthis project from Friedges Excavating for under $1 million. Because of the delays by the township, the contract was awarded for $1.3 million. He showed a map with the original design of the pond from the summer of2002. Then he showed a map ofthe change in the design of the pond by the township from December 4,2003. He believed this was after the signing ofthe Joint Powers Agreement. Mr. Garvey did not understand how the township can come back with all these fees spent, all this money from the taxpayers, and say they did not plan on this being developed. Yet, they came back and changed the design of the pond that was approved by their own engineers for over two years. He could not get any answers from the township. The costs on this project have risen dramatically. There is a $721,000 increase in just the price of the pond alone. As the drawings show, they did plan on the Empey property being developed. They would not have requested an easement if they did not want it to be developed. He has followed the process and attended the MUSA and Planning Commission meetings. He believed this was only to delay the process more. Regarding the additional $700,000 for the pond, he asked if there was a signed bid from the contractor and if that included that additional cost. City Engineer Mann replied the estimated construction cost of the pond is similar to the bids received. There are other costs such as engineering, studies that were done over various years, etc. He would need to meet with Mr. Garvey to find out which costs he is describing. Councilmember Pitch stated construction will start this fall. Mr. Garvey stated at that time he was doing the pond privately. He was trying to show how much construction has jumped in delaying these projects. When the agreement for Canton Court was signed by the township, it stated that they will participate in the storm water plan. That whole area has been designed to be done at the same time. Councilmember Pitch stated his understanding is there has been a lot of communication between the City and Castle Rock and asked ifthis has been an issue up to this point. He had not heard any objections to the letters of interest in Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 5 some of the areas the MUSA Committee has selected for MUSA. Community Development Director Carroll stated they have done their best to keep the townships informed. One of the first meetings was devoted exclusively to township properties. He did not recall receiving any formal objection from the township to the MUSA issue. He agreed with the township's attorney that there should be more communication over issues like this in the future. Mayor Ristow noted about the properties along Hwy 50, if any of those properties wanted to come in to receive City services, there would be no objection. He asked ifthat would be the same for the Empey property. Staff stated as far as the Garvey property, yes. As far as the Empey property, probably not. Councilmember Cordes wanted to make it clear, the City did not solicit the annexation petitions. The property owners came to the City. Staff confirmed that the City does not contact property owners to annex, the owners have to contact the City. Mayor Ristow stated the land also has to be contiguous to existing City property and less than 60 acres. Staff agreed both of these properties meet those requirements. Councilmember Soderberg asked about Mr. Garvey's comments regarding the redesign of the pond. City Engineer Mann replied the pond Mr. Garvey initially showed was the basic design ofthe pond. Mr. Garvey's property would have half the pond and Castle Rock Bank would have the other half on their property. The bank would prefer to have a portion of their upland property clear and not with a pond on it. The second design Mr. Garvey showed, which was bid out for the project, does leave a piece of the property for the bank to do something with in the future. Staff worked with Castle Rock Township on the design and their engineer agreed it met all the criteria from the study. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the ponding designs for ponds 55 and 6 become an integral part of that area. City Engineer Mann replied all of those ponds are necessary for that entire area to develop. During the process ofthe pre-design with Castle Rock's engineer, originally ponds 6 and 55 were going to go to the pond the City is going to build. However, through discussions Castle Rock wanted to send as little water to that pond as possible. Due to the agreement between the township and the City and the City paying for that pond, which is pond 8, ponds 55 and 6 were going to be routed directly across Hwy 50 to the Prairie Waterway and not to pond 8. Mr. Todd Larson, 819 7th Street, stated he is a member of the Planning Commission and the MUSA Review Committee, and wanted to emphasize that the Garvey property would come into the City for its commercial value. As far as the Empey property, they thought it was best to bring in the Garvey and Empey properties to develop a Master Plan for all of those properties to work together. He felt if one comes into the City, both should. Mr. Jim Stuerbault, 3422 225th Street W, was curious how this would impact their property if these properties are annexed and developed. He assumed 225th Street Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 6 would be paved and there would be City water and sewer and would they be hooked up to that. Mayor Ristow replied no, the City cannot assess them for it and City policy is new development pays 100%. This should have no bearing on them. Mr. Stuerbault stated the road is gravel and asked if there were any plans to pave it, widen it, put in curbs and lights. Mayor Ristow stated it would be premature to answer that. It would depend on what the school district does and what the access would be as it goes through the planning process. Mr. Colin Garvey stated one of the reasons the ponds were not included, is because the property was not available. Through discussions with SEH and City Engineer Mann at the time, as the drawings for ponds 6 and 55 showed, they preferred it to go to pond 8, but the property was not available. He has discussed this with staff since then and talked about putting it to pond 8, but at this point they are working to get Ash Street in. Pond 8 is on Mr. Garvey's property. With the redesign by the township he loses almost 3/4 of an acre more property without being consulted. He talked with the township on developing both properties and the township's main objective, he believes~ is to stop the school and future development. He wants to bring this property into the City as it would be the best thing for this community to develop it all at once and do it right. In the Joint Powers Agreement, section C, regarding unserved properties~ it states that Farmington and Castle Rock Township agree not to annex properties unserved by sanitary sewer and water services by Farmington in orderly annexation, absent a petition of 100% of the property owners affected. Mr. Mark Pierson, 225th Street, stated it has been said the City does not annex property that is not adjacent to the City. He asked how the Tollefson property became part of the City. Mayor Ristow replied it has been in the City for a number of years and came in with the Tom Thumb property. Mr. Pierson asked how the property is zoned. Mayor Ristow stated the property would come in as Ag-l and then it is rezoned to business, housing, or commercial. Mr. Pierson stated the property owners in Castle Rock are going to be asked to swallow a lot of development in a short amount of time. Mr. Garvey has his property, has acquired the development rights to the Empey property, he has bought the golf course, and the high school is probably going in across the street. Everyone he has talked to is against that much development all at once. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Soderberg asked when construction will begin on the ponding and the whole project. City Engineer Mann replied they are hoping to start within the next two weeks. Councilmember Soderberg asked if action on the Empey property could be continued for two weeks and would it adversely hamper the project from proceeding. The township has asked for some dialog regarding annexation of the Empey property. City Engineer Mann replied the improvements are not on the Empey property. They are on the Garvey property Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 7 and the Castle Rock bank property. Mr. Garvey may have issues with regard to the timing, but they are not related to the City's project. Councilmember Soderberg asked if representatives from the township have been at the MUSA meetings regarding the discussion on the township properties. Staff replied some of the representatives have been at some of the meetings. Councilmember Fitch stated they have been invited and there is a comment period at the end ofthe MUSA meetings for the audience. There has been very little comment. It would be accurate to say they have not objected at all until this petition came forward. Mayor Ristow noted there was no objection at the Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Fitch stated Mr. Garvey was there as a representative of his property and the Empey property. Mr. Garvey stated he presented plans four months ago to the MUSA Committee and staff. Councilmember Cordes asked because this falls under the MN Statute and it is less than 60 acres, does Council have the authority to deny it. Attorney Jamnik replied yes. It is a property owner's right ifthey fall under this category to petition the City and the City can act after this hearing. Township consent is not needed. Regarding the Garvey parcel, that falls under the Orderly Annexation agreement where the City does have township consent. MOTION by Cordes, second by Fitch adopting ORDINANCE 004-517 extending the corporate limits of the City of Farmington to include certain unincorporated land (60 acres or less) abutting upon the City limits. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fitch adopting RESOLUTION R68-04 approving the joint resolution of the town of Castle Rock and the City of Farmington, designating an unincorporated area as in need of orderly annexation and conferring jurisdiction over said area to the Department of Administration, Boundary Adjustment Office. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Appoint City Councilmember to Community Center Feasibility Study Steering Committee - Parks and Recreation Staff requested having a Councilmember appointed to the Community Center Feasibility Study Steering Committee. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Fitch to nominate Councilmember Fogarty to this committee. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Spruce Street Feasibility Report - Engineering The project consists of extending Spruce Street from Denmark to the west. There would be a bridge across the Vermillion River and continue through the commercial area. The alignment has been incorporated in the preliminary plat Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 8 design for the Knutson development. The bridge will be located in an environmentally sensitive area and will be highly visible. The estimated project cost is $3,046,000. The City has received a Met Council Livable Communities Development Grant in the amount of $955,000. The remainder of the costs would be assessed to benefiting properties. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R69-04 accepting the feasibility report for the Spruce Street Extension Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) 20Sth Street Connection to TH 3 - Community Development Most of the alignment for the future extension of208th Street to Hwy 3 would be through the Rother property. This property is currently within the township as well as all of the roadway alignment. The owners of the Rother property are considering possible development oftheir property. There is not a clear policy as to whether the Council can authorize staff to prepare a feasibility report for a roadway alignment that is not within the City. The issues with the traffic on Akin Road and 208th Street would be addressed in this feasibility report. Councilmember Cordes noted a couple years ago Council approved an extension of the bridge on Hwy 3 regarding this road. It is a major thoroughfare and the turn lane is on the bridge for this road. Councilmember Soderberg stated the e- mailed received from the property indicated there might be a question as to whether to petition the City for annexation or the petition could be delayed for 5- 10 years or more. He was concerned with spending $30,000-$40,000 for a feasibility study on a parcel that mayor may not come into the City. It has been approved to authorize MUSA to this property if it is annexed. He felt it was premature to spend the money on this study. Councilmember Fitch stated one in and out was not anticipated for that area in Riverside and the Middle Schools. Regardless of the property coming into the City, at some point, just for traffic and development ofthe industrial park he felt the City has to know what it will cost, because the City may not be able to wait 10 years to make that connection. Staff stated one benefit of the feasibility study would be to address the cost allocation. City Engineer Mann estimated the cost ofthe feasibility study to be $10,000 - $20,000. Mayor Ristow stated the property owner would want to know the cost before making a decision to do anything. Staff agreed there is a risk with doing the feasibility study and spending money on information you cannot immediately use. Some of the issues addressed in the report would be useful. The properties would always be there and it is easier to update a feasibility report than to start from scratch. Staff will bring a request to the next Council Meeting to get approval for doing a feasibility study. d) Approve Budget Presentation Video - Council Councilmember Fitch stated City Administrator Urbia mentioned at the last meeting to put together a video explaining the budget for broadcasting on TV as a Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 9 way of communicating the budget to the residents. This would be done after the budget workshop, sometime in November. Council agreed. e) Status Southeast Area Trunk Utility and Pond Project Update - Engineering This was awarded contingent on finishing negotiations with Castle Rock Bank and obtaining the rights to build the pond on their property. Staff is waiting for the bank to come back with their final thoughts. If a decision is not made by the next Council Meeting, staff will bring forward an alternative that will allow the project to keep going within the timeframe. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) 2005-2009 CIP - Administration City Administrator Urbia presented the CIP to Council. Included in the CIP was the ranking of buildings, special fund project, public works projects, park improvement projects. Regarding the ranking of City buildings, at the Council workshop it was decided to leave the Fire Station in 2005 and push the City Hall back a year. City Administrator Urbia decided to push City Hall and the Central Maintenance Facility extension back another year to 2007 - 2008 for a couple reasons. First, there are a lot of infrastructure projects in 2006 and it would allow some time to let the community's tax base grow and to have another budget year to bolster the operational budgets, and get the fund reserve balance back. The next area is special fund projects which come out of special revenue funds such as road and bridge, storm water, water funds, etc. No changes were made from the budget workshop. The projects in this category would not be assessed or bonded. Public works projects include the sidewalk and curb replacement program which is an annual program, and an annual mill and overlay project. The next projects are Ash Street and Spruce Street for 2005. Industrial Park phase 4 was moved to 2006 and phase 3 to 2007. 208th Street extension and signal installation are in 2007. Hill Dee area utility/street reconstruction, 195th Street construction to Hwy 3, and Elm Street reconstruction are proposed for 2006. Spruce Street utility/street construction (City Hall site - 4th Street to 1st Street) and 2nd Street area overlay and curb reconstruction are in 2007. Projects in 2008 include 5th Street trunk sewer extension (Elm Street to Walnut Street, 208th Street utility/street extension and bridge to TH3, and east Walnut Street area utility/street reconstruction. Pilot Knob Road extension to Ash Street and 193rd Street overlay and curb reconstruction are listed for 2009. Regarding parks improvements, the CIP shows a negative balance in 2007. City Administrator Urbia feels the fund should not have a negative balance. A couple projects could be moved back a year depending on revenues. City Administrator Urbia presented a spreadsheet showing the debt service schedule and projects it through 2019. It also shows the levy projections for each Council Minutes (Regular) September 7,2004 Page 10 of the projects identified for City buildings and public works projects that would require a levy. The City is fully responsible for the levy for City building projects, whereas a road project and an infrastructure project in a new development are covered by the developer. In reconstruction projects, there is a 35% assessment and the City pays 65%. City Administrator Urbia then reviewed the 2005 projects and the direction needed to proceed in a timely manner. He attached a memo from Wold Architects giving the service fees for the Fire Station. In order to meet the March I, 2005 bid date, the design process should start no later than October I, 2004. Staff will update the 10 year proforma showing how these projects will work along with the operational expenditure projects and the overall impact on the tax levy. Councilmember Fitch asked if the City could outstrip our bonding ability if we get too far ahead with infrastructure for developments. Finance Director Roland replied it is possible, but not likely. Councilmember Cordes thanked City Administrator Urbia and staff for their time and hard work on the CIP. $10 million looks better than $25 million. Councilmember Soderberg stated looking at the numbers, it is safe to say this is going to change. He will take some time and review it. Mayor Ristow stated it was a good start. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - 2005 Preliminary Tax Levy and Budget - Finance Finance Director Roland presented the 2005 preliminary tax levy. The levy is to be certified to the County by September 15,2004. Once the tax levy is adopted, the Council may lower it, but they may not raise it. The proposed preliminary levy is $5,849,302. This is $1.2 million or 25.8% over the 2004 levy of $4,649,302. The entire amount ofthe $1.2 million would be going towards the general fund. General fund revenues are estimated at $7.12 million with 66.7% coming from property taxes. In the 2004 budget, 58% was coming from property taxes. There are no levy limits in 2005. This budget plays catch-up for the last two years. The state legislature will face a deficit which could be $200 to $400 million. This is due to the fact the state included inflation factors in their revenue expectations, but did not include inflation factors in their expenditures. The state will be looking at cities to resolve their budget deficit. There is no more LGA for the state to take, but what cities do have is market value homestead credit. Cities collect a portion of that. This credit is a portion of the City's certified property tax levy that is paid by the state instead of the home owner. In 2005 there should not be any homestead credit cuts. However, if mid-2005 the state is faced with a deficit and they choose to take away the homestead credit, it could affect the City's budget by up to $370,000. The levy being presented is already an increase of $1.2 million. There are other things the City could look at and that will be discussed at the budget workshop. Expenditures are proposed to increase by 16.4% over the 2004 budget. This is due to operational cost increases, existing contractual obligations and additional staffing. However, for the third Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 11 consecutive year the City's tax base has grown by more than 20%. In 2005, $527,902 in capital outlay will be funded by a certificate of indebtedness, not by levy dollars. Additional staffing proposed includes three new patrol officers, two promotions to sergeant, an IT specialist, an economic development specialist, a % building inspector and a parks and facilities maintenance position. The 2004 adopted budget is probably a little on the high side for revenues. Staff put additional emphasis on interest earnings and ifthat does not come through, there will be a problem. We also put an emphasis on non-levy related revenues. The comparison is the revenue goes up 15.6% overall. The permit revenues are more conservative as are the interest revenues. This is based on a shift to a tax levy that would cover more expenditures than building permits and other revenue sources. Councilmember Fitch stated if permits come in higher and interest comes in higher, is it a Council decision where those monies would be allocated such as to put back into budget reserves or would staff make that recommendation. Finance Director Roland replied in most cases when revenues have been higher that balance has rolled over into the fund balance and Council, by adopting the revised budget, has allowed that to happen. Expenditures were broken out by department. Departments with new positions were up for an overall total of 17.6%. In the 2004 adopted budget revenues will not exceed nor fall under budget. The fund balance will be 32.8% of the adopted 2004 expenditures. There is no gain or loss proposed in the 2005 budget. The fund balance falls to 28.3%. That is under the current proposed budget. Revenues overall increased 15.6%. Expenditures are up 17.6%. All of the dollars for new positions total 6.2%. The remaining 11.4% is other expenses. The proposed tax levy results in an increase in tax capacity rate from 41.4039 in 2004 to 44.5586 in 2005. As a result, the market value of a median home was $224,000. That exact home will be valued at $239,000 in 2005. That is an increase of7%. Taxes payable on a median value home in 2004 would be $927, in 2005 it will be $1,065. The total tax increase is 15%. Half is due to market value increase and half due to the tax levy. If you take the average tax increase for the last three years, the average for the last three years would equate to 6-7% per year over those three years, which is less than what the market value is increasing and less than what the population is . . mcreasmg. The resolution requests a property tax levy of $5,849,302, which includes $1,099,009 for debt service and $60,000 for the fire pension. The resolution also establishes December 6,2004 as the City's truth in taxation hearing. Staff also requested Council to set a budget workshop date. Councilmember Soderberg stated the approach is a more conservative approach than in the past. Finance Director Roland replied correct, they look at historical information as well as existing lots, and existing builder and developer communications with Planning. In 2004 when staff estimated 440 new homes, Council Minutes (Regular) September 7,2004 Page 12 staff believed they had the lots and developer commitment. That did not work out. For 2005, staff budgeted for 350 new building permits. There are no commercial, industrial or retail building permits included in the estimate. Should that happen, that is additional revenue. When staff considered staffing requirements for Community Development they included expenses for the 500 home level. Councilmember Fitch noted the interest was reduced to $225,000 which is a more conservative number. Mayor Ristow stated he is not proud of this kind of budget. He has spoken with City Administrator Urbia who has assured him there are possibilities of cuts that will not restrict the City that will be discussed in the budget workshop. Council set the budget workshop for Tuesday, October 5, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R70-04, certifying the 2005 Preliminary Tax Levy to Dakota County and establishing December 6,2004 at 7:00 p.m. as the City of Farmington's Truth in Taxation hearing for Tax Levy collectible 2005. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Soderberg: He received a request from a resident regarding the stop signs at 6th Street and Ash Street and about painting the street with Stop Ahead. He explained the street will be torn up next summer and this would not be a good time to do that. Perhaps that could be looked at as part ofthe project. The resident also asked about flashing lights on the stop signs, as traffic drives through the intersection without stopping. City Administrator Urbia stated staff has received that request and they contacted the County. They made sure the obstruction was gone, however he will check on it. The County e-mail was also mailed to the resident. City Engineer Mann will talk to the County regarding including the flashing light in the project. He attended the Rambling River Center's 22nd Anniversary dinner. It was a good presentation and congratulated staff for doing a great job in providing services to our residents through that facility. Council received an e-mail from City Administrator Urbia regarding a City employee, Jen Collova, with praise from a business man in town. Councilmember Fitch: He sat at the stop sign on 208th Street the first day of school between 7:10 a.m. -7:30 a.m. and observed traffic. The longest anyone was at the stop sign was 35 seconds. Congratulations to the people that travel through that intersection. It was mentioned about getting the budget to the candidates and he also suggested sending them Council packets. City Administrator Urbia stated staff is doing that already and will continue. Mayor Ristow: There is the possibility of a third Council seat being open and asked if Council wanted to address it now. He did not want to see someone else in Council Minutes (Regular) September 7, 2004 Page 13 that situation and have to make a tough call. Councilmember Cordes stated the new sitting Council could change the policy. Precedent had been set from previous years that it was by appointment. City Attorney Jamnik recalled it was decided not to change the policy, but leave it as an appointment without any pre-judgement as to how that appointment would be made. The new Council would struggle with it and determine whether or not to do a special election. Mayor Ristow recalled last time there was concern about the third highest vote getter, so could people be voting for the third highest vote getter this time? City Attorney J amnik stated they could or they could not. It would be Council's choice as to what priorities and protocols to use. You could not bind a future Council. Councilmember Cordes stated there are still only two Council seats open for election, so people can only cast two votes for Council. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to adjourn at 10:22 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~)?~~~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant