Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.04.00 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR December 4, 2000 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: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan Verch City Attorney Jamnik, City Administrator Erar, City Management Team 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Citizen Recognition Mr. David Scott Blaiser was presented with a Meritorious Service Award for coming to the aid of a police officer. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Todd Brennan, Friedges Landscaping, appeared at the Council Meeting regarding renewal of a mining permit. Staff will contact him. a) Burning Permit Issuance Request Mr. Al Deaton, 18775 Pilot Knob Road, had expressed concerns regarding issuance of a burning permit. Staffhas scheduled a meeting with Mr. Deaton. b) County Road 72 Assessments - Citizen Request Mrs. Elaine Schultz, 20475 Chippendale Avenue, former owner of 3403 213th Street, had appeared before Council at the November 20, 2000 Council Meeting requesting a deferral, waiver, or reduction of special assessments against the property on 213th Street. She also appeared at the December 4,2000 Council Meeting regarding staff s response to her request. Mrs. Schultz stated she understands Council needs to follow legalities. Through verbal conversations with City Engineer Mann, there was either misleading information or misunderstandings between them. She met with City Administrator Erar, but could not resolve the problem. As far as she is concerned there is a problem. Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 2 When properties are assessed, is it per linear feet, or per lot, or how is it done? City Engineer Mann replied the method is per lot or per unit, not a linear foot basis. The cost for the north side of CR 72 in the reconstruct area was split on a per lot basis. Each lot got the same assessment regardless of size. Large, undeveloped lots of 300 feet wide were looked at as being able to be developed in the future into several lots. So there were equivalent units for larger pieces of property. Mrs. Schultz asked if that would include their extra lot, which is not a buildable lot, but because there was a shed on there, the assessment would change from what it originally was? City Engineer Mann replied there were two parcels. One parcel has a home on it, the other parcel has a shed on it. At the time of the assessment hearing, for the parcel with the shed on it, the sewer and water assessment were deferred as there were to be no connections at this time. However, the roadway and storm sewer improvements were levied, as the lot is being utilized as a piece of property. Mrs. Schultz replied they did not dispute the $2,825.99 at the Public Hearing because per verbal conversation, they were told that it was money owing. When they received the March 29, 1999 letter from City Engineer Mann showing the estimated assessment, she understood the property was considered as one lot, and does not understand why it went into two lots when sold to Darcy and Daniel States. Because it had two property J.D. numbers? But it was still considered one lot as the other parcel was not a buildable lot. They understood the amount in the letter was the full amount. She does not understand when the other assessment occurred and would like to know when it did and why they were not notified. If they had known there was that much price differential they would have worked out something different. She feels the problem is between them and City Engineer Mann. She does not feel the States should be responsible for paying the assessment and it should not be certified to their taxes. The Schultz's will pay the assessment. Regarding the staffmemo of December 4,2000, Mrs. Schultz disagrees that the assessment was changed, because to her knowledge it never had changed. When she wrote the letter of May 14, 1999 to City Administrator Erar and City Engineer Mann, she requested the stub in for water and sewer not be installed because it is not a buildable lot because of the placement of the shed. City Administrator Erar explained to her that it is a future buildable lot. She stated they cannot account for the future, as they no longer own it. Councilmember Strachan asked if the concept of buildable means could conceivably be built on whether there is a shed on it now or not. City Engineer Mann replied that is correct. Councilmember Strachan stated he understands Mrs. Schultz, but they have to deal with the present, as ten years from now if it is built on, and the assessment is deferred until that time, that money is not accessible to pay the project now. Nonbuildable means the lot is full of water or something, and could not put a structure on it ever. Mrs. Schultz stated she understood the lot is unbuildable because of the way the shed is situated. Councilmember Strachan replied the shed could be torn down. Mrs. Schultz asked why they should be accountable for something in the future. Councilmember Soderberg replied the same concept would apply if there were a house stratling a property line. There would still be two buildable lots. Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 3 The March 29, 1999 letter indicates the estimated assessment per lot. Mrs. Schultz stated it refers to properties, and she believes the per lot, because of verbal conversations, was one lot because the second lot was not buildable. Councilmember Soderberg replied an unbuildable lot could never be built on. He asked if the street assessments are being deferred as well. City Administrator Erar replied on the lot containing the shed the storm sewer and street assessments have been certified to that property, as the property is benefiting from the improvement. Mrs. Schultz asked why that was not included in the assessment. When they spoke with City Engineer Mann, it was considered as one parcel even though it had two ID numbers. Councilmember Soderberg stated he does not see where the City considered it one parcel. Mayor Ristow asked if Mrs. Schultz thinks she should have gotten two letters. Mrs. Schultz replied that is correct. When the property was sold to the States, they received two letters. One stating $10,140 for the second parcel and $8,840 for the other parcel. She asked why they did not receive anything for the second parcel as it had an ID number? City Administrator Erar stated the March 29, 1999 letter was the result of a conversation the City had with the Schultz's regarding proposed costs associated with those two lots. Staff has reviewed the special assessment notice, and as indicated in the staffmemo of December 4,2000, the assessment notice listed both ID numbers contained in one document. The Council Minutes of October 2, 2000 contains the fact there were two properties identified. There was also a separate Assessment/Sewer Connection Agreement that also identified two separate parcels. It indicates on the second page the fmal assessment amount will be determined subsequent to the completion of the improvements. This would indicate these were not final costs. These costs were only associated with the first parcel for sanitary sewer and water. Because there was no need for sanitary sewer and water, there was no need for a connection, on the second lot. Staff feels the City has done everything properly and appropriately with respect to the process that was followed. Councilmember Cordes offered an apology to Mr. and Mrs. Schultz and she can see where there is confusion by the Schultz's through verbal conversations, but Council must stick to the policies. The request for reduction, deferral or waiver of special assessments in the amount of $2,825.99 was denied. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Cordes pulled the November 20, 2000 Council Minutes to abstain, and Councilmember Soderberg pulled the November 8, 2000 Special Minutes to abstain. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Council Minutes (11/20/00) (Regular). Voting for: Ristow, Soderberg, Strachan. Abstain: Cordes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to approve the Minutes (11/8/00) (Special). Voting for: Ristow, Cordes, Strachan. Abstain Soderberg. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Accepted 2000 CIP Status Report c) Ratified Appointment Recommendation - Public Works Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 4 d) e) f) g) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Ratified Appointment Recommendation - Parks and Recreation Received Information Capital Outlay - Fire Department Adopted RESOLUTION R96-00 approving Tree City USA Application 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Truth in Taxation Hearing The Truth in Taxation Hearing is for taxes to be levied in 2000 payable by residents of the City of Farmington in 2001. Highlights of the budget and tax levy were presented. Councilmember Strachan commented it is good to see the trend line of expenditures less than the trend line of growth. Councilmember Strachan complimented Finance Director Roland and staff on the fact that the tax capacity rate is under 30% with a fund balance over 25%. Adoption of the Final Budget and Levy will take place at the December 18, 2000 City Council Meeting. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Consider Developer Request Building Permit Issuance - Farmington Family Townhomes Mr. Jim Deanovic, of Farmington Family Townhomes, is attempting to proceed with the installation of sewer and water mains, fire hydrants, and class 5 base for the private street this year. Building permits would not be sought until after utilities have been installed. Installation of curb and gutter and paving of the street would be completed in the Spring. A portion of the financing for this rental townhome project requires that the rental units be put in service by December 2001. Mr. Jim Deanovic stated City Engineer Mann and Community Development Director Olson have been incredibly thorough and very cooperative. MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes authorizing approval of the issuance of building permits upon approval of plans and completion and acceptance of water (including fire hydrants), sewer and class 5 street access to Farmington Family Townhomes. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Developer Request for Feasibility Report -19Sth Street Arcon Development, developer of Autumn Glen, has requested the preparation of a feasibility report for the extension of 19Sth Street to the easterly property limits of the Autumn Glen 3rd Addition. The segment of 195th Street between Akin Road and Trunk Highway 3 has been identified in the City's Transportation Plan as an essential east-west corridor for the City. Dakota County has also recently undertaken a study that has identified 195th Street as an east-west corridor for the County system. The County's policy is to participate in those identified County Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 5 alignments that provide a connection between existing County or State corridors. The project that is proposed for the subject feasibility report would not make such a connection at this time. Therefore, the County would not participate in this segment of 195th Street. When 195th Street is extended to Trunk Highway 3, the County would participate in that segment of the project. The developer has indicated the commitment to pay Autumn Glen's proportionate share of the costs for the project. The remaining benefiting properties along the alignment would be assessed for costs. The Limerock Ridge development was assessed for the improvements to CSAH 31 and therefore, will not be assessed for 195th Street, as is the case with any property that was assessed for CSAH 31. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg adopting RESOLUTION R97-00 authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report for the 195th Street extension. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Consider Adoption Adult Entertainment Ordinance The proposed ordinance is intended to replace the current interim ordinance to regulate sexually oriented adult businesses in the City of Farmington. During the November 20, 2000 Council Meeting, the issue of requiring a conditional use permit was raised. According to the City Attorney's office, requiring a conditional use permit raises the issue of "unlawful prior restraint of the First Amendment." Therefore, it is recommended not to require conditional use permits for adult uses. A question was also raised regarding whether the interim ordinance could be extended. The interim ordinance had been in place for 18 months. However, since the interim ordinance has expired, it cannot be extended. Councilmember Soderberg agreed with establishing an ordinance now rather than trying to regulate an established business. He noted the ordinance states there can be no sale of alcohol on the premises. Can alcohol be brought in? City Attorney Jamnik replied no. Councilmember Soderberg proposed to increase setbacks for greater site visibility around the building and lighting for protection of police officers. He also suggested fencing on three sides so someone cannot flee from police officers. City Attorney Jamnik suggested adopting the ordinance as proposed and the changes can be analyzed by his office. Another Public Hearing would be held for any amendments. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R98-00 establishing findings of fact that zoning regulations of sexually oriented businesses are necessary to minimize secondary adverse effects of such businesses in the City of Farmington. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting ORDINANCE 000-457 amending Title 10 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, by making provisions for the opportunity as well as the control of sexually oriented businesses. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg approving the ordinance summary to be published in the City's legal newspaper. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 6 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Consider Approval of Joint Powers Agreement Dakota County Narcotics Task Force The City of Farmington has been an active participant in the Dakota County Drug Task Force for nine years. In 2000 two Dakota County Task Forces joined together to form a single organization. Therefore, a Joint Powers Agreement must be renewed annually. Membership provides the Police Department access to resources that can be used to conduct investigations and follow-up to narcotics cases in Farmington. The Police Department commits approximately 350 hours per year to the Task Force. Two Farmington representatives spend an average of four hours per week assisting in Task Force investigations. This is the City's in- kind contribution which off-sets the requirement for a local cash contribution. MOTION by Strachan, second by Cordes approving the Dakota County Drug Task Force Joint Powers Agreement and authorize participation by the Farmington Police Department. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Consider Issuance of Certificates of Indebtedness The budgets for 2000 and 2001 include the purchase of several significant pieces of equipment. Funding of these purchases has been identified as coming from the issuance of Certificates of Indebtedness. The City may borrow funds for the purchase of equipment by issuing Certificates of Indebtedness with a term not exceeding five years. The cost of the equipment to be purchased with the proposed certificates totals $710,000. Quotes were solicited from three local banks. Marquette Bank Lakeville proposed the best terms, with an interest rate of 5.5% for the five-year period. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan adopting RESOLUTION R99-00 issuing $710,000 of Certificates of Indebtedness at a rate of 5.5% payable over five years to Marquette Bank of Lakeville. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Public Facilities Site Planning and Project Budget Update According to City Administrator Erar, site and facility planning efforts are moving forward and remain on schedule. Also attending the Council Meeting were Mr. Barry Badinger of E& V Construction Management, Mr. Mike Cox and Mr. John McNamara of Wold Architects, and Mr. Wally Sapp, Facility Task Force Chairman. Mr. Mike Cox gave a presentation on the progress of the public facilities. He indicated they are in the final stages of design and development. Councilmember Strachan stated he was under the impression the future possible satellite fire station would be attached to one of the facilities. City Administrator Erar replied there was a preliminary concept that the police and fire facility could be attached in the future. The site issues suggested the police and future fire station would be better configured as shown. There is a utility easement which prevented putting the facilities together as well as traffic coordination of vehicles having to exit the building at the same time. Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 7 Councilmember Strachan asked what materials would be used for the Central Maintenance Facility. Mr. Cox replied the materials will be precast concrete for the high bay areas and the front administrative area would be brick. Councilmember Strachan stated the police facility is built with growth in mind. What about the Central Maintenance Facility? Mr. Cox replied the site plan showed an outline for the current facility as well as future growth. Councilmember Strachan asked if all the angles in the police facility add to the cost? Mr. Cox replied there is a slight increase, but it is not significant. Councilmember Strachan asked, regarding the police facility, what the difference is between an emergency operations room and a conference room. Mr. Cox replied it can serve as a big conference room. But it also has plug-ins and accessories for fax machines and telephones. There are not any other large conference rooms. Councilmember Strachan asked if there was a reason the conference room is in the Central Maintenance Facility instead of the Police Facility. Mr. Cox replied they did consider a Community Room in the Police Facility, but for cost reasons it could not be used for a dual purpose. So the room in the Central Maintenance Facility has a folding wall, so it is bigger than the emergency operations center. Councilmember Soderberg asked if police and fire vehicles would have to exit from the entrance to the east and then to the north. Mr. Cox replied there is an entrance to Pilot Knob. Councilmember Soderberg stated he does not want fire trucks going by the houses. Mr. Cox stated the roads cannot cross the utility easement so there is a roadway that connects all the buildings. There is access to the road along the east. Councilmember Strachan asked if the soil corrections would cover a future fire station and future facilities or will the issue come up again? City Administrator Erar replied the soil corrections only cover the Central Maintenance and Police Facilities. As future facilities are looked at, similar steps would have to be taken to deal with those issues. Councilmember Cordes asked if there is adequate room to relocate City Hall on the site. City Administrator Erar replied there is not room, due to the easement. Councilmember Soderberg asked if there is a reason the clear well is situated to the north of the water treatment instead of to the west? Mr. Cox replied the close proximity of the buildings is very important. City Engineer Mann replied due to the elevation criteria that needs to be kept between the clear well and the water treatment facility, the current situation is best. Police Chief Siebenaler commented regarding emergency vehicles exiting the site, police response is usually handled by patrol officers at random locations throughout the City. So the police are not as directly affected by response from the police station as the fire station would be. Councilmember Cordes stated as a citizen she would find it frustrating to have to visit the police station and have to drive through the Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 8 driveways. Is there any reason why there cannot be access directly from CR 64? Mr. Cox stated signage will be needed at the intersection, but there are requirements as to where access can be from the road. Police Chief Siebenaler replied the County does control both of the roads surrounding the area and they do have spacing guidelines for intersections. The access points shown are the closest that are allowed. City Administrator Erar replied an adequate amount of signage should cover any problems reaching the police station. City Administrator Erar presented the budget for the project. It is estimated the Central Maintenance Facility will cost approximately $3,638,643. This is currently under budget. For the Police Department the cost is $2,495,000. This is slightly over budget. Estimated site development costs are $550,000 over preliminary budget assumptions. By applying entire budget contingency, the project is still under budget by $21,224. The request for Council to consider is an additional contingency of$230,51O. Current budget is $7.4 million. The money would come from bond issuance. It is recommended the bonds be insured and that the City carry a debt reserve. With the increased bond contingency as well as an increase in bond issuance costs, there is a total bond issuance cost of $8,539,490. In terms of campus infrastructure, a cost of$317,659 has been identified for road infrastructure, water service and sanitary sewer service. The Water Board has agreed to provide the City with the additional costs of providing water as well as their participation in the internal road structure. Approximately $100,000 was identified for capital equipment necessary for the Central Maintenance Facility. The total project cost is $8,958,000. Councilmember Strachan asked what was the campus infrastructure figure and the capital equipment figure in the original project budget? City Administrator Erar replied the task force did not have any solid figures to go with on the campus. Councilmember Strachan asked if the figures from the Water Board, as well as road and bridge, solid waste, and storm sewer were budgeted? City Administrator Erar replied not during the Facility Task Force process. The City is budgeting them now. This process is essentially the feasibility report. Councilmember Strachan asked if $1 million for site development for a project like this is typical? Mr. Cox replied it is hard to say what is typical due to soil conditions. City Administrator Erar stated the City is looking at approximately $600,000 in soil costs, so the question is why did the City chose this site and should the City be looking at a different site? This has been discussed by staff and would like Council to see the big picture items and put that question on the table for Council to consider. After this Council Meeting the project is moving forward as the project has to be put out to bid in February for award in March. The Facility Task Force identified a number of sites throughout the site selection process. The consensus was to select this site on the corner of 195th Street and CSAH 31. The site was purchased in coordination with the Water Board, who also went through a very thorough review. This site provides access to major thoroughfares - CSAH 31 and 195th Street which will ultimately go to Highway 3. The location also Council Minutes (Regular) December 4;2000 Page 9 establishes a City presence in the northern area. The City wanted to connect north and south and this site is a central geographic location. There is also the opportunity for campus development. There are six public facilities that can be placed on one site. The City already owns the site, as it was purchased in conjunction with the Water Board. This is an important economic element. Project expenditures are within 3.2% of overall budget assumptions. Even with $600,000 worth of soil corrections this is very good in terms of keeping costs where they need to be. Soil correction costs are manageable. City Administrator Erar put the question before Council if a different site should be looked at? He wanted Council to consider that the existing site would have to be sold. Project could be delayed 1-2 years and the inflationary cost increase could be approximately $750,000, at 5% per year on materials and labor. That would wipe out any potential savings in terms of soil conditions. The City paid $15,000 per acre 3 1/2 years ago. A new site would cost an average of $35,000 - $45,000 per acre. There are no guarantees associated with a new site. The City could have different but similar cost development issues. Alternative sites where thoroughly reviewed by the task force. The transportation accesses could be lost with a new site as far as dual access for the north and south. One issue with the current site is the utility easement, and that has been dealt with. As far as the soil conditions, it is temporary and fixable. Councilmember Cordes stated it is disheartening to learn about the soil corrections. But the City could pay anywhere from $700,000 to $1 million for land. This is the site the Task Force kept coming back to after reviewing other sites. Mayor Ristow asked if it is common to do soil testing? City Administrator Erar replied the soil testing that was done was to determine if there were any hazardous materials on the site. Mr. Barry Badinger stated after they found out the depth of the soil excavation needed they met with the architects and soil engineers to discuss if it would be better to put the buildings on piers. This could be done, the costs were about equal, but the City's risk is less with an original foundation. Councilmember Strachan asked if he felt the current estimate for soil corrections would cover the cost. He stated he does not want to see this come back in six months. Mr. Badinger replied based on the plans given by the civil engineers, this represents what is there. Mr. Wally Sapp stated there were extensive meetings on this site. Soil conditions are not unusual for this area. There was no indication of bad soil when the water tower was built. Mayor Ristow stated the only additional amount requested is $230,000 difference other than the insurance for the bonds. So we are still within the original proposed budget. City Administrator Erar replied that is correct. The $230,000 requested is over the original budget amount by 3.2%. The cost to insure the debt service is $695,000 that has to be put in reserve for future debt service payment. That reserve is used for the last payment of a 20-year debt. Finance Director Roland stated the difference between an uninsured lease revenue bond and an insured revenue bond is about 1/2 - 3/4% point in interest rates. Without a debt Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 10 service reserve you cannot get an insured bond. When the Task Force was convened the proposal put forward did not include an insured bond, because the market was different and the interest rates were different. Councilmember Strachan stated when we go out for bid soil correction would be part of the bid. So if that is substantially different from what we are expecting as well as the construction bid, we have the flexibility to change direction at that point if we have to. City Administrator Erar replied that is correct and staffhas very innovative ways of dealing with this. Because of private development occurring to the east and west, the City will be talking with developers to see if there is some exchange of value that the City could obtain, in terms of having them do the site grading in exchange for taking the bad soil off and using it on their site. Councilmember Soderberg asked since this is a lease revenue bond and the HRA is involved, would they also have to weigh in on this decision? City Administrator Erar replied staff has already approached the HRA and they did approve it. He will be attending the January meeting to move forward with the changes identified. Finance Director Roland stated the HRA would own the bonds in name only. The City will own the facilities and the City will be responsible for the annual appropriations. The HRA's only responsibility is issuing the bonds. Councilmember Strachan asked even with this change will the project still be at or below the debt service levy goal? City Administrator Erar replied based on the proforma which includes the additional cost factors, it does keep the City within the original projections. Finance Director Roland stated the proforma is as discussed in the past and the 25% debt service limit is not exceeded in this current situation. This is under the current scenario. Because of how any future bond issues are funded, if funded through the debt service levy adding those bond issues for future projects would add to the debt levy. Councilmember Strachan then stated when looking at the police facility, he felt the entrance could be cut back to something simpler. City Administrator Erar replied every meeting held focuses on budget considerations. There are some environmental issues associated with the glass and the southern exposure as far as heating. Staff will keep an eye on it. Councilmember Soderberg stated he was asked by a resident if the City was really spending $7 million on the building. He reminded the resident the City is building two buildings and wondered what the perception will be when the public looks at the project costs going from $7.4 million to $8.5 million. It is disheartening. Councilmember Strachan stated we are still at the point of making it what it should be while still saving where we can. Councilmember Soderberg stated he does not want to get to the end of the project, receive the bill and it is closer to $10 million. City Administrator Erar replied this falls under a public improvement process. The next time this is brought to Council will be to award Council Minutes (Regular) December 4,2000 Page 11 the bids. Council will be asked if the bids are in line with project estimates. At that point, Council can reject the bids. It is important to note each of the two facilities are still within the original project budget. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to authorize the following actions: 1. Authorize additional project funding in the amount of $230,51 0 for contingency reserves that will increase the total public facilities project budget to $7,400,000. 2. Authorize increasing the amount of bond issuance from $7.6 million to $8.54 million to allow for bond insurance, a debt service reserve and an increased project budget. According to City fiscal consultant projects, debt service levies should actually be lower than originally assumed due to lower borrowing costs. 3. Authorize appropriate project funding sources to underwrite campus site infrastructure elements that will support the overall site in the form of an interior road and site utilities. Final amounts will be based on lowest, qualified bids. 4. Authorize appropriate project funding sources to underwrite additional capital equipment for the Central Maintenance Facility. Final amounts will be based on actual contract prices at the time of purchase. APIF. MOTION CARRIED. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Cordes: She saw an article in the newspaper where Apple Valley is starting a Traffic Committee. Mayor Ristow stated this would be a good consideration for a Council Workshop. City Administrator Erar stated staff has been working on this and will be bringing a proposal to Council at a workshop. City Administrator Erar: He received notice from Representatives Ozment and Pariseau indicating support for a special City bill for the upcoming legislation providing an exemption from sales tax on the facilities. This would result in approximately $200,000 in sales tax. Council pictures will be taken the first meeting in January for the website. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~,h/~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant