All Council members were present; City Attorney Chris Hood was also present.
The Agenda was approved with no changes.
Minutes from the last five meetings, 8.9 through 8.23, were approved.

Consent Agenda -  The Consent Agenda was read by the Interim City Administrator, Tim Madigan.   Mr. Madigan gave a short synopsis of each item which pointed out the essence; this very helpful to citizens watching who do not have access at the time to the packet materials. Thank you Mr. Madigan.
1. Review Disbursements
2. Accept MN Dept. of Health Grant for Source Water Protection
3. Approve Local 70  General Unit 2011-12 Labor Contract
4. Proclaim  September 2010 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month  in Northfield
5. Receive and File Letter from Convention and Visitors Bureau on Budget
6. Approve change of contract assignment  between the City of Northfield and KKE architects in DLR Group, Inc.
VOTE:  All Aye

Open Public Comments -  Mr. Darryl Knutson owns three rental buildings in Northfield with a total of 10 small residential units. He has just received notification of the inspection scheduling and license fees under the New Rental Housing Code, and fee schedule.  The costs  of this license and the inspections have gone up 230% and are for a 2 year license instead of a three year period. He understands the complexity of inspecting an entire rental house, but feels that for these small studio/1 bedroom apartments in which the inspector is in each unit for approximately 5 minutes, the $50.00 fee for that unit’s inspection is excessive.
NOTE: When the City’s fee schedule was discussed, it was said that the fees charged needed to represent the amount of employee’s time spent in dollar value.   $50.00 for 5 minutes is obviously not equitable to employee time spent; there is also a $40.00 processing fee for each property.  There seems to be a philosophical disconnect between these charges and those of an enterprise fund, where fees charged must also, understandably,  build revenues for  future facility upgrades.

Regular Agenda -  The first item on the Regular Agenda was:
7. Items related to Stormwater Management -  sub items a.- d. relate to Ordinances 911, 912, and 913; all  of which are related to the basic Stormwater Ordinance portion of the City Code which the Staff, consultants, and community advisory groups have been working on for months.
Item a. is the second reading Of Ordinance 911.
Item b. is the approval of publishing the summary version of Ordinance 911.
Item c.  is the first reading of Ordinance 912.
Item d. is the first reading of Ordinance 913.
There was some comment by Councilor Pownell about the publishing of the summary form ordinance who felt that a more informative longer version would be more user friendly; Mayor Rossing felt that fulfilling the legal obligation was sufficient to alert the public to a change.
Mayor Rossing  reiterated the positive features of the extensive public process used to develop this revised ordinance, and thanked all the community participants who had worked as advisors.
VOTE: All Aye on a, b, c, and d.

8. Accept bids and award contract for City Hall Window Maintenance Project  -  This project is part of the Johnson Controls Energy Savings contract which the City entered into a few years ago, and also makes use of funds from the state Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program, with additional funds from the City’s Facilities Fund.  Michelle Merxbauer, HRA director, and Brian Erickson, a City Engineer, had “diligently” reviewed this project  to achieve the greatest efficiency in use  of funding sources, and emphasized that if the project were delayed it could result in the loss of the $76K of state grant money. Total proposed project costs for main portion of City Hall: $243,840.
The City hall windows have long been recognized as an energy ‘disaster’, and the Council recognized the need for this project to happen in order to maintain the City’s building assets in acceptable condition. The bids for the main building were approved:
VOTE:  All Aye
A discussion then ensued regarding the annex building which houses the heating plant for City Hall. To do the windows in that portion of the building would be an additional $40K; opinion on the Council was divided on the necessity of that additional work, but approval of adding on those costs passed on a 4-3 vote; there was strong direction to the staff to seek alternatives to full window replacement in that portion of the building in order to reduce the costs.

9. Items related to the Preliminary budget adoption:
a. Approving the HRA tax levy for 2010/payable 2011
b. Approving the EDA tax levy for 2010/payable 2011
c. Approving the City tax levy for 2010/payable 2011
d. Approving the preliminary General Fund  Budget for 2011/ budget hearing date
Kathleen McBride, City Finance Director , gave the Council the usual reminders about setting the preliminary levy limits, i.e, that they could be revised down for the final budget approval in December, but not revised upward after the preliminary setting.
The final  Public Hearing  on the budget is set for the December 7th Council meeting. Ms. McBride suggested that the Council could vote on the approval of the budget that same night, after the Public Hearing, or if they did not wish to do that, call a special meeting for that action on December 14th.
Item a:  Some discussion of approval of the HRA levy centered on the good job the HRA has been doing in using their available funds as well as being energetic in looking for grant dollars. These dollars are being put to good use, as always, in solving people’s housing issues, but are especially important in difficult economic times. Michelle Merxbauer, the HRA Director, stated that her immediate priorities are for the “Home Matters”  program (State and National award winning program) and the various rehabilitative programs for manufactured homes which have been heavily used by residents of that housing type.
Councilor Buckheit once again  suggested that it would be good for the Council to have more information, sooner, to make wise budget decisions, and Ms. McBride agreed, after noting some staffing concerns , as well as having to straighten out a lot of financial processes since she has taken over this job.
VOTE:   All Aye, except for C. Pownell, who would have liked the flexibility of setting the HRA levy up, at least for the time being.
Item b:  The EDA levy has been at the highest level allowed by state statute; it is tied to the tax base, and therefore must be slightly reduced because of the reduced tax base due to lower estimated market values. The reduction is a small one: $308.
Several Councilors who expressed concern of the value of the EDA’s work to the City and to the citizens at this time, were countered by C. Pownell’s evaluation of  the  future potential of the Business Park.
VOTE:  Approved on a 5-2 vote, with Councilors Buckheit and Zweifel voting Nay.
Item c : Several Councilors  voiced concerns about approving  the City  levy, proposed to be a 3.5% increase. C. Zweifel stated that she was “only voting tonight as a ‘ceiling’; could be decreased later”. C. Denison declared that he would be voting against the resolution as he  felt that  there were “more cuts to be made”. C. Pokorney  warned that “the buck stops here” and that if the council doesn’t want to use any  capital reserve funds, more service cuts would have to be made.
Mayor Rossing noted that some residential taxpayers had said they would not mind a small increase, but that tax increases fell disproportionately on the commercial properties. The Mayor also noted  that  “taxes had to be paid”; with regard to fees , there is “a choice”.
VOTE: All Aye , except for Councilor Denison.

Administrator’s Update -  Mr. Madigan reported on the initial meetings of the ad hoc financial advisory work group.
He then explained that the City Attorney will start on a schedule of being at the first Council meeting of the month to respond to legal issues, and following on an as-needed basis. This will not result in a contract adjustment; Mr. Hood is paid on an hourly basis, and judicial management of his  services may result in some savings.
Mr. Madigan distributed a Draft schedule for September and October meetings of City Council, and Boards and Commissions, etc.  It is noted there that the Council will begin having Breakfast meetings at the Tavern , 8 AM on the 14th and 28th of September.   This is something  C. Pownell had been advocating;  it was proposed, not objected to, and so will begin. These social occasions will be noticed as Public Meetings.
NOTE:  This sort of proposed social meeting  for legislative bodies  is often a subject of discussion; I believe the Rice  County Commissioners do/did meet regularly for lunch following their meetings. (Please correct if I am wrong )
Do LWV members have comments about  this new practice?

After the subsequent Councilor’s reports, the meeting Adjourned at 9:27 PM.

All councilors were present.

There were three items on this Work Session Agenda; all scheduled for 30 minutes of discussion.
1. Review Draft Land Development Code: Downtown and Highway Commercial Districts
2. Enterprise Revenue Study
3. Review of Information from Budget Forum

Item #1 - This review of the Land development Code draft covered the regulations for the C1-B  Downtown Commercial District, and the C2-B  Highway Commercial Districts. The Council had previously been asked to comment on the C1-B Downtown draft regulations and now these were brought back for confirmation/ further comment by the Council.
Six of the Planning Commissioners were present for this discussion. Alice Thomas of the PC said that this meeting was to ensure that the Council was  all “on board” with the PC’s understanding of guiding policy, primarily derived from the City’s  Comprehensive Plan.
This newly configured Downtown District now includes the commercial area just west of the historic downtown and across Highway 3 , as well as the area to the immediate south of the core downtown,i.e., what used to be referred to as “downtown fringe”.
Although these areas are all named as one district now, there are some differing standards for the two types: the historic core, and the bordering areas.
Although the bordering areas are encouraged to follow a zero lot line model, with no parking in front of buildings, there are more requirements for parking to be provided, as opposed to the historic core where there is no requirement for each building to provide parking.
There was quite a bit of discussion on the stringency of the requirements as to set backs, etc., and the idea of a two-step approval process  in order to allow for more design flexibility was revived. For instance , if the project can conform to all the stated requirements for the district, then it is a quicker, more easily approved process for the builder; if a more complex, ‘creative’ design is wanted, then a slightly more complicated review process will be necessary.

The Council next reviewed and commented on the proposed regulations for the C2-B Highway district which is everything south of the river bridge at approximately 6th Street, south along  Highway 3 to County Road 1/Dundas.
There was a long discussion of the regulations and how they restricted, or did not restrict, commercial highway development; and what balance to strike with the Council’s ultimate goal, which is how to relate the highway development in an integrated way, to the rest of the community.
The previous day, some commercial property owners/ developers had met with representatives of the Chamber, City Staff, Council and Planning Commission to comment on these proposed Highway regulations. Brian O’Connell, Community Development Director, reported that there was a degree of frustration expressed by the developers. Their concerns centered most heavily on building placement, setbacks, parking etc. The builders felt strongly that they were knowledgeable about how to be successful in fulfilling the prevailing market needs, and should be allowed more discretion in their development choices.
A Planning Commissioner commented that he felt the PC was in a very hard place; that the Council was closer to the position of the Chamber/developers than to the Planning Commission, and yet they (PC) are tasked with fulfilling the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
The resolve was agreed to lie in the same sort of two-step approval process, as was agreed to for the C1-B District, i.e., to provide flexibility where ‘needed’.
This discussion ended at 8:55.
*** NOTE:  The issue of adhering to the ordinance regulations, or providing “flexibility” through a two-step review process is bound to be problematic, considered arbitrary by some, but seems to be the only practical solution for the time being.

Item #2 – The Enterprise Revenue Study was presented by Katy Gehler, City Engineer and centered on  4 scenarios for revising the rates for water usage.  It is very important that the city’s fixed costs of water delivery to households and businesses be covered more thoroughly by the base rate charges. The Enterprise Funds must not only cover the day to day delivery of water, but must build a revenue reserve for the rebuilding of water infrastructure delivery and treatment.
The rate structure is based upon a base volume of water being included with the account charge, with price tiers for additional levels of water usage.
The Council was being asked for comment on which of the four scenarios to implement, a timeline, and some guidance for future escalation of rates.
Issues discussed were the problem of escalating rates at a bad economic time, and the need for building reserves for  water plant improvements which will be needed by 2020. Some improvements will be mandated by legislation requiring improved water treatment and discharge.
It was decided that the presented scenario #2 will be implemented early in 2011, with the goal of building adequate reserves  toward the predicted infrastructure replacement time.
Scenario #2 will increase the base  residential rate from $4.00 to $12.93, with a  tiered volume usage charge to figure any additional charges. The base charge will cover the initial 500 Cubic Feet of water consumption; it is estimated that 35% of residential users fall into that category.
This discussion ended at 9:35.

Item #3 – The review of the previous evening’s Public Budget Forum took only about 15 minutes of the Council’s time, as they hit some highlights of citizen comments, focusing on the need to continue making additional cuts, having a plan for a scenario if Local Government Aid was NOT withdrawn to the level expected, and the importance of volunteerism.
*** NOTE: There was not a large attendance at the Budget hearing which may have been somewhat frustrating for the Mayor who had expressed the need to hear from a “broader/ deeper” representation of resident’s opinions. This may have resulted in the return of the idea of a city wide survey, which the Mayor and Councilor Denison support, and which some Councilors find too expensive for the quality of information gained by such a process.
The one area of citizen comment not noted in the  Council’s discussion was the  request for large salaries of inactive departments (Economic Development, Community Development) to be curtailed for the time being, until the activities of those departments are once again needed.

Additional Item Added – Kathleen McBride, City  Finance Director, asked to add a discussion of the  Tax Levy rate to be set in early September. Previously it has been suggested/recommended that the levy be set to its highest limit, a  6.5% increase,  in the preliminary September budget presentation, as the state allows it to be reduced for the final December presentation, but does not allow an increase after the preliminary  rate setting.
The Council’s practice has often been to set the rate high in September and then work to reduce it as further information comes in throughout the fall.
Ms. Mc Bride presented a strong case for following a different procedure this year, setting a  more acceptable goal of a 3.5% increase in September, and made the case for that being adequate through the cautious use of reserves, as well as some cost savings through planned reorganization of City Hall Operations.
The council agreed, acknowledging that some of the reserve fund dollars come from slightly “over-levied” tax amounts which allowed those reserve funds to accumulate; i.e. tax payer’s dollars previously paid being used to keep the tax levy increase lower this year.
The meeting closed after Councilor Buckheit noted that the Council needed guidelines as to what were were appropriate fund balances to keep; when those balances should be used, and under what circumstances.

Adjourned at 10:20 PM.

Absent: Noel Stratmoen

Announcements-
Fall sports programs have begun, involving 520 students.
A good program for parents of student athletes was presented by HCI.
ACT results showed strong academic success – Northfield students did better than
Minnesota average, and MN leads the nation.
Filing for School Board are the 4 incumbents (Stratmoen for the 2 year term,                  Nelson, Pritchard and Berthelsen), Greg Schultz, and John Fossum.
Custodians and technology staff were thanked for their hard work getting ready             for the new school year.

Public comment – Katie Hargis, Lynn Pederson, and Michael Gager spoke in support of the proposed YMCA facility, citing the limited access to Carleton facilities, the collaborative relationship between the Y and the Senior Center, and the convenience for high school students to use the facilities and to be employed there.

Reports- Ellen Mucha and Joel Leer presented the high school’s accreditation report. The process was energizing for the faculty, and the visiting team cited the Professional Learning Communities, the ninth grade academy program, and the range of choices available to students as particular strengths. They recommended a greater effort to share data and effective strategies building-wide, greater clarity about leadership roles for site council, department heads, and administrators, and greater vertical and horizontal communication among all stakeholders. The accreditation has been secured for the next five years, and progress on emerging strengths will be cultivated during that time.

Consent Grouping – Unanimous approval was given to the consent items, including the extension of the contract with Schools for Energy Efficiency.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:55.

A special council meeting has been scheduled for Monday, August 23 at 7:00 p.m. to solicit public comments on the City’s 2011 budget. This is in advance of the City Council establishing the City’s preliminary 2011 property tax levy and well in advance of the formal public hearing held in early December.

The City has experienced significant reductions in state aid and the Mayor and Council have set a goal of achieving a balanced budget without any state aid by the year 2015. This represents a decrease of just over $2 million dollars over the next four years or 20% of the General Fund budget, $500,000 in 2011. The General Fund’s operations cover most basic city services including police, fire, public works, community development, parks and recreation, library and administration.

Given the size of the reduction, all services will be affected to some extent. The Mayor and Council want to know not only what services are important to you, but also what level of service is acceptable. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to maintain service levels? Would you be willing to pay additional fees and charges? Are you willing to accept reductions in hours of service at City facilities or longer response times?

The 2010 City budget is available on the City’s website and at the Library. The budget document provides details on the various city departments and what services are provided. Read up on it and bring your ideas to the forum.

The format of the public forum will be as follows:

• City staff will make a brief presentation on the current status of the 2011 Budget development and review of the 2011 Budget Policy approved by Council.

• Groups or individuals in attendance are encouraged to address the Council and will be given up to four (4) minutes. City Councilors will then have the opportunity to ask the presenter additional questions to clarify the recommendation.

• Once all formal presentations by groups or individuals have been made, the Mayor will lead an interactive Q&A with the audience and council members on specific budget issues

For more information, go to the city’s web site and click on the notice of the public hearing.

All Councilors were present except for Erica Zweifel.
Minutes of the August 3rd meeting were approved.

Consent Agenda – There were eight items on the Consent Agenda; the eighth  (Resolution 2010-063)  being the approval of Tim Madigan (who was in the audience, note-taking) as Interim City Administrator.
Councilor Betsey Buckheit requested that Consent Item #4  (Second reading of Ordinance #910 – Rezoning the property at 1821 North Avenue/proposed radiation oncology facility / Mayo Clinics )   be removed from Consent to the Regular Agenda as it required a super majority vote for approval of rezoning while the Consent items do not require that majority for approval.
After Item #4 was removed from Consent, and placed on the Regular Agenda as item #8b, the Vote on the Consent Agenda was All Aye.

Regular Agenda -  Item #8b (see above)  was voted All  Aye.

Item #9. – First reading of Ordinance # 911  -  Adding Chapter 22, Article6, divisions 2&3 to the Northfield City Code Regarding Stormwater Management
As reported before , the development of this stormwater management ordinance has been a lengthy, and very detailed process which has included several partners.  The leadership has been under the City’s Engineer, Katy Gehler, who has worked with specialist consultants along with input from St. Olaf, Cannon River Watershed Partnership, Bridgewater Twp, etc.
The  rules/guidelines of Northfield’s ordinance will either meet or exceed the general requirements of the State, and the DNR, and are more strict with reference to Rice Creek, a portion of which is within the proposed Prawer-Gill annexation area in Bridgewater Township.
Vote: All Aye.

Item #10. -  Authorize Staff to proceed with 2011 Street Reclamation Project (Motion)
This project would consider three sections of streets: Linden between Greenvale and St. Olaf, Plum between Greenvale and St. Olaf, and 2nd Street from Lincoln west to the dead end. These street sections rose to the top of the prioritized list because of poor condition of all infrastructure systems. As usual this street reconstruction project would be funded through a variety of sources: GO Bonds (General Obligation), assessments, and enterprise funds (sewer, water, etc). The total project costs are estimated to be approximately 2.5 million dollars, with Bonding required for about $700,000, or a little less than a third of the total cost.
After an explanation by Engineer Gehler about the processing for determining priorities for street reconstruction, it was noted that putting street projects ‘on hold’ in the 2000 construction season had left the City  playing ‘catch up’ since resuming the schedule.
Mayor Rossing expressed a concern about further indebting the City  ($700K) while facing other “big issues” , i.e. putting the Safety Center project , a project she expressed as holding a higher priority in her mind, on hold; she stated she would be voting NO.
***NOTE: Remember that the Council voted  5-2 to put the Safety Center project on hold until after November, when they expect to hear from MNDOT about the availability of their preferred site at Woodley and Hwy.3.
Vote: All Aye , except Mayor Rossing: No

Item #11. -  Approve Early Voluntary Retirement (Motion)
Human resources Director, Elizabeth Wheeler, began by explaining that as a cost savings measure, early retirement had been offered to city employees; three had responded with interest, and an agreement had been reached with Brian O’Connell, Community Development Director.
Mr. O’Connell will terminate his full time employment with the City as of 9/01/ 2010. He will be hired back as a consultant (Community Development Transition  Consultant) as of 9/7/ 2010. This will be considered to be a half-time position , averaging 20 hours of work a week, (No more than 40 hours any one week) with a wage capped at
$43, 313. for 880 hours of work, to be ended by July 12, 2011, unless a different date is mutually agreed to by both  parties. One of the major responsibilities of this consulting position will be the continuing oversight of the  completion of the Land Development Code on which the Planning Commission members have been working diligently  for many months.
A lump sum insurance payment equivalent to $119, 647.50 will be deposited to Mr. O’Connell’s  Post Employment Health Plan.
The packet states: “The Council is being asked to consider the ‘win-win’ benefits  of this voluntary early retirement and authorize the execution of the agreement to ensure cost savings to the City for at least the next four years.”
After little discussion, some public comment,  and City Attorney Chris Hood’s reminder that Mr. O’Connell remains an “at-will employee”, the vote was taken.
Vote All Aye.

Item #12. – 2011 Budget Discussion (Discussion only)
At 7:50 the Council took up yet another budget discussion with the Mayor noting that it was earlier in the evening than last time, and they were all ”fresher’.
Before the discussion began, City Administrator  Joel Walinski suggested that as there was no more action to be taken  this evening , Attorney Hood might leave. In the future, legal matters requiring Mr. Hood’s presence will be attempted to be scheduled on the 1st legislative and work session of each month, hoping for a cost efficiency in the use of the City Attorney’s time.
After public comments on this item, the Council began to go  over a document they had requested at the August 3rd meeting, which would give them details of the cuts in each of the City’s departments. Mr. Walinski walked/talked them through this 4 page document, provided two handouts (General Fund Revenues, and   GF Expenditures) and also showed several slides with charts of corresponding information.
***NOTE: The two General Fund sheets were available as handouts to the Public, but the visual slides and charts were neither available in print format for the public, nor in any of the  Public packets.
The usual procedure for the preliminary budget submitted  to the state in September, is to put the tax levy as high as legally allowed, and then back it down to the desired level by the time the final budget is submitted in December. This is a  practical procedure because the preliminary tax levy may be reduced, but not increased, in the final iteration in December.
Mr. Walinski at one point asked the Councilors to consider “how long  residents will put up  with reduced service levels.”; reminding them also that they will immediately in 2011 need to begin to consider cuts for 2012.
Further discussion centered on what might be the ‘help’ realized by the now appointed Financial Advisory Group (tonight’s  consent agenda item #6), and possible cautious use of the City’s Revenue Stabilization Fund  (containing between 800K and 1 million $$), to help with further budget concerns as it became apparent that some Councilors did not wish to see ANY increase in property taxes… or indeed even setting the levy increase at the highest  allowable percentage in September. Following more discussion along this path, Mayor Rossing suggested that she was “inclined to be aggressive” and if the levy was raised, and the  money not needed to offset other intergovernmental losses (the state may decline the reimbursement to cities of the homestead credit), it might be “strategic” to apply those dollars to a “new project”.
After more theoretic discussion, the Council briefly discussed the Public Budget Hearing Meeting (8.23., 7 PM., at City  Hall) with the Mayor  emphasizing the need for a broad  public perspective/input on budget matters, once again feeling the need for a formal citizen survey process.
*** NOTE:  The observer spoke as a citizen, NOT representing the  LWV, noting  the inadequacy of the 4 page budget document provided for this discussion. She  felt it was a specious document which would not stand the test of true analysis; that overall it had a scarcity of dollar numbers, disproportionately skewed percentages, and an overabundance of non-specific narrative summaries.

After the Administrator’s update, and Council reports, the meeting adjourned at  9:32 PM.

All Councilors were present; the Agenda was approved.
This was the second Special Council Meeting of the day, the 8 AM version being the interviews for the position of Interim City Administrator, with tonight’s follow-up meeting being the Council’s decision process and selection of their preferred candidate.

The two Agenda items were: 1.  Select Interim City Administrator,  and   2.  Approve contract for Interim City Administrator.

Mayor Rossing began the meeting by stating the two agenda items; Councilor Pokorney then asked for clarification on the structure of the discussion, i.e., “may we speak with ‘freedom’ now, use names, etc.?”
Elizabeth Wheeler, Human Resources Director, assured the councilor that the discussion could be more informal, now that the names were public and the interviews concluded.

Mayor Rossing then asked for “general comments” from the councilors.
After many such ‘general comments’ about the four candidates, their qualifications and how they ‘fit the bill’, Councilor Buckheit focussed the conversation by asking that they think about the ‘bill’ that was needed to be filled.
Two candidates rose to the top in the more specific discussion, and the Council all seemed to prefer Tim Madigan, the former City Administrator in Faribault.
Councilor Pownell made a Motion to approve Mr. Madigan, Councilor Vohs seconded the motion, and the Vote was unanimous to approve his selection for the position of Interim City Administrator.

The discussion then moved to the employment contract, which has been reviewed by City Attorney Chris Hood, with Ms. Wheeler informing the Council that during the application and interview process she had discussed contract parameters with all the  candidates, as the timeline was pressing.   The Council wants the interim person to have an overlap of at least two weeks with departing City Administrator, Joel Walinski.
All of  the candidates fell into a close range as far as desired salary; one who had preferred a higher salary  becoming more closely aligned through his not wanting the city’s offered family health benefits, which Ms. Wheeler stated would amount to about 14K. The selected candidate would qualify for a Step 8 position in the City’s state mandated Pay Plan System, which allows pay of $104,212. 00 for an interim administrator.

A motion was made and seconded to approve the form of the employment contract; approved by unanimous vote.

Ms. Wheeler then informed the Council that after a resolution at the 8/17 Council meeting to finalize the  hiring by the signing of the employment contract,  this process would be completed.

Mayor Rossing suggested that any Councilors who had reports might wish to give them as that was not done at the end of the very lengthy previous 8/3. meeting.
A few reports were given,and then the Mayor  reminded everyone to vote, and  wanted to “wish our councilors  good luck!”.

The meeting adjourned at 7:59 PM.

***NOTE:  At the 8.09 morning session,  the observer found it unusual that there was no audio, no video, no live-streamed broadcast, and no minutes taker, as well as no separate packet for that meeting. All of these seemed to leave a ‘hole’ in the Public Record.
When asking that question at the evening session, it was said that Ms. Wheeler, the Human Resources Director who was taking notes on the interviews, would be the official note taker for that meeting. Within Ms.  Wheeler’s job requirements  for a series of employment  interviews, that would seem to be a very different focus, but it was stated that her notes would provide minutes for that meeting.

Public Comment: Owners of Making Waves swim school, Northfield Athletic Club, and Snap fitness center presented concerns about a YMCA facility which might be built on school property.

Announcements: Filing for school board positions is open until 5 p.m. on August 17th. At this time, the 4 incumbents have filed. There are 3 four-year terms and 1 two-year term open.

About 90 teachers and administrators took part in Technology Boot Camp this summer to upgrade their skills with technology.

Thirteen high school students participated in all state music camps this summer.

Reports:

Dr. Richardson presented the State of the District report, which included:

Celebrations- among other things
*good programs to help students entering Kindergarten, 6th & 9th  grades
* successful implementation of weekly PLC sessions
* Companeros and ESL program improvements
* reconfigured Title 1 services
* teacher contract negotiations
* technology upgrades
* Energy Star recognition
* food service collaboration with local producers

Challenges – among other things
* renewing charter school authorization status (red tape!)
*class size issues
*validity of single test as indicative of success
*financial stewardship in light of state budget crisis
*renewal of current operating levy (efforts to begin in fall of 2011)

MCA-II Test results:
*outperformed state averages in math, reading and science at every grade level tested
*increased number of Limited English Proficient students who performed at or above grade level in reading – grades 3,5, & 7.
*increased number of Special Education students performing at or above grade level in reading – grades 5,6, & 7
*increased number of Free & Reduced Price lunch students performing at or above grade level in reading – grades 5,6,7, & 10
Even so, if a subgroup with 20 or more students does not achieve grade level proficiency, the NCLB penalties apply. (about 70% of state school districts are subject to these penalties)
Greenvale Park is facing a 2nd year without making AYP (adequate yearly progress) in spite of showing significant gains for ELP & Special Ed. students. As few as 5 students in the FRP lunch program might have salvaged the situation if they had made the grade level standard.
Bridgewater also did not make AYP, but this is the first year, so they are not subject to sanctions.
Sibley, the Middle School and the Area Learning Center also had subgroups which did not make AYP, but they are  not Title 1 schools, and so are not subject to sanctions.
The High school had all its subgroups making AYP.

Actions: Unanimously approved
- group dental, health, life and disability insurance plans
- school board election calendar

The meeting adjourned at about 8:45 and the Board then conducted a closed negotiations strategy session.

The sole purpose of this early morning Special Council Meeting was to interview the four finalists for the position of Interim City Administrator. With the recent announcement by Joel Walinski, current City Administrator, of his leaving to take a like position In Leavenworth, Washington, the process of hiring an interim administrator has been on a  fast track. The Council convened at 7:40 this morning to go over last minute details of the interview process with Human Resources Director, Elizabeth Wheeler; the interviews then began at 8:00 AM. Each interview was scheduled for 45 minutes, and each councilor had a question to ask. The Councilors were careful to ask their questions in the same wording and manner to each of the interviewees, and also with regard to any ‘ follow-ups’ they may have asked.

The four interviewees, in the order they were interviewed were: Ronald Moorse, Tim Madigan, Craig Dawson, and Gregory Andrews.
All made a good impression, and  had strong expertise with varying degrees of strength within the various areas of expertise  the Council seemed to be most interested in pursuing. All have seemed to center their careers in Central Minnesota.

Councilors were asked to make notes/do some evaluating on each candidate’s interview sheet; there was some discussion with Ms. Wheeler as to whether they could take those sheets and the backup materials, resumes, etc., home with them for consideration this afternoon, as the Councilors will be returning this evening , at another Special Meeting at 7 PM, to make their decision/selection on filling the interim city administrator position.   It was decided that they could take copies of their notes, as well as the backup materials, with the  caveat of  “for their eyes only”.
It is hoped that the person selected will be able to start virtually immediately, so as to have some overlap with departing Administrator Walinski.

After the interviews, and a very brief discussion of the next process this evening, the meeting adjourned at 11:53.

All Councilors were present.

Minutes were approved, and the Agenda amended by  moving the last two items, #’s 11  & 12,  to the Regular Agenda. This Agenda amendment was requested by City Attorney , Chris Hood,  who saw the need for these items to be resolutions on the regular agenda, because they dealt with contracts and labor negotiations.

Consent  Agenda -   Items 1-10, approved.

Regular Agenda -  Items 11&12 from the Consent Agenda were quickly approved.  The bulk of the Regular Agenda Items, #’s 13 – 19,  encompassed a daunting array of serious, and often convoluted issues:  all with heavy policy implications.
Example: the consideration of re-establishing the eliminated position of the Welcome Center Coordinator. That position had also handled translation for the City, thereby assisting the inclusion, participation, and functioning of Northfield’s Latino community.  The Council Chamber was ’standing room only’.

Listing of the items on the regular Agenda:
13.  Safety Center Projects Update
14.  Consideration of Purchase of Property at 303 Water Street
15.  Authorization of Application for Renewable Energy Grant
16.  Consider Reestablishing the Position of Welcome Center Coordinator  (postponed from 7.20.2010)
17.  Identifying Interim City Administrator Candidates to be Interviewed
18.  Establish Ad Hoc Finance Study Group
19.  2011 Budget Discussion

Item # 19, 2011 Budget Discussion, had 4 bulleted parts, the last one being the organizational restructuring of City Hall Departments and Staff. This  proposal was initially brought to last week’s  Council work session by City  Administrator, Joel Walinski.
This last agenda item, perhaps the most weighty issue of all, began at 11:03  P.M.
This budget discussion  ended with the Council’s Adjournment at  12:40 A.M.

***NOTE:  Because  of the length and depth of this meeting, and the seriousness of all the regular agenda items, most containing deeply embedded policy issues, the observer has chosen NOT to report, highlight, or offer any analysis.
It is important that any interested citizens watch this 5  and 1/2 hour meeting in its  entirety, allowing them to form their own opinions/conclusions.

The Council meetings  are live-streamed on the KYMN Radio  website, archived there, and indexed by agenda  item. They are also available at scheduled times on NTV.