League of Women Voters of Northfield

Special meeting and Work Session
Kiffi Summa, LWV Observer

After the roll call, the once again seven-member Council embarked on the Regular Agenda. The first two of the four items comprising that agenda were related to the development of the Jasnoch family’s Locust Development Second Addition. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of both these resolutions.

Resolution 2008 - 094 - Consider approval of a PUD Conceptual Development Plan. The City Planner, Dan Olson, presented this item and gave a little insight into the new form-based regulations that will accompany the new Comprehensive Plan. Although the new Comp Plan and its regulations are not quite completed, Planner Olson felt that this was a good time to integrate them into this upcoming development, which is one of two properties in the city which had a designation of “mixed-use”. (The other mixed use designation is the property at North and Cedar, adjoining the NF Hospital’s property). C. Nelson commented that Mr Jasnoch’s family firm had added more tax base to this community, without the use of TIF funds, than any other he could think of at the moment. C. Denison both complimented Mr Jasnoch’s business “savvy” and wondered if he was reacting to the need for rental housing, as a result of the new rental ordinance. (Part of the development will be a 45 unit apartment complex).
*VOTE: All Aye

Resolution 2008 - 095 - Consider approval of a preliminary Plat for the Locust development Second Addition. Dan Olson again presented, giving some detail of the stormwater management for this property, but saying that most detail would come with the Final PUD and Final Plat. Mayor Lansing inquired if Mr. Jasnoch would be able to begin actually moving ahead, if the council approved this action, and Mr. Olson said “yes”.
*VOTE: All Aye

Resolution 2008 - 096 - Award bids and Approve Contract for 2005 Improvement # 005 - Woodley from Prairie to Jefferson. Interim City Administrator, Joel Walinski, presented this third agenda item, and said that now that MNDOT had approved the final details of the contract, the project could move ahead. Katy Gehler-Hess, the City Engineer, explained that the resolution contained a choice for the Council; they must make a decision on the surface treatment of the concrete on a small bridge over a culvert. Two options were presented, the first being a vertically ridged surface and the second, a stamped surface which replicates stone block. The second option would cost an additional $19, 000, but after a long discussion the council decided this was a more appropriate quality look for Northfield. The additional costs would be covered by existing funds. Embedded in the council’s discussion was the use, loss, availability of MN State Aid funds; Mr. Walinski promised to bring further information on MSA funds back to a council work session in October.
*VOTE: All Aye, except Dixon Bond.

Resolution 2008 - 097 - Approve application for exempt gambling permit/ St. Thomas/ raffles/ at Northfield Golf Club - There was no discussion
*VOTE: All Aye

Work Session

The Budget was the first item on the Work Session agenda. This followed up on the initial presentation on August 11th, by the City’s Finance Director, Kathleen McBride. The purpose was to seek Council direction on modifying the General Fund Budget and preliminary tax levy prior to its approval at the first regular meeting in September (Sept. 8th).

Property Tax Levy - At the August 11th work session, the increase in the City’s property tax levy was projected to be $587,040. The debt service fund projections have been updated, and several reductions have been made. In addition to the debt levy reductions, the City has received formal notice of the levy limit for 2009 from the MN Dept. of Revenue. The increase allowed under the new legislation is capped at $382, 370. This represents a decrease of $21, 247. from the initial estimate. With the above mentioned reductions, the property tax levy for next year increases by $453, 893. , or 7.3% over the current year amount. This is the smallest increase since 2005. A table showing the impact on different types and values of properties was distributed. A homesteaded residential property , valued at $250, 000 , would have a yearly increase of $50.41. A commercial property, valued at $1,000,000, would have a yearly increase of $397.48.

Proposed 2009 General Fund Budget - Since the August 11th work session, department requests have been reviewed and compiled. Based upon the initial revenue estimate provided on the 11th, and compared to the total of departmental requests for next year, the budget gap came in at just under $800,000. Focusing on internal services rather than those delivered to the public, a series of reductions have been made ($483,069 ) to close the gap. The majority of the reductions proposed represent permanent cuts. In addition to the reductions, revenues have been reviewed and several changes made ($246,884). The budget was finally balanced with the use of $55,849 in fund balance (interest ,etc.) A summary of the reductions and revenue changes was presented.

Beyond 2009 - The focus on budget cuts for 2009 have been “quiet” reductions, meaning they are felt internally; further cuts can be expected in 2010. The nature of these future reductions will not be “quiet” and will impact service levels to the public.
*** Note: Much of the above is directly quoted from the staff report. As reported, after the meeting on the 11th, the financial state of the city is somewhat “dire”, as is the general economy. Ms. Mc Bride repeatedly emphasized the seriousness of the budget considerations to the council. The observer does not wish to report on the council’s comments; please discuss your concerns with your council representative.

The second part of the Work session was a joint discussion, with the Planning Commission, of the Draft 2008 Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Dan Olson led the Council and PC members through a Power Point presentation of the structure and contents, goals and objectives of the new Plan. It was very encouraging to see the Planner’s obvious pleasure in the anticipation of the success of this long and arduous process. Mr. Olson stressed the importance of the heavy citizen involvement, Boards and Commissions, as being integral to the success of the project. With the Comp Plan and its accompanying land use regulations coming out virtually simultaneously, the results for the community should be much more satisfying, in realizing both the policies and implementations which are guided by the Plan. Comments were made by the Council regarding the necessity of having the political will to use the Plan as a Guiding Principle to always be referred to, in their decision making processes over the next years.

The meeting adjourned at 9:50 PM.

Kiffi Summa, LWV Observer

The meeting began promptly with  5 of the 6 seated councilors, C. Vohs arriving just a few minutes late.
The agenda was approved after moving item # 15  from Consent, back to the Regular Agenda where it had first been.
The first item on the Agenda was: Special Item Related to Council At-Large Vacancy - Resolution 2008 - 087.   Joel Walinski, Interim City Administrator, stated that there had been a special council meeting to interview applicants for this appointment. The councilors had used a ranking system with points to pick their top three preferred candidates. Mr. Walinski said they now had to decide if more voting was to be done, or if the prepared resolution was to be read with the name of the highest  vote getter filled in the blank, and then the resolution voted on. The Mayor asked C. Nelson to read the resolution and fill in the blank. C. Nelson did so, filling in the name of Dixon Bond, the applicant with the most votes; the resolution was voted and passed.
VOTE:   All Aye.

Mr. Bond was then sworn in and became Councilor Bond. He then went to the dais and sat to the left of the Mayor, C. Vohs having moved away several meetings ago to the empty seat previously used by  C. Cashman.

Four sets of Minutes were then approved: July 21, 28, August 4, and 11.   C. Bond then stated that since he was not present at any of those meetings, he would not vote on the approval of the minutes.

As happens every three months, Waste management was represented by Margot, and joined by George McKinney of the EQC,  who gave the presentation to the Green Teams who had handled the large cardboard recycling for this last period. The two groups receiving Thanks, and large checks (I think over $1200 each)  then related what extra “green” tasks or community service they had done . Thank you to the Northfield Skateboard Coalition, and the NF Evangelical Free Church Youth Group.  In the 7 year timespan of this recycling program, over $50,000 has been earned  and over 7 million  Lbs. of cardboard recycled.

There were no comments by citizens at the Open Mic.

The Consent Agenda consisted of  seven items, with #5 having been pulled from the Agenda before the meeting.; and # 15 having been moved back to the regular Agenda.
VOTE:   All Aye.

Next was a Public Hearing for a possible Charter Amendment. The Charter commission is proposing to add a new section (14.7) Disposition of Control of Hospital Operations.    This is a carefully worded proposal, which has gone back and forth a few times, with review from the City Attorney.
*** NOTE:  I suggest you go to the  city’s website to read the exact wording, if you are interested.
C. Bond said he would “recuse” himself, corrected to “abstain”, because he is a member of the Hospital Board.  Maren Swanson, City Attorney, said that C. Bond needed to be clear about stating the reason for abstaining;  i.e., whether it was a legal or ethical conflict. C. Bond said that he did believe he had a conflict under the Ethics ordinance.  He left the Chambers, as one who abstains may not participate in the discussion.  Joel Walinski then read and explained the proposed language.   C. Denison asked if the council was obligated to act on this proposal; the city attorney replied that there was a statutory requirement to act within 9 months of the Public hearing.  C. Davis asked if this would affect the type of management contract that had previously existed with Allina; Ms. Swanson said no.  C. Pokorney asked a question related to the possibility of the City Council wanting to give control to a different type of board; the attorney said that would be possible.
Public comments were then taken.  A member of the Charter Commission had concerns around the word “unanimous” (related to a council vote regarding the charter) and the serving of a council member on a city Board or Commission, except where statutorily allowed, as on the Charter Commission or the EDA.  Ms. Swanson replied that if a councilor was recused or abstaining, then all members left would be considered a unanimous vote; and as to the Board and Commission  question, as long as there were not overlapping issues, the council seat was short term and an appointed seat, not elected, and she felt a council person on a B/C should be “acceptable”.
***NOTE: the above public hearing comment and reply by the City Attorney would, I imagine,  be of interest to some of the more procedure-focussed LWV members.
C. Bond returned to the Chambers, and Joel Walinski asked if the Council would proceed with Item #15, as the Library Staff was present, and then would not have to wait until the end of the Agenda. Council agreed.

Item # 15 -  Approval of the Library  Site Feasibility study - Resolution 2008 -093   As  promised last week , the Library Staff was back with a resolution to formalize the approval of their site feasibility study which showed that the library could accomplish not just one, but two large additions, by staying on site, and moving to the South.  There was a short exchange between C. Bond and C. Pokorney as to whether the operative word in the Resolution title should be “approve” or “accept”. Lynne Young, when queried, said that the change to the word “accept” would still confirm their direction; C. Bond made that friendly amendment, and C. Pokorney accepted the change.  Ms. Swanson, City Attorney, gave some direction on process for friendly amendments.
VOTE on amendment :  All Aye
Vote on main motion  :  All Aye

Regular Agenda
The main body of the regular agenda began by noting the pulling of Item #10 - Award bids and approve contract for 2005 Improvement # 005, Woodley from Prairie to Jefferson.
Mr. Walinski noted that they were waiting for correspondence from MNDOT.

Item # 11 - Second reading of ordinance 883 - amendments to the NF Rental Ordinance
***NOTE:   See previous reports for more detail.
VOTE:  All Aye

Item # 12 - Award feasibility Study for Fiber  - Motion     This relates to a study,and survey to be done to determine the feasibility, and residents desire to have fiber (communication capability as a city utility) at their home premises. The City has a grant from the Blandin Foundation to do this study, and can provide the required matching dollars from the excess in the Cable TV Fund.  Melissa Reeder, the city’s IT Director presented this item, and was questioned quite thoroughly by C. Bond as to the awarding of the contract to other than the lowest bidder. Having reassured the Council on the contract letting, and emphasizing the importance of this issue to the economic development of Northfield, Ms. Reeder agreed to provide additional material on the contract, and put the vote off to the next meeting.
VOTE: All Aye.

Item # 13 - Approve interim Economic  Development Director appointment  - Motion
Mr. Walinski explained that this would be a six month contract, with a possible six month renewal, until there is a permanent City Administrator in place. C. Bond had some questions about the authorship of the Contract; he was told that Elizabeth Wheeler, the Human resources Director had written it, and it had been reviewed by the city’s employment attorney, Roger Knutson. The Mayor asked C. Bond if he felt the contract language was acceptable to move forward; C Bond said yes, assuming some minor problems can be worked out with the temporary employee. The Mayor then asked about the involvement of the EDA with this hire, and stated that he felt the EDA’s involvement was important to the process of working together.
VOTE:  All Aye

Item # 14 - Appointment to Planning Commission  - Motion
The City Council is asked to confirm  the Mayor’s appointment of Steve Rholl  to the Planning Commission to fill a vacated term ending December 31, 2009. (Applications are being taken for a second vacated seat that needs to be filled)
VOTE :   All Aye

After a few Reports from Council, and Mr. Walinski, the meeting adjourned at  8:33 PM !

Kiffi Summa, LWV Observer

This special meeting had only one Agenda item : Consider options for separation agreement - Resolution 2008 - 086
The Mayor delayed the beginning of the meeting for a few minutes, as two of the councilors had not arrived. C. Vohs arrived a few minutes after 7:00 , and the meeting began at 7:10; C. Davis came in at about twenty minutes after the hour, but missed very little of the discussion.
Also in attendance was the city’s “employment attorney”, Roger Knutson; Maren Swanson, the City Attorney, was not in attendance.

Background: C. Vohs and C. Pokorney had worked with former Administrator Roder on developing terms for a severance agreement. Those discussions resulted in what were called options 1&2: the first, which was preferred by Mr. Roder, requested an apology from the Mayor to Mr. Roder, to be approved by Mr. Roder, and that would result in Mr. Roder releasing the City from the threat of future legal action. Option 2 included the payment of $10,000 to Mr. Roder at the time of his leaving, and a further $25,000 if Mr. Roder was exonerated from the criminal investigation ongoing in Goodhue County. This $35,000 total payment would be on top of the attorney’s fees the council had already committed to pay; it should be noted that Mr. Roder’s employment contract called for no severance payment if he resigned, which was the case.
The Mayor wrote a “letter of reconciliation”; Mr. Roder did not consider it an adequate “apology”.
More detail can be read in previous observer reports.

Roger Knutson prepared two different documents which were attached to tonight’s resolution. They are summarized here, in direct quote from the packet:

• Severance Agreement A - Lump sum of $10,000 following a rescission period for release of claims and $25,000 following rescission period if Roder is exonerated by Goodhue County Attorney, plus reasonable attorney’s fees related to Goodhue Matter.

• Severance Agreement B - Continue the payment of Mr. Roder’s legal fees in conjunction with the Goodhue Matter. (Although not stated in the summary, this also included a release of threat of future legal action from Mr. Roder.)

The Mayor asked C. Vohs to begin, since he had been a negotiator, and C. Vohs stated that since the “apology” option had not worked out, these two options were being presented. C. Vohs stated that his preference was option B, which he then read. Lengthy discussion ensued, covering many issues, and details of different considerations of the city’s obligation to indemnify its employees.
Some of the issues discussed were: whether or not Mr. Roder would be inclined to sign such an agreement, since it was not one of the original two options; if there was a third option, i.e., “to do nothing”; the City’s legal responsibility to indemnify their employees and under what circumstances; how this affects the City’s ability to attract good employees in the future; escalating insurance costs on legal fees/coverage; what are reasonable attorney’s fees; whether payment of legal fees should be capped; and more …

An early vote on an amendment to the motion (B) had revealed a 3-3 tie, and it was felt that might continue.
C. Vohs pushed for a $10,000 cap on fees from Aug 13, going forward, but this failed when voted. (It should be noted that amounts of what has been paid to date was not clear, nor were amounts of attorney’s bill submitted to date available.)

Finally it was suggested that there should be a one week time period allowed for Mr. Roder’s response; the vote on that amendment was all aye.

To conclude: A vote was then taken on Option B, amended to include a one week response time from Mr. Roder, and Option B as amended passed on a 4-2 vote. The Nay votes were C. Vohs and Mayor Lansing.

Note: With the League’s concern for good governmental process, it should be noted that despite the potential of being very contentious and personal, as some past meetings have been, this meeting was calm and measured.

Adjourned at approximately 8: 50 PM.

Kiffi Summa,   LWV Observer

The Special City Council Meeting began at  5 PM, and was for the purpose of interviewing applicants  to fill the vacated at-large seat of Noah Cashman in the interim before a special ballot at the November election, when the seat will be filled with an elected  representative. The seven applicants for the seat were assigned by lot to a time slot, scheduled every 15 minutes, from 5:00  to 6:30  PM, and were not present for each other’s interview with the council.

Also on the Special Meeting Agenda was a motion to approve the process and procedures for the selection and appointment of this interim council position. Two options were considered: option #1 which was used during the last vacancy appointment and came from the MN League of Cities, was refined by the City Attorney. This process allows for successive rounds of voting for one less candidate each round until there are two candidates remaining,  and then there is a final vote. Option #2  uses  a ranked order system similar to the process recently used to select an interim administrator.  The council chose to use a variant of the second system, ranking candidates for their preference, and identifying the top three, who will then be voted on at the August 18th council meeting.

******

The Work session began at 7:15, and the first item on the Agenda was a presentation by Tim Penny, of the Southern Minnesota Initiative  Foundation.   SMIF covers the southeastern portion of MN, from Le Seuer and Mankato on the west, to the river towns of the eastern border, and from the southern border as far north as Northfield.  Their main focus is on emerging businesses and emerging workforces.  They also do some start-up business loans, micro loans and gap financing. Organizations, and cities, within the region contribute about  $400,000 annually, and that money which leverages “outside” dollars, returns to the region at approximately 12-13 times the original amount, i.e., a good return on investment. The SMIF also runs town meeting initiatives, providing facilitators, to enable communities to work through problems which confront them. Occasionally, they help communities create Community Investment Funds, or area foundations,  and can also help with the management of those funds. Mr. Penny stated that the issue he is probably most passionate about, currently, is assimilating immigrant populations into the general population.

The second item on the agenda was  a report on the Library feasibility study. Margit Johnson, Library Board Chair, did an excellent job of reviewing the feasibility study for the Council. As usual, the Library Board does an exceptionally thorough job of presenting their material, with clear facts, timelines, estimated costs, etc.  It was stressed that this feasibility study has proven that not only can the Library expand to the desired  size on the current site, but by moving to the South, can actually expand twice, i.e., if each expansion lasts for 20-30 years, it can expect to remain in the historic downtown, in its central location, for many years to come.  The Library Board, and Director Lynne Young asked the Council for clear direction on the next steps; the Mayor asked that a resolution be brought back for the Council’s vote.  Mayor and Council were promised that the Library Board would very soon be back  with a resolution to formalize the acceptance of their study.

The next item (3rd) on the agenda was a Budget Update , presented by the Finance Director, Kathleen McBride.  the purpose of this discussion was to (1.) Provide Council with an overview of the preliminary property tax levy, and tax base projection,  (2.) Provide Council with an initial overview of the Budget  Gap for the General Fund  operating budget for next year,  and (3.)  Seek Council direction on balancing the General Fund  budget and preliminary property tax levy  prior to its approval at the first meeting in September.
It should be noted that a second work session on the preliminary budget and tax levy is scheduled for  August 25th, at which time greater detail will be presented.
It is also important to note that the preliminary levy to be approved in September may only be lowered in December,  when the final levy is approved.
It was not an encouraging picture that Ms.  McBride had to paint  for the  Council; even if the full levy limit was applied, the city would still have  a  lack of approximately $78,000 to support the amount needed by the General Fund, and even minor increases in needs could push that number much higher.   Ms. McBride suggested to the Council that they need to take a “long hard look”  at staffing, operations, and programs/services to determine the most efficient use of  dollars.  The construction industry, the national general economy were all discussed as causes of  a lack of sufficient income, but the “bottom line” was that the revenue stream is just not adequate to balance with costs.
Hovering in the background of this discussion was  the possibility of extending infrastructure to the annexation area, i.e. C. Voh’s statement of the need to “spend money to make money”, but from the Finance Director’s presentation, the  observer feels the budget situation, at least at this point, looks dire.

The fourth and last item on the work session agenda had to do with municipal code enforcement  as regards the outdoor storage of  boats, trailers, motor homes on private property, as well as Blight.  For the last two years or so, the staff has  moved from enforcement on a complaint based approach to a more proactive enforcement.  This work session discussion came from the appearance last week, at the open mic, of a number of disgruntled citizens, all of whom felt disadvantaged by this new approach. Last week, Council had advised staff to hold off on most of the relevant issues regarding this outdoor storage, until it could be further discussed, leaving only the 25 foot recreational vehicle maximum length in active enforcement; but this week  they also put that 25 foot limit on hold as it was felt this is too short a maximum length for the size of todays vehicles.  It was recommended by Council to Staff, that the entire ordinance be cleaned up, made more clear, and no more citations be issued until the ordinance language is clarified.

Interim  Administrator Joel Walinski  then did an update on the Council’s Goals, and how they were progressing on fulfilling those goals, before the meeting adjourned at 9:53 PM.