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 are invited to attend,” Dahle said. “Hearing the ideas and opinions of the people from our community is invaluable in helping us to better represent our area.”

Those who are interested in 2010 legislative activities but who cannot attend a town hall meeting are encouraged to contact Dahle at:sen.kevin.dahle@senate.mn or 651-296-1279; or Bly at rep.david.bly@house.mn or 651-296-7065.

From LWVMN:

“Legislative interviews give LWV members an opportunity to get acquainted with legislators and to learn their opinions on a few issues.  We hope this will help local Leagues build a strong working relationship with their senators and representatives.”
This relationship is a two-way street.  On the one hand, League members have a chance to advocate for the positions that have been developed at the local, state, and national levels.
On the other hand, legislators have a chance to provide members with their views on the upcoming session, their priorities and expectations

If you have any questions, contact Jessica Peterson White at 612-366-8311, or jlrpeterson/at/gmail.com

9:00 AM -     St. John’s Church, 500 W. 3rd St., the Old Fellowship Hall

Come grab a cup of coffee and join in the discussion of what we’d like to accomplish next year!

Randy Jennings has been commissioned by the city to lead the educational efforts and will conduct the tour on Monday. The public is welcome to take this opportunity to learn more about the present condition of this important city facility. For more information, call Jane McWilliams (645-8423).

Venue will probably be Co-op meeting room – to be confirmed

ITEM # 1 -  Update discussion on Ames Park Planning
What was listed as an “update”, turned into a  2 hour, very political, discussion against accepting the the Park and Recreation Board’s  (PRAB)   recommendation of Ames Park  as the site for the proposed skateboard plaza. The council had previously directed John Slack, of Bonestroo, to design a full concept plan for the development of Ames Park, with the skateboard plaza as one of the features.
The three returning councilors, Pokorney, Vohs, and Denison had all voted against Ames Park as the preferred location  when this was previously at the council prior to ordering the Bonestroo concept plan.
Mayor Rossing was not comfortable with the previous 4-3 council vote, nor with the PRAB recommendation, stating that she did not understand  the removal of Riverside Park from the PRAB’s consideration; and was not willing to move forward without sending it back to PRAB, once again, for further consideration of Riverside Park, including a list of pros and cons (generated by PRAB) for both sites.
Mayor Rossing stated repeatedly : “This project cannot fail”.  C. Buckheit argued this location at Ames Park presented an opportunity for development of that park, and should not therefore be considered a problem.
At the council’s direction , the Park Board will take up this matter, once again, at their meeting ( 4.15.09), reconsider the site at Riverside Park, and generate a list of pros and cons.
***NOTE:  The observer characterizes this 2 hour discussion as ‘political’, because of issues raised during the discussion. Sidewalk  access and safety issues, across the bridge,  which, although having been discussed for several years, are now attributed to a specific cause, as well as conflicting statements re: Malt-O-meal’s position, resident complaints, and the re-initiation of their dissent by the three councilors previously voting “no”. ( There is an obvious reason in parliamentary procedure why only the affirming side can move for reconsideration of a voted-on, finalized decision.)

ITEM # 2 – Discussion on fee policy
Staff members Walinski, Nash, and McBride presented the council with choices relative to the policies governing fees charged by the City:   Do the councilors expect to recover all the costs of service, or only a portion, leaving the ‘city’ to absorb some of the cost as a benefit to the common good?
Although Staff was looking for a general philosophy, the council gave clear direction that they would need to discuss fee policy with citation of ‘real numbers’ in order to make decisions which might vary according to the subject of the assessed fee; i.e., everything from rental licenses to pool fees.
Staff will come back with specific numbers as examples for further discussion.

ITEM # 3 – Transit Hub Update
Brian Erickson, City Engineer, gave an update on the transit hub which is planned for city land which is ‘behind’  Walgreens.
Because of environmental concerns, testing, and possible soil reclamation,  the project will now be phased into two parts: the first being testing, reclamation if necessary, and final design, then  phase  two being actual construction.
MNDOT is heavily involved with this project, also Federal money; an additional grant will be sought because of the “dirty site”.
C. Pokorney noted that past council had voted to proceed with this project; he sees it as a ‘win-win’ for 5 days of commuters, and weekend recreational use because of the bike trail.

ITEM # 5 – Erosion Control Ordinance
City Administrator Walinski asked this item  to swap places with #4, so the consultant could be let go, as it was getting late.
Katy Gehler-Hess, Director of the Engineering Dept, informed council on the progress of writing an Erosion Control ordinance.  Ms. Gehler-Hess  stated that the ordinance would consist more of required governing  processes  for residential and commercial development; to limit the length of the ordinance it would have an accompanying technical information document. Ms. Gehler-Hess also felt an educational information component would need to be developed, as Northfield has not had adequate staff to strictly enforce existing erosion control rules.
C. Pokorney suggested builders should be given a score on completed projects.
C. Denison felt it would be important  “to have rules followed; to do things right”.
The City Engineer said the initial ordinance would be driven by staff, but that the  work of the Environmental Quality Commission would be an important part of the accompanying materials.
Mr. Walinski said that staff would proceed with the draft ordinance and give Council plenty of response time with the technical aspects.

ITEM # 4 – Assessment Policy ordinance
This subject is the continuation of an ongoing discussion of the value of the existing street infrastructure assessment policy vs. the proposed changes.
At this time,  a complete infrastructure project is capped at a cost of $7, 768. per single lot/ homeowner. (This includes both street and utility components).
A problem is that the cost cap sometimes makes it difficult to obtain the 20% cost share which  is required for  the 429 (state) street reconstruction financing. Current ordinance language also creates difficulty, especially with corner lots.
The council was asked for input on seven areas/questions.
The new policy would  have the homeowner’s costs be based on a value system, rather than a dollar cap, and would cost some homeowners more, some less.
C. Pokorney noted that the new assessment policy would generate more income for the city, although not a lot;  C. Denison noted that some homeowners have not been paying their “fair share” under the capped policy, and also that it did create difficulty with the 429 preferred financing system.
Staff noted that there will be a hardship policy to cover specific cases.
Council consensus was to move on with new policy.

ITEM # 6 – Administrative Hearings  and Citations
Community Development Staff and the City Attorney have been working on developing provisions that allow the City to use administrative citations and penalties.
This discussion was to inform the Council as to the advantages of this proposed system , which would necessitate the amendment of the City Charter.
Mr. Walinski wisely suggested that this discussion be put off until another work session, because of the late hour and presumed length of necessary discussion; he gave out handouts for council to read and consider.

ITEM # 7 – Discussion on Audit related items
Kathleen McBride, the city’s Finance Director, said she could give a brief update which centered primarily on the need to have all designated fund balances show a positive cash balance for the year-end reporting and audit process. Ms. McBride also stated that Moody’s (bond rating) would be concerned if we didn’t ‘cure’ the Insurance Fund which is in deficit, related to the Rate Search embezzlement case.
C. Pokorney was concerned about public perception of the City “accumulating cash”; Ms. McBride rephrased that as “building reserves”. Regardless of terminology,  a plan for eliminating the deficit in the Insurance Fund, because of investment loss ( $2.258 million) to Rate Search, is difficult,  and a detailed, structured plan must clear the deficit within 5-10 years. The bond rating agency, Moody’s, will be examining the status of this plan closely; lack of progress  would result in a lowered bond rating for the City.
Ms. McBride has faced many challenges in the re-organization of the finance department; her concluding memo statement is:  ” Most important of all is getting the department to the point where ‘normalcy’ is the norm.”

Meeting adjourned at 10:35.