Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-05-20 Council Packet Special Meeting
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT Friday, May 20, 2011 TEDDY BEAR PARK — 2 FLOOR 7:30 A.M. — 12:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Staff, general discussion with Dept. heads A. Shawn Sanders on Flood Control Project IV. Discussion on Volunteerism V. City Purchasing Policy VI. Tax Increment Financing (parking ramps, flood control, reserves, etc.) VII. Street Projects VIII. Stillwater City Council Discussion IX. Adjourn MEMORANDUM TO: Department Supervisors NR: City Administrator RE: City Purchasing Policy DA: April 10, 2000 Accompanying this memo is the Purchasing Policy that Council adopted on April 4, 2000. The policy provides the following: 1. Purchases less than $200 do not require purchase orders (PO). The policy requires that an Invoice Payment Authorization (IPA) form be used for a purchase not using a PO. The policy includes a sample IPA form. The IPA was to be used to help Finance determine who was to receive an invoice for Okaying the payment. Apparently this has not been a significant problem in the past. Therefore, the use of this form will not be required at this time. If any problems develop in the future we may have to use the form. In the meantime, please do what you can to ensure that Finance is able to rout the invoices in an expedient manner. 2. The use of "Voucher Request" forms is still required. Voucher Request forms are used for expense reimbursement, conference registration fees, postage and other items where a PO is not practical or necessary. Voucher request forms will require approvals and signatures following the same requirements that are used for PO's (i.e., items over $1000 must be signed by Department Head and approved by City Administrator). 3. The Department Head may authorize purchases up to $1000 (a PO is required for purchases over $200). In other words the PO can be signed by the Department Head and issued without any other approvals, provided that the item is a budgeted item (i.e., an expenditure that is typically part of the departments operating budget) and is not a Capital Outlay item. 4. Purchases (and PO's) over $1000 must be approved by the City Administrator or the Deputy Treasurer (DT). Once a PO is approved by the City Administrator/DT the invoice needs only to be approved for payment by the Department Head. 5. Capital Outlay items must be approved by the City Council and the PO must be signed by the City Administrator/DT. The PO must include the date the Council authorized the Capital Outlay purchase. Once the Council approves a purchase and a PO is signed by the City Administrator/DT, the invoice needs only to be approved for payment by the Department Head. Any discrepancy related to the purchase (such as a material price difference between the PO and the invoice) may require review and approval of the City Administrator. (Note: This would apply to any type of purchase including items originally estimated as less than $1000). 6. It is important to remember to record the correct account number for a purchase. Although Finance routinely verifies the account number, having the correct number to begin with expedites the accounting process (see Sharon Harrison if you do not have a "Chart of Accounts "). 7. The following department supervisors are authorized to make purchases for their respective departments following the procedures set forth in the policy: City Administrator Administration/Finance/MIS Director of Administration Administration (including payroll & MIS) Community Dev. Dir. Community Development (including Building Inspection) Engineer/PW Dir. Engineering/Public Works/Parks Fire Chief Fire Department Police Chief Police Public Works Sup. Public Works/Parks Rec. Center Manager St. Croix Valley Rec. Center A Department Head may designate another employee within his/her department to issue PO's or to make purchases under $200. However, this authority /responsibility shall be given in writing and shall be granted only to an employee with supervisory status. Further, the Department Head must approve the invoice for payment. This policy is based on policies that have been adopted by other Municipalities and on the recommendation of the City's Auditors. The policy may be revised in the future depending upon the experience we have with our purchases (especially the amount that the Department Head can purchase without PO's and/or without City Administrator approval). In the meantime, please feel free to see me if you have any questions in regard to the purchasing policy. y/ // co CITY OF STILLWATER PURCHASING POLICY 1.0 POLICY: 1.1 The City of Stillwater budget, as adopted for each year, allocates funds for the purchase of supplies, goods and services, contractual and consulting services, other services and capital outlay items. Requests cannot be made for items outside the budget except under special circumstances. These special circumstances will have to be approved by the City Council upon recommendation of the City Administrator. The Purchasing Agent is the City Administrator. 1.2 Budgeted purchases less than $1,000 may be purchased by Department Heads. Budgeted purchases between $1,000 - $5,000 must be approved by the City Administrator (and may be done without Council approval). Budgeted purchases exceeding $5,000 must be approved by the City Council. All budgeted Capital Outlay purchases must be approved by the City Council and related purchase orders shall be signed by the City Administrator. 1.3 Consulting services and the hiring of all full -time, part-time, temporary or seasonal employees, shall require the approval of the City Council. 1.4 Recurring charges such as contractual services (e.g., cleaning services, uniform services, snow plowing services, etc.), telephone, and utility services do not require purchase orders but the invoices for these services must be approved for payment by the appropriate Department Head. 2.0 DEPARTMENTS AFFECTED: All Departments 3.0 PURCHASING PROCEDURE: 3.1 Purchase Requirements: Amount of Type of quote Approval Written bid Sealed Contract Purchase order Purchase: required: required by: specifications: bids required: required: required Purchases under None Department Not required no no No; must use $200 Head or Invoice Payment desi :nee Authorization 1 1 . 1J Amount of Type of quote Approval Written bid ' Sealed Contract Purchase order Purchase: required: required by: specifications: bids required: required: required form Purchases At least two Department Not required no no Yes; signed by between $200 - telephone quotes Head or Department Head $1000 preferred designee or designee Purchases At least two City Admin. May be no no Yes; signed by between $1,000 - written quotes or required City Administrator $5,000 required unless Deputy based on type or Deputy special Treasurer of purchase Treasurer circumstances are noted Purchases over At least three City As required no no Yes; signed by $5,000 up to written quotes Council based on type City Administrator $10,000 required unless of purchase or Deputy special Treasurer circumstances are noted _ Purchases over At least three City As required no construction yes, except for $10,000 up to written quotes Council based on type projects yes; certain $25,000 required unless of purchase commodities construction special at discretion projects; signed circumstances are of City by City noted Administrator Administrator or Deputy Treasurer Purchases greater City Clerk must City required yes yes yes, except for than $25,000 advertise in City's Council certain legal newspaper construction projects (i.e., Local Imp.); signed by City Admin. or Deputy Treasurer 3.2 Bidding Requirements: 3.2.1 When supplies or equipment are competitive in nature, specifications cannot exclude all but one type of equipment or supplies. Proposals and specifications must allow free and full competition. Bidding requirements cannot be avoided by splitting a contract into several contracts, each of which is below the minimum amount requiring sealed bids. For example, the City cannot purchase $30,000 of lumber in several transactions, each involving an expenditure of less than $25,000. However, if materials or work logically fall into two separate contracts because they involve separate transactions, as for the service of contractors specializing in different kinds of work, the City can negotiate the contracts individually without sealed bids if the bids do not exceed the $25,000 minimum. 2 • • 3.2.2 The City of Stillwater is subject to Minnesota state sales tax. There are a few exceptions to state sales tax such as the purchase of fire trucks or marked police cars, and fire truck repair parts. Bidders should specify whether their bid includes sales tax or not. if an invoice for an approved purchase does not include applicable sales tax a corrected invoice including the appropriate sales tax must be obtained from the vendor. 3.2.3 Sealed bids are required for purchases exceeding $25,000. The bids must be advertised by the City Clerk in the City's legal newspaper (Notice to Bidders) and publicly opened and approved by Council resolution. In addition to the legal notice, the City must prepare instructions to bidders and general specifications for sealed bids. Attaching a copy of the proposed contract to the instructions to bidders is required. 3.2.4 Bid security in the amount of five percent (5 %) of the bid (for sealed bids for purchases over $25,000) shall be submitted to the City Clerk. The bid security guarantees that in the event the bidder's offer is accepted, the bidder will enter into a contract in accordance with the proposal. Bid security of the successful bidder will be returned upon execution of the contract documents. Bid securities of unsuccessful bidders will be returned within a reasonable time period (Minnesota Statute §574.27). Failure of the successful bidder to execute the Contract and furnish applicable bonds within ten (10) days after receiving written notice of the award shall cause the bid security to be forfeited as liquidated damages to the City. In the event the successful bidder fails to execute the contract, the City Council may award the contract to the next lower competent bidder unless the Council determines that public interest will be better served by accepting a higher bid, or the contract may be re- advertised. 3.2.5 Municipal contracting law requires that bids must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. It should be noted that the bidder who submits the lowest bid in dollars is not necessarily the "lowest responsible bidder" and the quoted phrase gives the Council reasonable discretion in choosing among bidders. Responsibility, in bid statutes, means not only financial responsibility but also integrity, skill, and the likelihood that the bidder will perform faithful and satisfactory work. 3.3 Use of Purchase Order Form: 3.3.1 The Purchase Order form is the document which authorizes the vendor 3 • • to provide a service or commodity to the City. 3.3.2 The Purchase Order form is to be completed with the name and address of the vendor, the quantity, the description, the cost, sales tax, and the account to be charged. The Department Head submitting the Purchase Order form must ensure that the correct account is listed on the form. Charging a purchase to the wrong account because funds do not exist in another account is not allowed. 3.3.3 The Purchase Order should be submitted to the City Administrator for approval for purchases in excess of $5,000. A purchase Order signed by the Department Head or his/her designee is required for purchases between $200 and $5,000. An Invoice Payment Authorization" (IPA) form is required for initiating a purchase for items under $200. The IPA form should be approved by the Department Head and submitted to the Finance Department to verify the authorization to pay an invoice. (purchase orders may be used at the discretion of the Department Head if desired for simplification or clarification on items Tess than $200). 3.3.4 The Purchase Order form should be distributed as follows: White: vendor copy. Brown: department copy. Blue: submit to Finance with invoice and copies of quotes as appropriate. Green: save or discard at Department Head discretion 3.3.5 The invoice Payment Authorization form should be distributed as follows: Original: submit to Finance. Copy: retained by Department Head 4.1 Approval of Goods/Services and Authorization of Payment 4.1.1 Upon receipt of the invoice, Department Heads shall write "Ok to pay" on the invoice, initial same, and submit the invoice to Finance. Note IC- 134 forms are required before the City can make final payment for construction contracts with a value exceeding $10,000. 4.1.2 Finance shall review the invoice for correctness and compliance with the City purchasing policy and include the payment on the list of bills for Council approval in a timely manner and then files the invoice, purchase order and payment (check) accordingly. 4 • • 4.2.1 The City Council shall appoint a Deputy Treasurer. The Deputy Treasure shall be authorized to approve and sign purchases in the absence of the City Administrator and shall follow the policy and procedures set forth herein. 4.2.2 Department Heads shall designate, in writing, employees within their respective departments that are authorized to issue and sign purchase orders, IPA's and invoices for the Department. The Department Heads shall be responsible for ensuring that the designated person knows and understands the City's purchasing policy and that the designee acts in accordance with the policy. 4.3 Recreation Facilities Manager 4.3.1 The Recreation Facilities Manager shall be authorized to make purchases provided that the Manager follows the same procedures as stated above. Appendix "A" — Copy of example Purchase Order form Appendix "B" - Copy of example Invoice Payment Authorization (IPA) form Appendix "C" — Copy of example approved invoice 5 Memo DATE: May 11, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council Larry Hansen, City Administrator FROM: Sharon Harrison Finance Directo RE: 2012 Budget Attached is a worksheet that shows the estimated impact on property taxes for 2012 if the property tax rate were to remain the same as in 2011. These estimates are based on what we know at this moment. A lot of the information needed to make a more accurate estimate is not available to us until August of 2011. Right now we know: • Based on information from Washington County there will be an estimated overall decrease of 3% in Taxable Market Value. • Total Debt Service Levy is $2,962,035 — a decrease of $253,160 from 2011. This levy includes $2,727,035 of required (on existing debt) debt service, $85,000 for land purchase (Armory project), and $150,000 for a new capital outlay bond issuance of $1.2M. • TIF District #1 has a mandatory decertification date of 12/31/11. This means that for 2012, the parcels in this district will be removed from the TIF tax rolls and placed on the general tax rolls resulting in an increase in the City's Net Tax Capacity. • There is a strong possibility that the MVHC program will be discontinued for 2012 and beyond. • In 2011, the City over levied $192,798 for the unallotment of MVHC (Market Value Homestead Credit) which is part of the 2011 overall levy. Therefore, the attached Tax Impact Worksheet reflects the following: DEBT SERVICE TAX LEVY • Includes $2,727,035 of required levy for current debt service obligations. • Includes an additional $150,000 for new debt service of $1.2M for Capital Outlay purchases. • Includes an additional $85,000 for new debt service for land purchase (Armory). CERTFIED PROPERTY TAX LEVYITOTAL LEVY) • Includes an increase of $471,612 over 2011. LOCAL TAXABLE VALUE (NET TAX CAPCITY) • Reflects a 3% an overall decrease of Taxable Market Value (TMV). • Includes an increase of $928,162 from TIF District #1. The end result (3% Decrease increase Local Taxable Value): • There is roughly an additional $664,410 ($471,612- increase in Levy from 2011 to 2012 + $192,798 -MVHC over levy in 2011) available for appropriation in 2012. • The City's Tax rate remains constant (from 2011). • Tax bills for the City should reflect an overall decrease in taxes due to the overall decrease in Taxable Market Value projected by Washington County. However, there may be a more bleak scenario (attached) in that the Local Taxable Value may decrease by 9% and this could reduce any additional appropriations to roughly $100,000 if the tax rate were to remain the same as 2011. • ESTIMATED 2012 Property Tax Impact Worksheet y 3% Decrease in Local Taxable Value Taxing District: I City:of Stillwater STEP 1 - Calculate the Taxing District's Tax Rate: v 1. Operating Levy: $6,943,172 $7,414,784 6.8% $471,612 2. Debt Service Levy $3,215,195 $2,962,035 -7.9% ($253,160) 3. Certifed Property Tax Levy = $10,158,367 $10,376,819 2.2% $218,452 4. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy - $1,167,099 $1,167,099 0.0% $0 5. Local Portion of Levy = $8,991,268 $9,209,720 2.4% $218,452 6. Local Taxable Value + 17,095,522 17,510,818 2.4% $415,296 7. Local Tax Rate = 52.594% 52.594% 0.0% 8. Market Value Referenda Levy $0 $0 0.0% 9. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy (SDs only) - $0 $0 0.0% 10. Local Levy = $0 $0 0.0% 11. Referenda Market Value + 0 0 0.0% 12. Market Value Referenda Rate = 0.00000% 0.00000% 0.0% STEP 2 - Calculate the Impact of the Taxing District's Rate on Residential Homestead Taxes: 13. Assumes a -3.0% increase in market value from 2011 to 2012. (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) t � Z \ _' " rt d ® '1 , a r 410 1 . � t4KR:t ` Na ® alaiR TA td .. ;.li'Va ue _ , 104 . �., a �. ,r. dlt ir' rodit _ >...� . .a .,F, �,. i, 500,000 @1.0% (A7 x E) + 1 76,000@.40% rem CO 1.25% (Al2 X D) - rem©.09% (G) x % (F) - (H) 14. Estimated Tax District rate as % of total rate: 52% 15. 103,100 1,031 $542.29 $279.61 $145.40 $396.89 16. 154,700 1,547 $813.87 $233.17 $121.25 $692.62 17. 257,800 2,578 $1,356.27 $140.38 $73.00 $1,283.27 18. 515,600 5,195 $2,812.26 $0.00 $0.00 $2,812.26 19. 773,500 8,419 $4,429.18 $0.00 $0.00 $4,429.18 Pay 2004 M V 500,000©1.0% (B7 x E) + 76,000 @.40% X 0.970 rem © 1.25% (B12 x D) - rem©.09% (G) x % (F) - (H) 20. Estimated Tax District rate as % of total rate: 52% 21. 100,000 1,000 $525.94 $282.40 $146.85 $379.09 22. 150,000 1,500 $788.91 $237.40 $123.45 $665.46 23. 250,000? 2,500 $1,314.85 $147.40 $76.65 $1,238.20 24. 500,000 5,000 $2,629.70 $0.00 $0.00 $2,629.70 25. 750,000 8,125 $4,273.26 $0.00 $0.00 $4,273.26 k rti I. ,. ta , `... f Q f*d*Vp.+f%1 *.irt e'f t* i *.* VMI:kg ,roil 2. . :' '.12 - - --- - - - - -- 26. -3.0% -3.0% -3.0% 1.0% 1.0% -4.5% ($17.80) 27. -3.0% -3.0% -3.1% 1.8% 1.8% -3.9% ($27.16) 28. -3.0% -3.0% -3.1% 5.0% 5.0% -3.5% ($45.07) 29. -3.0% -3.8% -6.5% 0.0% 0.0% -6.5% ($182.56) 30. -3.0% -3.5% -3.5% 0.0% 0.0% -3.5% ($155.92) ESTIMATED 2012 Property Tax Impact Worksheet 9% Decrease in Local Taxable Value Taxing District: I City of Stillwater STEP 1 - Calculate the Taxing District's Tax Rate: fi 0 e r ay 01aY 0�2z " ��e ha`ngb faAEV:A.SSSMEtitiaVVAIV ,:046 1. Operating Levy: $6,943,172 ' $6,845,034 -1.4% ($98,138) 2. Debt Service Levy $3,215,195 $2,962,035 -7.9% ($253,160) 3. Certifed Property Tax Levy = $10,158,367 $9,807,069 -3.5% ($351,298) 4. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy - $1,167,099 $1,167,099 0.0% $0 5. Local Portion of Levy = $8,991,268 $8,639,970 -3.9% ($351,298) 6. Local Taxable Value + 17,095,522 16,427,675 -3.9% ($667,847) 7. Local Tax Rate = 52.594% 52.594% 0.0% 8. Market Value Referenda Levy $0 $0, 0.0% 9. Fiscal Disparity Portion of Levy (SDs only) - $0 $0 0.0% 10. Local Levy = $0 $0 0.0% 11. Referenda Market Value + 0 0 0.0% 12. Market Value Referenda Rate = 0.00000% 0.00000% 0.0% STEP 2 - Calculate the Impact of the Taxing District's Rate on Residential Homestead Taxes: 13. Assumes a -9.0% increase in market value from 2011 to 2012. (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (1) On g k11,0** *4 DIiair* f4MMY +k Y lit t Drab . �� TaX Gf bsB *t a tt ` apaotY Y A.. a.. ., 'Actua):P iSt R e ' .. F \ kt 500,000 @1.0% (A7 x E) + 76,000@.40% rem @ 1.25% (Al2 X D) - rem @.09% (G) x % (F) - (H) 14. Estimated Tax District rate as % of total rate: 52% 15. 103,100 1,031 $542.29 $279.61 $145.40 $396.89 16. 154,700 1,547 $813.87 $233.17 $121.25 $692.62 17. 257,800 2,578 $1,356.27 $140.38 $73.00 $1,283.27 18. 515,600 5,195 $2,812.26 $0.00 $0.00 $2,812.26 19. 773,500 8,419 $4,429.18 $0.00 $0.00 $4,429.18 . Pay 2004 MV 500,000 @1.0% (B7 x E) + 76,000 @.40% X 0.910 rem @ 1.25% (B12 x D) - rem @.09% (G) x % (F) - (H) 20. Estimated Tax District rate as % of total rate: 52% 21. 100,000 1,000 $525.94 $282.40 $146.85 $379.09 22. 150,000 1,500 $788.91 $237.40 $123.45 $665.46 23. 250,000 2,500 $1,314.85 $147.40 $76.65 $1,238.20 24. 500,000 5,000 $2,629.70 $0.00 $0.00 $2,629.70 25. 750,000 8,125 $4,273.26 $0.00 $0.00 $4,273.26 i .... ilfi a TPer "e r iSV*ge p m 20. ' > . lf . t q ...t S 01C tp *0 2 26. -3.0% -3.0% -3.0% 1.0% 1.0% -4.5 °/ ($17.80) 27. -3.0% -3.0% -3.1% 1.8% 1.8% -3.9% ($27.16) 28. -3.0% -3.0% -3.1% 5.0% 5.0% -3.5% ($45.07) 29. -3.0% -3.8% -6.5% 0.0% 0.0% -6.5% ($182.56) 30. -3.0% -3.5% -3.5% 0.0% 0.0% -3.5% ($155.92) r,sti /Y► II *TM►lCi Of ■1►IIE► ►T. MINUTES City of Stillwater Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 Mayor Harycki called the meeting to order. He noted the meeting had been published and is an open meeting for the purpose of a Council retreat to set priorities for the coming year. Present: Councilmembers Cook, Gag, Polehna (9:30), Roush and Mayor Harycki Staff: Public Works Director Sanders (until 11 a.m.) Assistant Public Works Superintendent Moore (until 11 a.m.) City Administrator Hansen Flood control Public Works Director Sanders provided a brief history of the flood wall project. Part of the discussion focused on the reasons for the increase in the estimated cost of phase 3 of the project, from an initial estimate of $4+ million to nearly $12 million. Mr. Sanders enumerated some of the new components of the project that are now required by Corps engineering standards. Mr. Sanders explained that Stage 3 involves construction of 1,000 feet of levee wall along Lowell Park. The wall would be constructed to the 50 -year flood height, or an elevation of 690.5; he noted that if the wall is constructed, the City will still have to do some temporary control measures for floods greater that a 50 -year event. There was discussion of the frequency of 50 -year events. Mr. Sanders provided a graphic of the location of the wall, along with the location of a possible amphitheater and trails /walkways. He also described the elevations of the wall and the parking Tots. He reviewed the status of the project as of the present time: estimated cost is $11.5 million, with removal of contaminated soils estimated at $1.2 million. He noted that removal of the contaminated soils will be a City cost and the soils must be removed before the Corps will start its project. On a question by Councilmember Roush, Mr. Sanders said the soil contaminants are the result of the railroad operations and that he wasn't sure if there is any liability on the part of the railroad. City Administrator Hansen said he could check into the issue of railroad liability. In looking at the overall project, Mr. Sanders said the federal share of the costs would be about $8.5 million, with the City share of $2.8 million. Mr. Sanders . noted that the City wants to get credit for land taken for the project, which should cover about 20% of the cost. It was noted the City has received a state DNR matching grant of $400,000, which would reduce its share. No matter what Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 scenario, Mr. Sanders said the City must make a minimum cash payment of 5% of the project cost, or $575,000. Mayor Harycki said one option might be to go back to the state with a request for funding to do something on a smaller scale. Mr. Sanders said currently, the City has $2.5 million in federal funds and $200,000 that the City contributed previously and the $400,000 matching grant from the DNR, or a total of $3.3 million, which is not enough to construct the project. Mayor Harycki asked if the $200,000 the City contributed previously is in reserve; City Administrator Hansen said that money is in a bank account controlled by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Sanders said staff met with the Corps a short time ago to look at options and one option is to build the wall in stages and that the Corps would prefer to begin at the ends of the project area. At this point, Mr. Sanders said the City can only do a project with the Corps that costs no more than $2.5 million, the amount of federal funding. He stated that one option is a project from Nelson to Chestnut at a project cost of $2.5 million and federal share of $1.87; the non - federal share would be $625,000, but with credit would be $125,000 which the City already has contributed. Mr. Sanders suggested that the City could use the DNR matching funds for the land cleanup. He noted that power poles would have to be moved; that cost is estimated at about $200,000. Soil mitigation in that area is estimated at $500,000 - $600,000. Councilmember Polehna talked about the possibility of getting some state Legacy money to get the trail up to the needed elevation; he noted there is also a county Legacy program. Mr. Hansen spoke to the cost of federal dollars, suggesting that federal money is too expensive — it's cheaper for the City to do its own project. Mr. Sanders said a second option would be to complete the storm sewer the entire length of the project, grade Lowell Park and begin the amphitheater, which the Corps has indicated it would be willing to do. He stated that currently the parking lots drain toward the river; the elevation of the parking lots would be raised so they would drain to the storm sewer. He said soil mitigation would be done in the areas of the storm sewer only. He said this option would better prepare the City for flood control due to the storm sewers, drainage and the increased elevation of the parking lots and that this project option could be completed with available funds. When asked which option he thought was better for the City, Mr. Sanders said he believes this option is better because of the advantage for flood fighting along with the amenities of grading Lowell Park and the amphitheater. On a question by Councilmember Cook, Mr. Sanders said it was staffs recommendation to do Option 1 if the decision is made to pursue the project in. stages. It also was noted Option 2 has the advantage of parking lot improvements. In discussion, Mr. Sanders said if the City had completed Option 2, it would not have had to do any temporary flood control this year at a cost of about $110,000. Page 2 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 Councilmember Roush asked how much elevation would be gained in Option 2; Mr. Sanders said about 1' to 1.5' in most spots, which Councilmember Roush noted is about 20 -25% of the elevation of the flood wall. Mr. Hansen said he agreed with Mr. Sanders' recommendation. Regarding a possible start date for a project, Mr. Sanders said construction would begin next year at the earliest if the City gave the go -ahead immediately. Mayor Harycki suggested the possibility of beginning the soils mitigation and still pursing the possible liability on the part of the railroad; Mr. Hansen said he would look into that. During discussion about costs, it was noted there is funding set aside for Lowell Park improvements which could be utilized. Mayor Harycki spoke in favor of Option 2. Regarding temporary flood protection, Mr. Sanders said he looked at 5 different products; he described how the various products work and the cost for the products. Mayor Harycki suggested looking at these products again after' completion of the Option 2 flood control plan. There was discussion of the soil mitigation. Mr. Sanders said the consultant has indicated that depending on the levels of the contaminants, it might not be necessary to remove the soil off -site; it can be treated on site by spreading. Councilmember Polehna wondered how the contamination got so bad when it was not considered a serious problem a few years ago; Mr. Sanders explained that the Corps standards are different than the PCA's standards. Councilmember Cook suggested perhaps having a mini presentation at a regular Council meeting before voting on this as this is such a major project. Councilmember Gag asked about the process if approved at this meeting. Mr. Sanders said he would first want to find out what has to be done with the soils. He said the Corps could be notified the City wants to proceed with the project and begin work on the plans and specifications while the City works on the soil mitigation, but in any case, the City has to have the soils mitigated before the Corps will start any work. In discussion it was noted that the project may not even be feasible depending on the soils, and the project could be the subject of an informational meeting at a later date if things proceed. Motion to direct staff to pursue option 2 passed unanimously. Motion by Mayor Harycki, seconded by Councilmember Roush to direct staff to pursue Option 2 of the flood control plan as presented. All in favor. Parks Councilmember Polehna suggested setting a policy regarding mowing, referring to the small open space areas that the City owns. Mayor Harycki said he asked that this be an agenda item to discuss what improvements can be made to Lowell Park as well as maintenance issues. Page 3 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 Tim Moore, Assistant Public Works Superintendent, gave a presentation highlighting the current conditions of Lowell Park and possible park improvements. He said staff has been working for the 1.5 years at improving the, turf in the park and that there are some major issues related to drainage. He said previous plans called for the area from Myrtle to Nelson to be more of a traditional, formal park, with the area from Myrtle to Mulberry more of an open, event area park. Things that can be done now either in -house or with local contractors include drainage improvements, along with installation of an irrigation system and replacement of the drinking fountain, upgrading the bathrooms, installing some landscaping and bituminous trail. Some future improvements that can be planned for in conjunction with a possible levee project include construction of an amphitheater, grading, resurfacing and realigning the parking" lots, and constructing the Commercial Street plaza. He stated that there is approximately $375,000 in funds for a Commercial Street plaza, along with approximately $535,000 for Lowell Park improvements. There was discussion about the plaza concept. Mr. Moore suggested the plaza is a more inviting way to bring people down to the park. Councilmember Gag said it also attracts more people to the north end and to the parking lot; he suggested talking with the gas station owner to see if there might be a way to add a restroom facility onto the station. City Administrator Hansen noted the plaza area may have to be shifted due to an issue with land ownership, as the existing plans show the plaza located on Water Street Inn property and negotiations related to a possible land swap have not been successful. Councilmember Cook asked if some improvements could be done at this time or whether the levee project would be so disruptive any improvement would be destroyed. Mr. Sanders noted that on the south end, there would be no grading; work would be confined to the parking lots. North of Myrtle, Mr. Sanders said the work would be more disruptive. He said of the improvements Mr. Moore talked about, installation of the irrigation system would disrupt portions of the park. Councilmember Cook said she would love to see a formal park, the way Lowell Park used to look with a large fountain, planting and seating areas. She felt that this was a big ticket item but one that would generate a lot of public interest for volunteer initiatives. Councilmember Gag said he thought all the local service groups would come together to support a visible project. Mr. Sanders said the most important thing before doing any improvements is the grading and installation of the irrigation system. City Administrator Hansen pointed out that the north and south portions of the park are very different — the south seldom floods, while the north is designed to be flooded so whatever improvements are put in, whether shrubbery or trees, will have to be able to withstand flooding even once the levee project is completed. Page 4 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 Councilmember Cook said she thought it would be important to put together a package to get people's attention and generate interest in participation; it was noted those plans are already in place. Councilmember Cook reiterated that she would like to do something to the park now. Mr. Moore spoke to the importance of installing the irrigation system, rioting that the existing water system in the southern portion of the park is very old and labor intensive. It was consensus to focus initial efforts on south Lowell Park. Mayor Harycki suggested that perhaps Mr. Moore start by going to the Park Board indicating the direction to focus on south Lowell Park and what can be done with the $375,000 in available funding; Mr. Moore said that process has already been started. Mr. Moore pointed out that there are no costs associated with the plans in place. There was discussion as to whether installation of the irrigation system in the south portion of the park should be done in conjunction with the parking lot improvements due to the potential need for grading to change the elevation of the lots. Councilmember Cook suggested that simultaneous with the infrastructure work, plans should be put out to the public to generate interest for possible fundraising for the future improvements. Councilmember Gag said it would be important to emphasize that these are plans that have been in the works for many years and not frivolous spending, with money put aside for the improvements. Mr. Moore asked the Council how it wished the $535,000 for park improvements allocated — whether it should be split between north and south or some funds reserved for irrigation of the north end. Councilmember Polehna suggested having staff come back with a recommendation; he thought the only direction should be to "do it right." Mayor Harycki suggested waiting on the plaza concept until Community Development Director Turnblad comes back with revised plans. Councilmember Cook asked if staff could price out some items, such as fountains and shrubbery for the purpose of fundraising. Regarding the issue of maintenance /mowing, Mr. Moore stated he had worked with a member of the University Extension Service to develop a turf maintenance program to begin to look at this issue. He said the result was a document that talks about maintaining turf in the parks and public properties. He said the document divides the parks into three specific maintenance categories whereby the most used parks receive the highest level of maintenance. He said staff started working with that plan this year. In addition, they looked at what is currently mowed and frequency of mowing and are working on a mowing plan as well. He said he views these as maintenance plans, rather than policy. Councilmember Polehna suggested that the Council needs to give its support to the plans; he suggested that Mr. Moore come back with a plan that addresses maintenance of ice rinks, ball fields, etc., as well as the mowing and the frequency of mowing. Page 5 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 Councilmember Roush reiterated that the issue with mowing is frequency of mowing, not discontinuing mowing of certain areas altogether. Councilmember Polehna suggested that not all areas need to be mowed and should be left in a natural state. Mayor Harycki said he had received a call regarding boat mooring downtown and the request to make it more public friendly; he also referred to previous discussions regarding a public boat launch. City Administrator Hansen said he thought there should be a public boat launch but that he would like to see it owned by the DNR, rather than the City, so the DNR is responsible for maintenance, operation, etc. Mr. Hansen said a boat launch is another amenity the City cannot afford to maintain, but suggested that the City ought to work with the DNR and secure land, if necessary, for a launch. Councilmember Roush suggested that the City not give the land outright, but perhaps lease the property in the event that the other agency ceases to operate the launch. Mayor Harycki suggested that an outside vendor might be interested in operating the launch for the City. Councilmember Polehna suggested that an honor system could also work. There was discussion of possible sites for a launch, with the Cayuga site the preferred site. It was decided to refer this issue to the Parks Board. There was discussion of the public docks; Mr. Hansen noted the City does not own the dock/slips, but Mr. Anderson is required to provide a certain number of slips to the public. It was suggested that the availability of the public docking ought to be better advertised /signed. Mayor Harycki suggested the issue of signage for the public docks be referred to the Parks Board suggested staff be directed to look at immediate, low cost plans for a public boat launch. Review of last year's agenda Mayor Harycki said in looking at last year's agenda, the Council has accomplished, or is in the process of accomplishing, about 90% of the priorities /tasks. He briefly reviewed the various items. There was discussion of possible armory sites. Regarding City bidding practices, Mayor Harycki asked whether the Chamber had been provided a list of bid items and asked that if that has not been done, the list be sent to the Chamber and perhaps the IBA. Mr. Hansen spoke of savings realized in some of the new bidding. Regarding code enforcement/rental properties, Mr. Hansen noted a packet had been sent to the property owner in question on Sherburne Street and that owner has 90 days to take care of numerous items. He said another letter will be sent to a property owner on Third Street, with a third property to be handled according to state law. The meeting was recessed at 11:50 a.m. Page 6 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 Mayor Harycki called the recessed meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Mayor Harycki noted that Councilmember Roush was absent. Watershed District relations Mayor Harycki noted that the City contributes $35,000 a year to the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization. In addition to the difficult budget times, he pointed out that there is a double taxation involved. He noted that as a resident of the Brown's Creek Watershed District, he pays a separate tax to that entity and as a resident of the City pays a tax to the Middle St. Croix Watershed, Management Organization, whereas a resident of the City in the Middle St. Croix Watershed doesn't pay a tax to the Brown's Creek District. Mayor Harycki wondered whether there might not be some value to pushing for the dissolution of the Middle St. Croix Organization and splitting it off into the other adjacent watershed districts. City Administrator Hansen said staff has contacted several Middle St. Croix members and they are not interested in letting the City out of the organization but it appears there are other ways to accomplish that which staff could investigate. Mayor Harycki also noted that each of the watershed organizations has their own rules which they want the City to adopt and follow which complicates matters for engineering staff. Councilmember Polehna pointed out that there is no one watching out for the City's interest on the Brown's Creek board, whereas an elected City official is a member of the Middle St. Croix to ensure the City's interests are heard. Mayor Harycki agreed there is a risk that in creating a large watershed district, the City's interests could get pushed aside. In discussion, it was noted that the Middle St. Croix doesn't have taxing authority and projects are grant- driven, so, for example, if a project is proposed for Lake McKusick, the City would either have to fund the project or grants would have to be received. It was agreed to invite Middle St. Croix representatives to the joint meeting with Brown's Creek on June 2 and ask the two watersheds to provide information on recent projects that have impacted Stillwater, planned future projects, and the percentage of funds being spent in Stillwater and being spent outside of Stillwater. Work plan, department objectives Mayor Harycki said the work plan was initiated so as not to forget to follow up on scheduling a meeting or other action. City Administrator Hansen said he has found that the work plan helps keep things on track. Councilmember Cook asked about the energy audit that was supposed to have been scheduled; Mr. Hansen said he had contacted the person again and he is still planning to do the audit as promised. It was agreed to add energy audit to the July work plan, with the update on the boat launch the end of June. It was agreed to add a flood wall update and Lowell Park update to monthly staff reports to the Council. Page 7 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 Mr. Hansen noted that last year the Council made the decision to shift the emphasis of Community Development Department to economic development once the Comprehensive Plan update is finalized. Mr. Hansen said Community Development Director Turnblad will go through a training process in economic development. Mr. Hansen noted that the job stimulus law changed some of the TIF laws to, stimulate the economy and will allow the City to make economic development loans, a revolving loan fund. Mr. Hansen said the City has several TIF districts that have been accumulating funds that will have to be given back, redistributed to the various taxing districts, if not used. Mr. Hansen said he has been told that if the funds in question are expended before December 31, 2011, the funds are not considered TIF money, but if not expended before that time ,revert back to TIF money status. Mr. Hansen said he would propose to get the loan fund set up to see if there is any interest and that the money could be used for any activity that would generate jobs or commerce. In discussion, Mr. Hansen said the loan money would not have to be spent in a specific TIF district. There was discussion about the amount of City control; Mr. Hansen said certain criteria would be established and the Council would have to approve any loans. There was discussion of possible uses and possible criteria. Mr. Hansen said he would investigate this further and report back at the fi rst or second meeting in June with a better explanation of how this loan program would work. Regarding department objectives, Mayor Harycki said economic development should be a big focus for planning. Councilmember Polehna suggested performance measures should be developed by the various departments; Mayor Harycki suggested that is an administrative function /priority. Councilmember Gag agreed there needs to be performance measuring sticks. Councilmember Cook agreed that the City needs to move in that direction. It was suggested that Mr. Hansen talk with the Washington County Administrator to get,, some ideas for the department performances measures /benchmarks. Mayor Harycki noted that Lowell Park and maintenance plan would be a priority for parks department. Regarding administration, it was noted that performance standards and economic development would be a focus for the upcoming year. Regarding fire and police, Councilmember Cook said she would like the department(s) to stay on top of code enforcement. Regarding engineering department, Councilmember Gag spoke of the good job Mr. Kraftson does with the street projects and keeping the public informed. Mr. Hansen pointed out the city is changing with fewer large developments that will take place in the future and fewer street projects other than the annual street improvement project, so engineering department personnel likely will have to be reduced beginning in 2011. Page 8 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 Regarding possible restructuring, there was discussion of police /fire /ambulance responses to emergency calls; Councilmember Polehna talked about the need for sharing of services and equipment with neighboring communities in the future. Councilmember Gag asked Mr. Hansen where the City stands regarding the budget. Mr. Hansen said he believes the City will be alright for 2010, but that he will have a better idea about 2011 in the very near future. He expects local government aid will be a thing of the past and is assuming the state will take the HACA funds again. Mr. Hansen said the following year, once past the election, the state might be willing to look at the market value homestead credit and have the fortitude to discontinue a program it can't afford. Mr. Hansen said he expects the decline in home values to show up at about 15 %. Regarding the library, Councilmember Gag asked if the Council can't request a budget report and relay its expectations regarding reductions; Mr. Hansen said he had informed the library of the expectation for budget reductions of about $50,000. Councilmembers asked that a library representative be asked to attend an upcoming council meeting with an update. Regarding finance, Mayor Harycki said he would like to see regular controller reports to the Council. Volunteer initiatives Mayor Harycki said the City has had the opportunity to save money through volunteer service. He said he would like to have department heads put together a list of volunteer opportunities, big and small. There was discussion of various opportunities. Mayor Harycki suggested that the amount of money saved through volunteer service might be a valuable benchmark to include. Mayor Harycki said he would like to see a link on the web page and a contact person. Councilmember Polehna talked about the potential benefit of establishing a memorial program. Budget Mayor Harycki noted that the City is budgeting on the assumption of 0% salary increases and suggested that if a union demands 3 %, for example, he would be willing to step down a position to balance that. On a question by Councilmember Cook, Mr. Hansen said he looks at the entire City when doing the budget, but also at individual departments as some departments are able to give more than others. Mr. Hansen said he looks at the impact on citizens; he said he believes the City is at about the limits when citizens will not feel the difference in the budget situation. Mr. Hansen noted the City is down 17% in FTEs. Mayor Harycki suggested that while volunteers cannot fill that gap, they might help make the impact less noticeable by adopting a flower bed or painting the gazebo, etc. Page 9 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 Councilmember Cook wondered if there isn't something that can be done about the Metropolitan Council and its costly requirements; Mr. Hansen noted the Met Council raised its sewer rates, the City didn't raise its rates and has been absorbing the difference for the last year, and he suggested that Met Council would be raising its rates again due to the lack of revenue from new connections. There was discussion about the cost of storm water projects and cleanup efforts, with Mr. Hansen noting that cities contribute about 10% of the problem and are expected to fund 90% of the cleanup efforts. He stated the City expends about $200,000 a year on storm water issues, without making a dent in the problem. Mayor Harycki pointed out the budget going forward to 2011 isn't a zero increase; it's a negative amount by $200,000 - $300,000. There was discussion of emergency medical calls and how those calls are handled; Mayor Harycki suggested taking a look at how all these calls are being deployed. Mr. Hansen said it was his understanding that police no longer respond to all the medical calls. Mr. Hansen noted the City currently uses a 24 -7 staffing model and that he isn't sure the City can afford to continue to utilize that model 5 years from now. He said those are things that will have to be on the table in the not too distant future. There was discussion about combining services and consolidation. Mayor Harycki suggested the possibility of changing the staffing model to require the assistant fire and police chiefs to pull regular shift, rather than do strictly administrative work. There was discussion of going to a public safety department or volunteer fire department. On a question by Councilmember Polehna, Mr. Hansen said he did not have any real good ideas for cost containment in moving forward with the budget process that haven't already been done. He stated that staff is continually looking at new contracts and how to consolidate and has been pretty successful at doing that. Mr. Hansen referred to ideas such as the Dairy Queen at the Recreation Center at looking outside of the box; there was discussion of some of the specifics of the proposal. Councilmember Cook said she had asked that cost containment be on the agenda due to her discomfort with some of the bills on a regular basis. She said she knew there have been some practices put in place since the last retreat session that have been effective but wondered if more can be done; she wondered if all departments are aggressive at looking at grants and other funding sources. Lumberjack Days boat mooring Mayor Harycki suggested talking with Mr. Anderson about getting better signage and perhaps setting a temporary time limit, three -hour limit, for example, on the slips; he suggested that a time limit might be good for the entire summer season. Councilmember Cook talked about a recent problem with exhaust from one of Mr. Anderson's boats, which she said is impacting the community at a whole. Mayor Harycki also suggested asking Mr. Anderson about the possibility of a Page 10 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 temporary dock during the LJD. Mr. Hansen suggested getting some input from the police department before moving forward. Councilmember Polehna stated members of the Red Bull Division will be Lumberjack Days parade grand marshals and that the Yellow Ribbons Committee would like to do something special for those returning veterans; he inquired about providing free admission to the Chicago concert as the City's contribution. No action was taken on that suggestion. Councilmember Polehna asked about the status of the Veterans' Memorial issues; Mr. Hansen said a representative had been before the Heritage Preservation Commission with a request to place a plaque at the site and the HPC declined to approve the suggested verbiage. Mr. Hansen said the person went ahead and purchased the plaque anyway and likely will go before the Council with the request to install it; Mr. Hansen suggested the issue is the result of this person's attempt to take over the parking lot and eliminate the farmers' market use. There was a question about the maintenance contract; Mr. Hansen said there is still time left on the contract with the Veterans' Memorial Association but that he would not recommend that it be renewed as the Association is essentially one person at this time. Mr. Hansen said as far as he knows the maintenance duties are being fulfilled; but if a maintenance issue does arise, he would recommend that the contract be voided. Armory Councilmember Polehna talked of some recent developments, with the Guard indicating that it will be receiving $12 million in 2013 and wants to put an Armory in Stillwater. The Colonel he talked with indicated that the 20 acres required doesn't have to be contiguous and can be mixed with school or other uses. Councilmember Polehna brought up the site off Myrtle Street recently proposed for a senior living complex, a project that appears will not be proceeding. Mr. Hansen said he would set up a meeting with the Guard representatives. Councilmember Polehna said he was looking at this in conjunction with the community center proposal and his effort to get all the area communities involved and participating. Other items Councilmember Cook said she thought it would be good to have the traffic committee report to the Council on a regular basis. Councilmember Polehna suggested it would be good to have two retreat sessions a year. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember ook to adjourn at 3:51 p.m. All in favor. Ken cki, Mayor Page 11 of 12 Special City Council Meeting May 14, 2010 ATTEST: 9 1k 1 -1 Larr D�nsen City Administrator nsen, dmi i nstr ato r Page 12 of 12 Ater. TEE IINTHPLACE OP MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Special City Council Meeting , Teddy Bear Park Building May 8, 2009 SPECIAL MEETING 8:00 A.M. Present: Councilmembers Cook, Gag, Polehna, Roush and Mayor Harycki Staff present: City Administrator Hansen Mayor Harycki called the special meeting to order at 8:12 a.m. Lobbyist Discussion Mayor Harycki noted that four responses had been received in response to the City's Solicitation of Interest for lobbying services. He said the question is whether in these difficult economic times, the City wants to spend funds for lobbying services. Mayor Harycki spoke to the support of the City's state legislative delegation. Councilmember Polehna said he felt the City had made more progress on projects /bills of interest this year without the services of a lobbyist than in the previous four years when the City did have a lobbyist. Councilmember Cook questioned what a lobbyist could do that City officials haven't already accomplished for this legislative session; she suggested waiting to see what happens this year before deciding whether lobbying services are needed in the future. Councilmember Polehna suggested holding a Council retreat in October or November to discuss legislative priorities. It was consensus not to hire a lobbyist for this year. Department Plan Mayor Harycki said he had received calls from people regarding the time Public Works employees spend leaving and returning to work sites for rest breaks. Mayor Harycki suggested taking breaks on site and utilizing signage that explains "15 minute break in progress." City Administrator Hansen pointed out that employees now take just one break, rather than two, to address that issue; and he did not believe this was an issue. Councilmember Polehna noted that a recent staff change is bringing a higher degree of professionalism to the Public Works Department. Councilmember Cook pointed out Public Works employees have high visibility and are an easy target and stated she thought bringing the new professionalism to the department is what is needed and expected. Councilmember Gag said the Council needs to put more trust in its department heads. Mayor Harycki said the Council and City Administrator Hansen need to set standards /accountability. Councilmember Roush pointed out that with trust comes Special Meeting May 8, 2009 expectations and that the hot buttons for residents in his Ward are flooding of ice rinks when the temperatures would not warrant that activity and snow removal, which sometimes appears as busy work. Councilmember Roush said he thought the City was behind the curve in striping of lanes and crosswalks. It was noted that many of the streets where striping is needed are County roads. Motion by Mayor Harycki, seconded by Councilmember Roush to direct City Administrator Hansen to send a letter to the County, with a copy to Commissioner Kriesel, asking for increased awareness of striping needs in the City of Stillwater and asking for stepped up striping efforts. Councilmember Gag suggested having a workshop meeting with County officials to discuss a number of issues. Mayor Harycki withdrew his motion; Councilmember Roush said he would not withdraw his second, saying both approaches are needed. Mayor Harycki reinstated his motion. All in favor. Mr. Hansen said he would mention a workshop possibility in his letter to the County and said his approach to the issue in his letter would not be adversarial. Mayor Harycki spoke of calls regarding an unfriendly attitude on the part of police officers. Councilmember Cook said she had received similar calls. There was discussion of visibility of officers in neighborhoods and on the streets. City Administrator Hansen said he was very surprised to hear this type of comment, but stated that he would talk to the Chief about the concern. City Administrator Hansen also pointed out that the department has been operating short of staff. Councilmember Cook said if the Council's role is more policy making /setting tone, she would not want to be reactive to specific situations; and that her expectation would be to carry back these concerns to the department head. She said she was looking for more innovative approaches from department heads. Later in the discussion regarding the Police Department, Councilmember Cook said she would like to see more foot patrols in the downtown area and would like to see the concept of community policing explored. Mayor Harycki called for police presence in the neighborhoods on a regular basis. City Administrator Hansen said departments do become reactive in trying to please the Council, dropping everything in an effort to respond to a specific call. Councilmember Polehna suggested this was another instance of the need for the Council to set priorities for the departments. Mayor Harycki suggested department heads are not using staff report time on the agenda properly to convey concerns about workloads. Councilmember Roush said a point of contention for all residents is "truck - zilla," the parking enforcement vehicle. Page 2 of 12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 Councilmember Roush expressed a concern about the way the Max -Todo lease extension was presented to Council as a Consent Agenda item. Councilmember Gag suggested sending agendas and packets as an electronic file to conserve time and paper. Energy Plan Mayor Harycki said he didn't think the City had a good plan for accommodating alternate energy sources to ensure that the energy facilities are consistent with the character of the City, noting that the City has design guidelines for the downtown along with infill design guidelines for the Historic District. Councilmember Roush pointed out the City has no architectural standards for the Rural Residential areas to ensure that the rural character is preserved aesthetically, suggesting that the cell tower at the Jaycee ball field is an example of something that doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. In discussion, it was noted these are design guidelines, not ordinance. Mayor Harycki spoke of the need for an overall energy /conservation policy, as well as a policy related to design guidelines for alternate energy sources /facilities. Councilmember Cook suggested a good starting point might be a presentation by an outside expert on energy - related issues. It was consensus to put energy conservation as one of the Council's possible priorities. Mayor Harycki recessed the meeting at 10:05 Mayor Harycki reconvened the meeting at 10:21 Commissions /Boards Term Limits Councilmember Gag said he thought going to interviews with commission applicants was a good move. Councilmember Roush pointed out that not all commissions hold interviews, noting the Charter Commission rarely interviews applicants. Mayor Harycki suggested there is some advantage to having new blood on the commissions. Councilmember Cook said she was for encouraging citizen participation but also spoke of the need for expertise on commissions, such as the Heritage Preservation Commission. Commissioner Roush suggested another aspect to the issue might be limiting the number of years a person can serve as chair of a particular commission. Mayor Harycki said he could support a 10 -year limit on a particular commission. It was noted there are different term lengths for the various commissions: Councilmember Roush suggested limiting membership to two terms on commissions with three -year appointments and three terms on commissions with two -year appointments. During discussion, Commissioner Roush suggested that the term limits could be waived if there are not new applicants for a particular appointment. City Administrator Hansen pointed out that it takes two years for a person to become a good planning commission member Page 3 of 12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 and suggested that six years might be too short a time for a term limit. It was suggested that all commissions be three -year appointments, which would allow having a nine -year term limit. Commissioner Roush suggested terms start mid -year to avoid terms coinciding with Council changes; it was agreed to have temis begin May 1. Mayor Harycki summed up the discussion by noting that the new policy would limit membership to three terms, with reappointment to a fourth term permitted at the discretion of the Council if there are no other applicants, and allowing a member who had reached term limits on a particular commission to apply for membership on another commission. Councilmember Cook spoke about the need to maintain expertise, specifically on the Heritage Preservation Commission, and expressed a concern about maintaining the same level of expertise as the most senior members of that commission possess. Councilmember Gag clarified that according to the policy, someone could be appointed to a fourth term if there are no other qualified applicants. Motion by Councilmember Roush, seconded by Mayor Harycki to implement three -year terms for all boards /commissions, terms beginning May 1 in staggered years per the discretion of City Attorney Magnuson and City Administrator Hansen to determine when the terms begin. After discussion, Mr. Roush amended his motion to indicate the terms apply to Planning; Parks, Heritage Preservation, Human Rights, Downtown Parking and any future commissions that may be formed. Mayor Harycki amended his second. Motion passed 4 -1, with Councilmember Polehna voting no. Capital Requests /Personnel Mayor Harycki said he had all department heads pull together capital and personnel requests. He spoke to the City's limit on bonding capability and the limit for borrowing. He noted Chief Glaser had inquired whether to submit a grant application for stimulus money for construction of a new fire hall. Councilmember Polehna raised the issue of a community center. Mayor Harycki noted the Guard is still interested in a new armory here, but the Recreation Center is no longer a viable site; and that the City would have to buy a site, about 14 acres, and donate it to the Guard, but in exchange the Guard (Defense Department) will give the donated land by the Rec Center back to the City. Regarding the new fire hall, Councilmember Cook said she didn't think stimulus money could be used for capital and thought projects had to be shovel- ready. City Administrator Hansen said he thought the definition of "shovel- ready" would change. Mayor Harycki said Chief Glaser was looking for guidance as to whether to even apply for a grant; and that Chief Glaser suggested that perhaps the City will have to do a site plan for the grant application and said the Chief also raised the possibility of tying federal grant money for cleanup of the dump site to the grant for a new fire hall. Councilmember Gag pointed out the dump site has the advantage of already being off Page 4 of 12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 the tax rolls and said he would support trying for the grant. Mayor Harycki suggested the Chief ought to be given the direction to find out if the project would even qualify for stimulus grant monies and whether a site plan is actually needed and then come back to the Council for direction as to how to proceed. After checking with Chief Glaser, City Administrator Hansen said the grant application has not even come out yet, but it is the Chief's educated guess that a site plan will be required, and the Chief's concern is there will be a very short time period in which to get a site plan together once the grant application does come out. There was discussion of the previous site work and the potential cost of a completed site study to see if the site will actually work. It was consensus to direct Chief Glaser to continue looking into the grant possibility, expending as little money as possible; after discussion, Councilmember Gag said he would not be comfortable with spending any more than $5,000 for a site plan. Motion by Councilmember Gag, seconded by Councilmember Roush to approve expending up to $5,000 of his budget of $40,000 on a site plan if the grant application requires that for documentation. Mayor Harycki clarified that the $5,000 not be spent until it is determined that site plan is needed. Councilmember Gag agreed to add that condition to the motion; Councilmember Roush seconded the amended motion. All in favor. City Administrator Hansen noted there are also grants for hiring of firefighters. He noted the department is down one full -time firefighter and that is causing issues. He suggested giving the authorization to apply for a grant for personnel, with the Council to determine whether to accept the grant when it is known what the Legislature is going to do to cities. It was decided this should be part of the larger budget discussion Community Center /Armory Councilmember Cook pointed out there is a whole new administration in Washington and suggested checking to see if the interest is still there regarding a new armory. Councilmember Polehna asked whether this (a community center) is still a Council priority; he spoke of the need to involve neighboring communities in any effort. City Administrator Hansen said he did not see the viability of the City going out and buying 14+ acres for a new armory. There was discussion of the desire for an arts /cultural center. Councilmember Cook asked about the impact of an armory on property taxes; City Administrator Hansen responded the impact on property taxes is a negative one. It was consensus to drop the idea of a new armory unless the Guard comes back to the City expressing renewed interest. City Bidding Practices Mayor Harycki said he had been approached by a number of people in the community regarding bidding for professional services, as well as hiring for seasonal positions. City Administrator Hansen explained the issue related to the seasonal employees. Mayor Page 5 of 12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 Harycki said he felt the process for obtaining services should be open. City Administrator Hansen said he would have no problem bidding out professional services, noting that at present, if the City is seeking services it knows a particular firm has expertise in; it will obtain a proposal from that firm because it likely will be quicker and cheaper. On a general basis, Mr. Hansen said, he had no issue with obtaining quotes from numerous firms. It was decided to see what other cities do regarding a formal process for obtaining professional services. Code Enforcement/Rentals /Cleanup Councilmember Polehna spoke in favor of requiring residents to clean up their yards, as well as the need for cleanup in the downtown area. There was discussion of various problems with junk vehicles, etc. Councilmember Gag suggested that currently it is a situation of enforcement by complaint. Councilmember Roush said there needs to be a distinction between chronic nuisance problems and acute problems, and enforcement efforts should be concentrated on correcting the chronic problems first. Councilmember Cook asked if the City had adequate ordinances to address these problems; City Administrator Hansen said he believed so. Mr. Hansen said the City does not have rental /livability ordinances at this time. Councilmember Polehna suggested hiring a seasonal employee for enforcement. There was discussion of the possibility of having increased trash pickup downtown during the summer season; Mr. Hansen said he would check into that. Councilmember Roush asked about the three - strike policy for landlords. Mayor Harycki said he had heard horror stories regarding rental properties. Councilmember Polehna said he thought the Council had directed Chief Gannaway to check with other cities about dealing with problem landlords. Councilmember Gag spoke of consistency in enforcement. Mayor Harycki asked if the Council wanted special effort on rental properties; Councilmember Roush said he thought rental problems were more prevalent and more systematic. City Administrator Hansen suggested that he meet with Chief Gannaway and City Attorney Magnuson to talk about the issues and see if the City has the ordinances it needs, and, if not, come back with sample ordinances of what is needed; and that he would also talk about staffing issues and make it clear to the Chief that this is a Council priority and will come back with a work plan. There was discussion of the need for downtown merchants to take care of their properties; Councilmember Roush suggested a Council graffiti cleanup day. Councilmember Cook asked about noise enforcement and asked that City Administrator Hansen check with Chief Gannaway regarding that issue; she expressed a concern about traffic /vehicles at Stillwater Residence during evening hours. Mayor Harycki recessed meeting at 12:08 for lunch break Mayor Harycki reconvened the meeting at 1:27 Present: Councilmembers Cook, Gag, Roush, Polehna and Mayor Harycki Page 6 of 12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 Staff present:City Administrator Hansen Cayuga Councilmember Roush asked that this be added to the agenda. He stated he had received a message from Sunnyside Marina asking that the City please renew the lease with Max -Todo as he provides valuable services. Councilmember Roush suggested that the City contact Sunnyside and ask if they would be willing to take over the lease for management of the Cayuga on a temporary basis and suggest that they can accommodate Max -Todo if they wish. Mayor Harycki suggested advertising the lease for bid; City Administrator Hansen said he could dust off the original 1999 RFP to publish. Councilmember Roush suggested the State might be interested in using the Cayuga as a construction office. Councilmember Roush suggested that moving forward, the property be referred to by something other than the Aiple property. Councilmember Roush also asked whether $1,500 is the amount the City wants to charge for monthly rent. Mayor Harycki suggested having City Attorney Magnuson clarify the uses that are permitted for the property. Councilmember Roush pointed out there are a number of covered slips shown to the north of the barge on a satellite photo of the site and wondered if this is something that occurs on an annual basis. City Contracts City Administrator Hansen provided a list of contracts prepared by City Clerk Ward and City Attorney Magnuson. Mayor Harycki asked if contracts are re -bid on a regular basis. City Administrator Hansen reviewed the method of negotiating the contracts for fire services. Councilmember Roush asked about the contract with City Attorney Magnuson; City Administrator Hansen briefly reviewed the agreement. Mayor Harycki said he wasn't sure if the City was receiving the best advice for the City of Stillwater or the best advice for the Magnuson Law Firm. Councilmember Roush expressed concern about a possible conflict of interest in that Mr. Magnuson represents other cities, in addition to Stillwater. City Administrator Hansen said he believed Mr. Magnuson would not represent another city if he believed there was a conflict of interest with his representation of Stillwater; Councilmember Polehna pointed out that other area cities have similar arrangements. Mayor Harycki said at the very least he would like to see the bills for legal services; City Administrator Hansen said he does review the bills every month. Mayor Harycki expressed concern about the segregation of duties — regular retainer duties, prosecution, development agreement work, etc. -- and possible conflict of interest and said he would like to see changes made to the arrangement for legal services. There was discussion of the cost of going to an on -staff attorney. City Administrator Hansen suggested having Mr. Magnuson present for a discussion so he could answer the Council's questions directly. Mayor Harycki suggested bidding the contract as the City does with other contracts. Councilmember Gag said before doing that it would be helpful to understand every facet of Mr. Magnuson's work for the City. There was discussion of the cost of prosecution and a suggestion that perhaps the County could take over the City's prosecution duties. Later, Councilmember Polehna Page 7of12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 said he would like to see information on what other cities are doing and how much they are paying. City Administrator Hansen said he did that two years ago and the information is still available. Councilmember Roush asked about the process for renewing contracts when they expire, whether the contracts are renewed exclusively with the current contract holder or put out for bids. Mayor Harycki said he would like to have a formal policy where contracts are rebid, on a rotating basis, every four years. Councilmember Gag agreed that is general business practice and also provides a way to communicate /evaluate vendors. There was discussion of some specific contracts. Motion by Mayor Harycki, seconded by Councilmember Roush to have all city service and consultant contracts, circumstances permitting, bid out every four years. City Administrator Hansen said it would take him a while to develop a work plan for the bidding. Councilmembers Gag and Cook said they would like to see an exact list of the contracts to be included in the policy before voting on the motion. Councilmember Roush said he would withdraw his second and table the issue until the list is developed. City Administrator Hansen said he would prepare a complete list of contracts and asterisk those that he thinks could be removed from the proposed bidding policy. Motion failed for lack of a second. Budget Guidance The Council reviewed some past financial information including revenues and debt load. There was discussion on the impact on borrowing and the build -out of the City. City Administrator Hansen suggested the City needs to be careful in the timing of future projects. City Administrator Hansen said he would be trying his hardest to avoid new capital bonding for equipment in the coming years. Councilmember Cook spoke of the possibility of sharing or renting equipment; City Administrator Hansen said sharing and consolidation will be more common in the future. Councilmember Roush asked Mr. Hansen if he felt Public Works was turning over equipment before it should be turned over; Mr. Hansen responded that at one time that might have been the case, but he doesn't see that now, and he noted there is a cost associated with trying to stretch the life of a machine too far. There was some discussion of upcoming contract negotiations, including zero percent increase and the possibility of voluntary furlough. Page 8 of 12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 Fees Councilmember Roush said he would like to make good on a campaign promise and rescind the lighting and sign fee. He stated in Ward 3 residents are paying for their own yard lights, in lieu of street lights, and paying for the maintenance of the lights, so they are paying double for their street lighting. Mayor Harycki said the situation similar on the North Hill where there are very few street lights, and he suggested the fee was a gimmick to get around levy limits. Councilmember Cook pointed out the fee is a way of getting properties that are not on the tax rolls to pay for the service. City Administrator Hansen pointed out the cost of signage and lighting will not go away and will have to be absorbed by other departments; and that eliminating the light/sign fee revenue source amounts to about $360,000 or a little over six positions. City Administrator Hansen pointed out that immediately after the fee was instituted, the City installed the new street lights on Curve Crest Boulevard, lights the City is still paying for, so that fund is still in the hole; he also noted 21 other cities have recently implemented such a fee due to the budget crunch. Councilmembers Polehna and Gag asked what would be cut if the fee is eliminated. Mayor Harycki said he felt that department heads could come up with another $350,000 in cuts again reiterating that he is paying for street lights that he doesn't have, and doesn't want, in his neighborhood. Councilmember Polehna pointed out that other folks might not use the library or the Recreation Center, but they are still paying for those services, and he said the council needs to consider the City as a whole. Councilmember Gag said he would prefer to have a larger discussion of all fees. Motion by Mayor Harycki, seconded by Councilmember Roush to give staff guidance in the 2010 budget preparation to find enough cuts to offset the loss of tax revenue of the lightand sign fee. Motion failed 2 -3 (Ayes: Mayor Harycki & Councilmember Roush; Nays: Councilmembers Cook, Gag & Polehna). There was brief discussion of planning /zoning fees and the sandwich board fee. Councilmember Gag pointed out the sandwich board fee was implemented after much discussion and with Chamber input and is dedicated to downtown beautification efforts. Mayor Harycki spoke in favor of eliminating the sandwich board fee. Councilmember Cook said she would like to have the sandwich boards regulated but not charge the businesses a permit fee. Councilmember Roush spoke in favor of reducing the fee, from $50 to perhaps $25 for appealing decisions by advisory commissions. Councilmember Gag suggested not charging residents, but charging contractors /developers who may want to appeal a decision. In the discussion, it was noted there is a cost involved in appeals, costs such as publication of notices, mailing costs, etc. Councilmember Roush said he was alright with the fee due to the associated costs. Page 9 of 12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 Mayor Harycki brought up issue of the cost of mailing minutes to people who have requested to be on a mailing list and the cost of mailing agendas. Councilmember Roush suggested adding the cost of postage to the charge. Mayor Harycki spoke in favor of keeping liquor fees at current levels. Councilmember Roush suggested changing the terminology of the police fee for audio /video "tape" copies. City Administrator Hansen pointed out that the fee for vendor inspections has been delayed pending clarification from Council. He said there was a change for Summer Tuesdays, setting the fee to $50 for the entire summer, and also a vote to not change the fee from $25 a day /$100 maximum for other events. He said the Chamber told the City to bill it for the Art Fair inspections, which the City did, but the bill for the $1,500 in vendor fees is still owed; the Chamber's response is that the City owes $600 in membership fees, plus an additional amount for participation in an event at the State Fair. He asked the Council for direction. Mayor Harycki suggested this is related to the issue of fire inspections. Councilmember Polehna said the vendor inspection fee was only to be for those cooking with gas. It was decided to make changes to the fees, line item by line item, with City Administrator Hansen to come back with the ramifications of the suggested changes. Mayor Harycki spoke in favor of eliminating the fee for the sandwich board permit. Councilmember Roush suggested having any administrative fines charged for non- compliance of the sandwich board sign regulations dedicated to downtown beautification. There was discussion of enforcement. It was agreed to add cost of postage to the charge for mailing requested documents, maps, etc. It was agreed to leave liquor /tobacco fees at current levels. Mayor Harycki spoke in favor of eliminating the fire inspection fees and vendor inspection fees. Councilmember Roush suggested charging the fire inspection fee to larger buildings as they are more time intensive inspections; that suggestion was later dropped. Motion by Councilmember Gag, seconded by Councilmember Polehna that the changes listed above is looked at by staff, with staff to report back on the ramifications, financial and other ramifications. All in favor. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Gag to direct City Administrator Hansen to offset the Chamber fees for vendor inspections for the Art Festival versus what the City owes for dues and participation in the State Fair. All in favor. Councilmember Roush raised an issue with businesses who litter the City with temporary, nuisance signage and encouraged strict enforcement of the sign ordinance. There was discussion regarding the City's policy related to garage sales and realtor signs. It was agreed to have Community Development Director Turnblad report on the signage ordinance at a Council meeting. Page 10 of 12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 Council Priorities Councilmember Cook said she would like to see some attention paid to providing improvements /amenities to Lowell Park. Councilmember Gag said, in addition to core services, his priorities would be Lowell Park, the levee wall and the bridge. Councilmember Polehna suggested athletic facilities are lacking; he said he is working on a survey of needs and a survey of potential area community support. Mayor Harycki spoke of planning for alternative energy and developing design standards so facilities fit into the historic character of a neighborhood. City Administrator Hansen said he would have Community Development Director Turnblad check and see what other communities have done in this area. Councilmember Polehna said his notes indicate the Council had listed possible priorities during the day's discussions as: energy conservation, fire station issues, City /resident cleanup /code enforcement, municipal barge terminal, bridge and traffic. Mayor Harycki referred to the discussion regarding striping of roads and more visible police presence. Regarding direction for the 2010 budget, it was agreed that striping, municipal barge and cleanup /code enforcement are priorities. Mayor Harycki suggested obligating 5% more of the street improvement budget to mill and overlay projects versus total reconstruction projects. Councilmember Roush mentioned a dog park as a possible priority. Councilmember Cook spoke of the importance of economic development; City Administrator Hansen noted with the completion of the Comp Plan this is to be a focus for the Community Development Department. Budget Directives Mayor Harycki said he expects to see 0% increase with City labor contracts. There was discussion of employee take -home vehicles; City Administrator Hansen said he would check on contracts that involve vehicle allowances /take -home vehicles. Mayor Harycki noted that property values are down 5 %, and he would like to see what a 5% decrease looks like. Councilmember Gag suggested giving the direction to prepare budgets of 0% increase, 5% and 10% decreases and the implications of each. Page 11 of 12 Special Meeting May 8, 2009 Councilmember Cook suggested looking at the possibility of sharing equipment/services; there was discussion of some of the issues involved with consolidation. It was consensus to give direction to staff to prepare budgets of 0% increase and 10% decrease. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Cook to adjourn at 4:55 p.m. All in favor. K- , - -fcki, Mayor ATTEST: Of ".1 autt/A,1 Larry D. liai4sen, City Administrator Page 12 of 12