Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.16.09 Council Minutes 7a... COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MARCH 16,2009 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 Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Lisa Shadick, Administrative Services Director; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Randy Distad, Parks and Recreation Director; Kevin Schorzman, City Engineer; Todd Reiten, Municipal Services Director; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Justin Elvestad, Chad Thelen, Tim Vanderlinde, Tom Hemish, Paula Sahin, Mark Snider, Spencer Snider, Austin Snider, Matt Granos, Nick Cochrane, Lucille Korsman 4. APPROVE A GENDA Councilmember Fogarty pulled item 7b) Approve Curbside Clean-up Day Agreement for discussion. Councilmember May pulled item 7i) Approve Proposal for Structural Engineering Services for discussion. Administrative Services Director Shadick pulled item 5c) Representative Pat Garofalo to reschedule. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduce New Employee Liquor Operations Randy Petrofske, Liquor Operations Manager, introduced C.J. Adelman as a new liquor store employee. He is also a volunteer firefighter. b) Introduce New Firefighter Fire Chief Pietsch introduced Tyler Leppert as a new firefighter. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (3/2/09 Regular) (3/9/09 Workshop) c) Approved Agreement for Portable Toilet Service - Parks and Recreation Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 2 d) Approved School and Conference - Fire Department e) Adopted RESOLUTION R12-09 Accepting Donation - Administration f) Adopted RESOLUTION R13-09 Approve Gambling Event Permit and Temporary On-Sale Liquor License - Administration g) Adopted ORDINANCE 009-600, 009-601, 009-602, 009-603, 009-604 Approving Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments - Planning h) Approved Medical Director Agreement with Allina - Police j) Approved Senior Hardship Deferral Special Assessment - Finance k) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Approve Curbside Clean-up Day Agreement - Municipal Services Councilmember Fogarty noted electronics are up over 50% in cost over last year. Curbside clean-up is getting to be very expensive. She asked if it would help the budget to eliminate this service for one year, or if there could be a drop off for appliances. Finance Director Roland stated it does not affect the general budget. Curbside clean-up is budgeted for $155,000 this year. This service was to avoid the long lines, overtime for staff, etc. The City did increase fees for residential garbage when this program was instituted. Councilmember Wilson suggested if we want to change the program, to look at it next year and then stop billing the residents for it. He asked if we could exceed the budget in this area and have to backfill from other portions of the solid waste budget. Municipal Services Director Reiten stated the costs should be approximately $142,000. Councilmember Wilson noted there is the looting and traffic issues. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to approve the agreement with Certified Appliance Recycling, LLC for recycling appliances and electronics for curbside cleanup days 2009. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. i) Approve Proposal for Structural Engineering Services - Parks and Recreation Councilmember May recalled Council had requested staff to obtain bids to look at the structure of the Rambling River Center building, but questioned whether this is something we want to do or sell the building as is. Mayor Larson would rather have a potential buyer determine the structure of the building rather than spending $2,000 for the City to do this. The schedule shows the seniors moving in to the old City Hall at the end of October. Councilmember Wilson suggested putting the building on the market for 6-8 months and see what happens. Councilmember Donnelly asked what the benefit would be for the City to survey the structure. Parks and Recreation Director Distad explained if the City would retain ownership, the idea was to see what deficiencies needed to be repaired in the event the City rented the building. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to deny hiring an engineering firm to determine the structure of the Rambling River Center building. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 3 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) 2009 Seal Coat Project - Engineering The low bid on the project was $1.08/sq. yard which compares to the estimate of $1.10/sq. yard. The net effect reduces the proposed assessment by $2.00. The project does include areas being done for the first time after 3 years of being constructed. Other areas included in the project are on the normal 7-year cycle. Councilmember Wilson asked how this expense has been able to keep costs down for other projects such as complete reconstruct or mill and overlay. City Engineer Schorzman stated it is hard to quantify something that does not happen. Research indicates there is a benefit to delaying the larger reconstruction projects. The seal coating seals the surface cracks that develop in the road and keeps the water and salt out of the base. Councilmember May recalled when this project was previously discussed it was noted the cost to residents is more than last year because of the formula. She would like staff to look at ways to make it more equitable for everyone. Staff will look at that for next year's project. Mr. David Pritzlaff, 20255 Akin Road, noted this project is $50 more than in the last four years. There are fewer multi-family homes included in this project. Looking at multi-family homes built three years ago and those streets coming into the section, the City is broke up into seven sections because a seal coat is done every seven years. If you take the seven sections out, for four years everyone has paid between $75 - $80. The 5th year they will pay $50 more, and suspected the 6th and ih year it will go back down to $75 - $80. There is one section in the City that is paying $50 more than anyone else in the seven years. It does not seem fair that for whatever street you are on, you are paying $50 more for the same project people have received the other six years. Last year we thought it would go up tremendously because of the price of oil. At that point oil was $1 05/barrel, now it is $45/barrel. From that standpoint, the price should be lower. For any street in the seal coat project this year, does Council know the future of all these streets for the next seven years. In 2006 we seal coated 4th Street, in 2007 we did Elm Street and tore up half a block of 4th Street that we seal coated, and now this year we are going to tear up 4th Street that was seal coated 3 years ago. He would like to not see his street, or any other street included with his section, have something major done to it within the next seven years. Otherwise, all the money we have paid is nothing but a waste. Looking at the $75-$80 for the last four years and move it to $130, what is the appraisal factor, Is that a sound assessment? Will it raise the value of the property $130? Ms. Paula Sahin, 5413 Upper 183rd Street W, felt it was a great project and that maintenance is important. This is the wrong year. She is a Human Resources Manager and sees the 8.1 % unemployment. She lives in a townhome development that of the 65 units, 16 units are in foreclosure, It is more important Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 4 to make sure people can stay in their homes so the City continues to receive the tax money. She looks at her bills this year, and is a first time homeowner as of October, keeps her heat at 62 degrees and her bill is $150 every month. She explained the expense she has with having her meter tested. She felt there are valid reasons behind what Council does, but there are so many different levels of what is going on in people's lives, and this is just one more thing that will throw them over the edge. If it comes between paying for heat and paying to have the street seal coated, she would rather pay for heat. Ms. Lucille Korsman, 1116 Highland Circle, came to complain about the new seal coating in Highland Circle. She was not against it or the $132 assessment. She felt the City should take care of the problem first, before Highland Circle is seal coated. There are 10 houses in Highland Circle and each homeowner paid $9,946.80 to have the new road constructed when they were annexed three years ago. They asked for a cement apron, but the only homes that received this were the two homes at the entrance of the circle. The other eight received nothing and now have broken tar on both sides of the road. When she talked to staff about this, she was told that the residents did not want curb and gutter. Ms. Korsman explained this was because they do not have any standing water in Highland Circle. When the blacktop was put in, the homes needed a cement apron which she feels is cheaper than installing curb and gutter. Before the seal coat is done, she felt the cement aprons should be installed to protect the edges. Once the cement aprons are installed, she would be willing to pay the $132. City Engineer Schorzman stated they will have to do some patching before the seal coat is done. The biggest issue is there is no edge support on the road. He was not here when the project was designed, but understood originally it had an aggregate shoulder to support the edge of the pavement. That was removed because of an aesthetic issue and replaced with dirt which has not stayed up to support the edge. As larger vehicles drive on the road, the edge is breaking up. If it is seal coated, next winter there is the potential to have the same problem. The cost of doing the cement apron was estimated last year at $35,000 - $40,000. Aggregate if placed correctly would provide the same support and would be cheaper, but may not be aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Korsman stated a lady with the company told her they would place pea rock around the edge of the circle. Ms. Korsman told her not to because the snow plow will throw it up in the front yards and it will be all over. She was gone for awhile and when she came back pea rock had been placed around the outside and inside of the circle. She went to see Mr. Herlofsky and said they did not want the pea rock. After a week, the City removed it. Now the blacktop is cracking off and she felt it did not pay to seal coat it unless there is a cement apron. She stated the residents have no intention of paying for the cement apron as all ten homeowners paid the same amount of money and the front two homes received the cement apron and the other eight homes in the back received nothing. She felt they were Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 5 entitled to the cement aprons without any cost. Mayor Larson asked City Engineer Schorzman to research cheaper options. Councilmember May asked why two homes received cement aprons and the rest did not. City Engineer Schorzman stated it looks like it is the wrap around from Ash Street into Highland Circle for the first two properties and then they stopped, Councilmember May asked if it cost $5,000/apron. Staff stated it would be linear feet both inside and outside the circle because you need the edge support in both places. Councilmember May felt Ms. Korsman does have a legitimate issue if they paid the same amount as the other two that received aprons. That is the same argument Mr. Pritzlaffbrought up regarding the seal coat as to why one resident pays more than the other for the same work. City Engineer Schorzman will bring options back. Councilmember Fogarty would like to walk the area with City Engineer Schorzman as it sounds like it was a functionality of the project vs. choosing one property over the other. We had to choose two of the aprons because of the way the project went. Ms. Korsman is giving the impression that someone in the City left the residents with the impression they would all receive aprons. Councilmember Fogarty wants to know if that was something that was said and if the City has promised something and not lived up to that promise. If it is a functionality of the project, she needs to walk the area herself to understand. City Engineer Schorzman felt it was a tradeoff between urban and rural drainage. Mayor Larson asked if they did not receive curb and gutter because they have ditches. Staff explained the ditches were installed in lieu of the curb and gutter. The residents did not want curb and gutter in the circle. The curb would have been the solution. Councilmember Wilson stated each year prior to the project, staff drives through the area to make sure we are doing appropriate areas as opposed to streets where more intensive work would be required. He asked if staff has checked out the other areas being proposed. City Engineer Schorzman stated they drive the areas in the fall and again in the spring after the frost is out of the ground. Last year some streets were removed from the project as they would not get to their useful life with a seal coat before something more extreme needed to be done. Mayor Larson asked if we patch and seal coat Highland Circle, are we throwing good money after bad. Staff replied not necessarily. There is the potential for the edge to still crack and break off, but you also have the rest of the surface of the road that will benefit. Mayor Larson asked if cement aprons could be looked at after the economy turns around. Staff agreed they could look at it. An estimate was obtained last year and it is a matter of Council directing staff to do it. Councilmember Fogarty did not want to throw good money after bad. Ifwe need a different solution, she did not want to order a seal coat and then when budgets are not as tight, turn around and order more work out there. Before we do anything, she needed more information and longer-term solutions. Do we need to Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 6 wait three years and do it then and do everything at once? City Engineer Schorzman stated the work to install aprons would be a matter of sawing off the edge of the road. It would affect 6 inches - 1 foot of the road and be replaced with concrete. It would not impact the seal coat. Ms. Korsman stated they are discussing the finances for doing the cement aprons. The residents have already paid for that because they paid the same amount of money the two homes at the entrance paid. They got the cement aprons and the rest of the homes did not. She did not want to be assessed for the cement aprons. If they wait 5-6 years, she will not be here to complain about it. All residents paid the $9,000 and that was to include the cement aprons as long as it was given to the two homes in the front. She invited all of Council to come to Highland Circle. Mr. Herlofsky came and all the residents had a nice meeting. She wanted them to come out so they understand it better. Mayor Larson asked staff if the lineal footage for curbing was included around the cul-de-sac or was it left out and no cost assessed to the residents for concrete. Staff replied it was not included in the cost of the assessment because it was not done. As far as the front two homes, it had to be wrapped around the radius and up the side road to tie into Ash Street. Councilmember May stated it was not a fair assessment. Mayor Larson agreed. Finance Director Roland stated no one on Highland Circle or any part of the Ash Street project was actually assessed the full cost of the improvements. Because of Council's policy on special assessments being no more than the increase to the value of the property. Even with the large assessment no one paid the full price of the project cost because of the cap on the assessment. It is as fair an assessment as we can put through with the special assessment policy the City has. It was originally planned to install curb and gutter and it was rejected by the residents. The alternatives were also not acceptable. It was built to design. Councilmember May stated it sounds like the residents are saying it is not working because it is breaking up. She would think the City would hold some responsibility and see if there is something we need to do to fix the problem. Maybe we need to look at some bids for the work. It may be something that needs to be put on the calendar at some point. Ms. Paula Sahin stated she completely agrees. She can pay someone $l1/hour to do a crappy job and she can pay someone $ll/hour to do a stellar job. When performance reviews roll around, she will pay someone more when they are performing well. If you are paying the same amount, you should have gotten the same thing, She thanked Councilmember May for being the advocate on the Council, because she is the only one who has stuck up for anyone in this room. She also stated while she is glad they live where they do, there are more than ten people who live in Farmington. The last 30 minutes has been about this. She understood being in management is extremely difficult. Council's job is to get residents to buy into whatever they choose. You are fighting between each other. You don't have answers. You keep asking questions. Cut the conversation, as you are not convincing anyone that this is a project any of us support. She was Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 7 only speaking for herself, but by a show of hands, she will be in the majority. She asked Council to consider what their actions are doing to the City. We are the residents of your City. We are paying your wages. Consider that. Councilmember May stated there is a problem with how assessments are computed. The only way to get around that is to postpone the seal coat while we figure out how to better assess each property. She did not know if it was feasible to postpone it a year. Mayor Larson asked when the new formulas are adopted. City Engineer Schorzman stated there are no new formulas. The reason for the difference is 16 years ago when this process started, the City was broken out into seven different areas. As those seven areas developed, they developed with different multi-family and commercial than they had to begin with. Councilmember Fogarty stated it has nothing to do with specific sectors of the City. It has everything to do with when particular streets were built within the City. The reason it ends up uneven is because certain developments came into the City at certain times. The City has no control over when those are built. The only way to make this even, is to take it off the rolls, not assess it, and have the City bear the entire cost. Other cities do this, but every non-profit no longer has any liability for assessments which puts a bigger burden on the individual homeowner. Councilmember May noted the City used to have a set amount. Finance Director Roland replied yes, but it never covered the amount. That was Council's decision. The same thing could be done now. City Attorney Jamnik stated Council can change the policy at any time. This hearing is whether or not to do the improvement. Council will have an opportunity to review the assessment before it is adopted. As far as equal, or the split, if you have larger lots, the single RED gives an advantage to larger lots vs. smaller lots. Along Akin Road, if you have more lineal feet than other areas, you will have an advantage because the 50 ft. lot will pay the same as a 100 ft. lot. For those with a 50 ft. lot, the City's formula is unfair. When evaluating how policy or formulas cut, you will be able to find individual parcels for whom a fairness argument can be made and that is why using the phrase fair and unfair is unfair. That is the problem when the City is trying to evaluate a reasonable formula that basically accomplishes the overall goal to have as much of a project cost accommodated by assessments and general fund subsidy. You have that, but it is something you can change, MOTION by Wilson, second by May to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Wilson agreed with the residents as far as an increased tax burden. However, this is one assessment he felt the residents are getting a good value from. The only way to make it fair and equitable would be to reshuffle the entire City's housing stock and regroup it. At some point there will be more development, and then it becomes unbalanced again. We could have a group of residents that would have a fair claim to come back to Council again. It is a different amount, but sees the value of the project vs. letting the road go and Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 8 assessing the resident $4,000 - $6,000 to rebuild the road entirely. A resident with this improvement is seeing another 15-20 years more life on the road. City Attorney Jamnik stated the Joint Powers Agreement with ten other cities indicates the other cities are also bound by statute to do the projects in the same way. Under Chapter 429 the City does not have the authority to do a ten or five year average. We are limited to a project analysis. If the oil cost is higher, or if the mix of properties is different on a per project basis, we still have to use that project as the basis for the assessments. We are not allowed to do multi-year averaging. The argument being 429 is an improvement project based statute. If you do not do that, you create a tax and it does not have the basis under 429. These ten cities banning together to get the best price possible on seal coat material are all doing it the same way as far as assessments based on these individual annualized project costs. The only thing you can change is the mix of properties, and that is very difficult to do if you are on a seven-year rotating cycle based on needs or engineering based analysis. Councilmember May asked if we cannot say using this year that it cannot exceed previous years by a certain percent? City Attorney Jamnik replied it would have to be done on a case by case project basis and the only thing you could make a decision on is how much the general fund or other revenue sources will write down this year's assessments. If you did not like the $130, you come up with a subsidy from the general fund or other revenue source that drops the number down to an amount determined by Council. You would not be able to raise next year's $50 project up to $90. You can subsidize down, but you cannot tax up. Councilmember May felt $50 is a big difference. Councilmember Donnelly asked if Highland Circle was done three years ago, why is it being seal coated. City Engineer Schorzman replied the City's standard plates indicate that new construction be seal coated three years after it is completed. The reason is a normal asphalt mix may have 5%-6% asphalt in it. On the surface when exposed to weather and sun, it breaks down very quickly. With a seal coat it puts 100% oil on the top and it does not break down as quickly after that. Councilmember May confirmed the first seal coat is not included with the project. Staff stated it is included on development projects, but not on reconstruct projects because you cannot assess for something you have not done yet. Councilmember Donnelly asked about financing options for the $35,000. Finance Director Roland stated the City could pay for it and tax the residents. If you chose not to assess for a seal coat project, it could be paid for out of City levied funds. Councilmember Donnelly stated the City policy is a 50/50 split between the residents and the City. It sounds like there is more lineal feet and it is being divided over the number ofREU's and that is why the cost is higher. City Engineer Schorzman stated it is more area and less people to split the cost. Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 9 Councilmember Donnelly stated that is the argument for redistributing the sections, but we do not want to do that. City Engineer Schorzman stated it is difficult to do that, but it is something staff will look at and bring to Council in the fall for more discussions so there is a plan next February or March to go forward. Comparing 2001 to 2002, there was a 23% increase from 2001 to 2002. That has been amplified by continued development in this area of single family residential vs. multi-family or commercial. Councilmember Fogarty stated the residents in townhomes are getting the short end looking at lineal feet along Akin Road. There is no way to make this policy 100% fair. Either you put the burden on the homeowner and put it on the tax rolls, or you assess and make sure the non-profits also pay for the roads they use. She recalled the residents on Ash Street were not assessed the full amount. That had to do with them coming into the City and it was a very complicated formula. She asked if staff recalled what the assessment could have been. Finance Director Roland will provide Council with that information. Councilmember Fogarty recalled it was significantly more. The reality is the amount assessed could have been significantly higher and we chose not to allow that to happen. The reason two homes and not ten homes received cement aprons was a functionality of the project we had to complete. The City had to have those aprons because of the way the curb and gutter came into the circle, but did not completely go around the circle. She understood residents paid the same, but it was a functionality of the project. There were other people who received curb and gutter, but Highland Circle did not by choice, who also paid the same amount. It is difficult to say they received something those eight homes did not. There was some choice. Things cannot be applied evenly. Councilmember May asked if the project can be postponed. City Engineer Schorzman did not recommend postponing it because the City is in a Joint Powers Agreement with several other cities and the impact our quantities have on that. Councilmember May would like to see a cap. Councilmember Fogarty noted if costs go up, that will put the burden on individual property owners, because we cannot assess those fees to non-profits. Mayor Larson felt we needed to look at the formula for next year. MOTION by Wilson, second by Fogarty to adopt RESOLUTION R14-09 ordering the 2009 Seal Coat project, approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the City to complete these improvements as part of the Joint Powers Agreement with Burnsville. Voting for: Larson, Donnelly, Fogarty, Wilson. Voting against: May. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Jamnik noted this is the improvement decision. Council will have another opportunity with the assessment hearing. Mayor Larson asked staff to look for an alternative for Highland Circle to keep the asphalt from breaking up. It is important to seal coat the road, but it is also important to correct the problem. He felt it is the City's responsibility to make sure the road stays in tact. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 10 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) 2008 Annual Parks and Recreation Report - Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Director Distad presented the 2008 Annual Parks and Recreation report which summarizes accomplishments related to programs, services, facilities, parks, and trails. He updated Council on improvements to parks, attendance at skating rinks, an increase in picnic shelter reservations, use of the swim bus, registrations for recreation programs, and activities and rentals at the Rambling River Center. Staff also presented information on the City's partnership with the Rotary for scholarships, attendance at events held at the pool and the ice arena and maintenance of the facilities. In 2008 there were 12 full time staff, one part time, and 75 seasonal staff. There were 799 volunteers resulting in 4,826 hours, which is more than the equivalent of two full time staff. Parks and Recreation Director Distad noted the information presented would not be possible without all of the work and effort the Parks and Recreation staff provide throughout the year. We have a very talented and hard working staff and he is proud they work for the City of Farmington. An Award of Excellence was received from the Minnesota Recreation Park Association for the Party on the Knoll event and a national award, the Great Lakes Regional Partnership Award was received from the National Recreation Park Association Great Lakes for the Depot Way Arts Park for the City's work with the Dakota Valley Arts Council. A grant was received from the United States Tennis Association for one of the tennis programs. Staff members are also involved in the Minnesota Recreation Park Association. Councilmember Wilson asked if the increase in shelter rentals was due to the improvements. Staff felt it was a direct result of investment in the parks since 2003. Approximately $2.3 million has been spent in upgrading parks, which came from development dollars, liquor store profits, or other funding sources. Councilmember May asked about the status of discussions regarding the pool as young people are looking for summer employment. Staff has been in discussions with the YMCA regarding running the pool. Previous summer staff should contact City Hall. Mayor Larson asked for an explanation on Party on the Knoll and why it received an award. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated it is a special event to celebrate National Recreation and Parks Month and also to get people into Evergreen Knoll Park and to show them the pool. Mayor Larson noted the swimming pool attendance numbers are incredible. He cannot believe we would event consider shutting it down. It is a big part of the community. He noted the swim bus is a unique feature and has heard nothing but good things about the swim bus. Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 11 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - 2009 Budget Amendment - Finance Mayor Larson suggested tabling any decision, and asked if Council wanted to discuss this item or wait for new information. Councilmember Wilson stated we have had good discussions in a workshop, but there is a chunk that is undone. He felt like they have been picking what is behind door number 1,2, or 3. He would like to lay everything out and discuss it. He appreciated the Fire Department being here. When he started on the Council he appreciated the Relief Association spending time with him to go through their pension and how it factors in. He also appreciated the discussions with Human Resources Director Wendlandt. As a comparison he was not sure the Stanton 6 comparison exists anymore. Whether we reduce the $70,200 this year or look at a different number, he recalled the previous Council worked very hard to bring that number up to where they thought was a good place to be for the Fire Department. He appreciated the calls from the Fire Department, because with one swoop we could throwaway a lot of good will between the Council and the Fire Department. That is not to say he may not favor the $70,200 reduction this year, but we need to look at it in the bigger picture. He noted the Human Resources Director gave Council some good information. Human Resources Director Wendlandt noted Councilmember Wilson had asked her about the Stanton 6 Group. That survey is no longer done. The LMC took over the survey. She gave Council a group of comparable cities staff has used for other departments based on cities with a population of 15,000 - 25,000. The Stanton 6 survey was for 10,000 - 25,000. She also had a copy for the Relief Association. The comparables can be used to look at wages and benefits, work force planning for how many employees each department has, etc. Councilmember Donnelly stated if we table this, there are some things regarding letting employees know and those are on hold, such as the 36-hour week. He asked what new information Council would receive. Councilmember Fogarty asked if Mayor Larson was proposing we not make these cuts. Mayor Larson wanted to adopt a package rather than receiving items piece meal. We have another $75,000 to find. Councilmember Fogarty understood not wanting to piece meal, but she understood Council has already approved portions of this. Finance Director Roland explained this is a formality. Council has already approved the majority of items on the resolution. There were three items discussed at the workshop and those are the new items listed in the memo and added to the resolution. We formally adopt a resolution to adopt the budget, consequently in order to amend the budget, we have to address it through a resolution. This is a formality that can be done now or on April 6, with additional items. The additional items are the MSA revenues, the Police overtime, and the $20,000 of engineering services that will be charged back to other projects. There would not be a negative effect to wait until April. Finance Director Roland stated staff was trying to bring forward the options to satisfy as many as Council has already discussed and leave the balance for April 6. This is not to say staff does Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 12 not have ideas for the $75,000, but there was not enough time to formalize them prior to this meeting. Councilmember May clarified we have already voted on some of these. She agreed with Mayor Larson and felt Council did not have enough time as these are serious issues. She would rather have had one or two workshops, thrown a bunch of ideas together and give everyone a chance to give us their feedback. She was unclear if they were officially voting on the items or adding a few to the ones already approved. Finance Director Roland stated it is a formality. Under statutes, we are required to pass a resolution for the budget. Staff did not present a resolution before, because as in 2008, we discuss things with Council at meetings or workshops, the options were discussed and a resolution was brought back later. Councilmember May asked if things keep getting added to the previous resolution and that is why items Council has previously approved are on this resolution. Finance Director Roland stated this is one resolution that encompasses all of the things discussed up until this point. Councilmember May asked if Council votes no, are we starting over? Staff replied yes. Councilmember May proposed they start over and do it all at once. We still are not where we want to be so why not do it all together. City Attorney Jamnik explained at the March 2,2009, meeting there was a motion and second to approve four reductions including the ALF contribution, reduce summer hours, the fire levy, and reduce seasonal staff and revisit the rest at the workshop on Monday. That motion passed 4-1 and some issues were revisited on Monday. The resolution tonight brings you up to date with what Council did on March 2, and the direction staff has received from the workshop. This documents the actions Council took on March 2, and at the workshop and re-affirming those and leaving open subsequent actions. If Council wants to change all of that, you can. The budget is a living, breathing document; it is not static. Council has the discretion to do that, but you have taken some steps. You had the full package at the March 2, meeting and felt comfortable enough to adopt a portion of that, leaving a portion for the workshop. You acted on part of it and left some of it, and now you are documenting where you are currently. Mayor Larson understood, but felt uncomfortable with receiving things piece meal. That is why he suggested tabling this item, getting the rest of the information and make a decision then. City Attorney Jarnnik noted Council can do that, but staff has tried to keep the budget current with Council's direction. Councilmember Fogarty confirmed staff needs to continue to function with the four cutting measures that have been approved as of March 2, if we table this. City Attorney Jarnnik agreed, as tabling does not reverse the action. Councilmember Fogarty stated the only way to reverse the action Council has already given to staff would be to deny this. City Attorney Jamnik stated no, the resolution merely affirms what Council has already done; it does not over ride, or tabling the action does not reverse the action on March 2. If you want to reverse Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 13 the actions from March 2, it will take a new motion. Preferably that would be at the next meeting, where materials are prepared for that with options and alternatives for Council to evaluate. Councilmember May stated her argument for reversing the action is if Council is going to discuss all the ideas on the table, how do we know because of the ones discussed later, some earlier options might not need to happen if we are not looking at the whole package all together. How can we vote on things now and add something later? She was not sure if that would get us to the best all around answer. Mayor Larson stated if we decide to do that, we can do it at the April 6, meeting. That is why he wants to see the rest of the ideas. Councilmember Fogarty understood what Mayor Larson wanted to do, and was comfortable with tabling it. She was not comfortable with sending staff different messages. She had her questions answered and understood the consequences of her vote on March 2. She understood the desire to have a complete package, so she was comfortable with tabling it. Councilmember Donnelly also agreed with tabling the item. MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to table this item to April 6, 2009. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Fogarty: Stated she has not heard anything regarding her appointment to the Met Council. Councilmember Wilson: Thanked the Farmington boys and girls basketball teams for a good season. At this time of year, he asked drivers to watch for kids in the road. Councilmember Donnelly: Wished everyone a happy and safe St. Patrick's Day. Mayor Larson: Attended the Farmington Elementary Science Fair last week. There were 35 exhibits with 48 children participating. Their ideas were amazing. Vinge Tile received a $15,000 business development grant through a program with Dakota County. CEEF will hold the annual Easter Egg Hunt and Carnival on April 11, at Meadowview Elementary School for grades 5 and under. He will be having a Charity Mayoral Ball on April 25, at the Grand Ballroom with the proceeds going to CEEF. Council Minutes (Regular) March 16, 2009 Page 14 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Fogarty, second by Wilson to adjourn at 8:48 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ../~;' .-4/:/ (~;-v-CK~J0 /Y7~<../ /C/' ~ynthia Muller Executive Assistant