Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-14 MINUTES COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota Regular Meeting August 14, 2013 OPEN FORUM Mayor Myron Bailey opened Open Forum at 7:15 p.m. and stated that during Open Forum a person may address the City Council on subjects not a part of the regular meeting agenda, but must limit their remarks to three (3) minutes per person. The purpose of Open Forum is to give the public an opportunity to present information or to request action by the City Council. It may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Open Forum will adjourn to the regular meeting promptly at 7:30 p.m. The following were present: Mayor Myron Bailey, Council Member Derrick Lehrke, Council Member Justin Olsen, Council Member Jen Peterson, and Council Member Dave Thiede. The following were absent: None. Also present were: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kori Land, City Attorney-LeVander, Gillen & Miller, PA; Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer; Craig Woolery, Public Safety Director; and Les Burshten, Public Works Director. Mayor Bailey opened Open Forum at 7:15 p.m., and asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the City Council on any topic not on the agenda. There being none, Mayor Bailey closed Open Forum to the Regular Meeting. CALL TO ORDER – Regular Meeting The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, held a regular meeting on August 14, 2013 at the Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway. Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience, staff and the Mayor and Council Members pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. ROLL CALL The following were present: Mayor Myron Bailey, Council Member Derrick Lehrke, Council Member Justin Olsen, Council Member Jen Peterson, and Council Member Dave Thiede. The following were absent: none. Also present were: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kori Land, City Attorney-LeVander, Gillen & Miller, PA; Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer; Craig Woolery, Public Safety Director; and Les Burshten, Public Works Director. Cottage Grove City Council 2 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting Mayor Bailey presided over the meeting. 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY THIEDE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. 2. PRESENTATIONS A. Receive Presentation from 2013 Landscape Interns and Declare Green Garden Award Recipients Landscape Interns Tyler Coutu and Nathanael Holmes announced the winners of the 2013 Green Garden Awards. The residential award was presented to Sylvia Strong and the commercial award to the Church of St. Rita. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A.July 17, 2013 Regular Meeting Mayor Bailey accepted the minutes of the July 17, 2013 Regular Meeting as presented. B. July 24, 2013 Special Meeting Council Member Peterson noted that the minutes of the July 24, 2013 reflect that the meeting was held on August 24, 2013 and it should be July 24, 2013. Mayor Bailey accepted the minutes of the July 24, 2013 Special Meeting as amended. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR The Council pulled and briefly discussed items G, K and F. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE , SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO: A. ACCEPT AND PLACE ON FILE THE FOLLOWING MINUTES: i. PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2013; ii. PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2013 AND MAY 14, 2013, AND THE JOINT MEETING OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMISSION AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OF APRIL 30, 2013. iii. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION (ACHP) MEETINGS OF JANUARY 8, 2013, MARCH 12, 2013, AND May 14, 2013. iv. PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 17, 2013. Cottage Grove City Council 3 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting B. AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF A SINGLE-OCCASION GAMBLING PERMIT TO COTTAGE GROVE ELEMENTARY PTO INC., TO CONDUCT A RAFFLE ON TH OCTOBER 4, 2013 AT 7447 65 STREET SOUTH, COTTAGE GROVE. C. APPROVE THE 2013-2014 MAP DESIGNATING AREAS TO DISCHARGE ARCHERY AND FIREARMS WITHIN THE CITY. D. AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO THE COTTAGE GROVE LIONS CLUB IN CONJUNCTION WITH A FUNDRAISING EVENT FOR THE NEW BIKE PARK AT THE WEST DRAW PAVILLION ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2013, CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE FACILITY USE PERMIT FOR THE EVENT. E. RECEIVE INFORMATION ON OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. F. APPROVE THE LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LEVANDER, GILLEN & MILLER P.A., FOR CIVIL LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE FOR THE TERM AUGUST 15, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2016. G. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-078, A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS RECEIVED IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2013 TOTALING $6,512.52. H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-079, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW A PORCH ADDITION AT 8057 JOCELYN AVENUE SOUTH, COTTAGE GROVE, TO BE 31 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WHEN 35 FEET IS REQUIRED. I. APPROVE AWARDING THE TOWING AND IMPOUND SERVICES CONTRACT WITH SOUTHEAST TOWING, INC., FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2016. J. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-080, A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE QUOTE FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO EUREKA CONSTRUCTION FOR $89,719.00. K. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-081, A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE SALE OF $7.6 MILLION IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF 2013A TO FINANCE 2013 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT AND HINTON AVENUE PROJECTS. L. APPROVE THE GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES UNDER THE MINNESOTA DATA PRACTICES ACT. M. APPROVE APPLICATION FOR A GRANT THROUGH FEMA FOR THE 2013 ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM (AFT) AND THE 2013 STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SAFER) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $495,000 FOR THREE FULL-TIME FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC POSITIONS. N. ITEM REMOVED FROM AGENDA. MOTIONCARRIED.5-0. Cottage Grove City Council 4 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting 5. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUSLY RAISED OPEN FORUM ISSUES – None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None. 7. BID AWARDS – None. 8. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. 1. Consider Passing an Ordinance Amending the City’s Zoning Map to Rezone Approximately 2.38 acres from B-1, Limited Business District to B-2, Retail Business District. 2. Consider adopting a Resolution Authorizing Publication of Ordinance by Title and Summary. 3. Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving the Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Applications to Redevelop th the Property at 7350 80 Street South for a One-Story Commercial Building of Approximately 19,387 Square Feet and 75 Off-Site Parking Spaces. City Engineer Levitt highlighted the application for a 19,387 square foot one- story retail building (Goodwill Store) with 75 off-street parking spaces and a donation center drop-off. The applicant was introduced and invited to the podium. John Johannson, Welsh Companies, 4350 Baker Road, Minnetonka, Minnesota, introduced Chris Simmons, Mike Brandt, Laura Moore, and Debbie Fairy, also in attendance. He stated that they found the staff reports to be very thorough and accurate, and they have enjoyed working with staff. He stated that they have agreed to the adjustments that were made either by Staff or the Planning Commission. They do not have any concerns. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, TO PASS ORDINANCE NO. 916, AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11-1-6, TH ZONING MAP, VIA REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7350 80 STREET SOUTH, COTTAGE GROVE, FROM B-1, LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICT TO BE-2, RETAIL BUSINESS DISTRICT. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-082, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 916 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-083, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 19,387 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DONATION DROP-OFF FACILITY AT TH 7350 80 STREET SOUTH, COTTAGE GROVE. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. Cottage Grove City Council 5 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting B. Consider Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a 520 Square-Foot Accessory structure in Addition to the Existing 2,480 Square-Foot Accessory th Structure Located at 6192 65 Street South Senior Planner Burbank reviewed the application of Richard Leicht for a conditional use permit to allow a 520 square foot accessory structure in addition to the existing 2,480 square foot accessory structure, subject to conditions stipulated in the draft resolution included in the Agenda packet. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and based on the established zoning ordinance criteria, they unanimously recommends that the City Council approve the conditional use permit. The Council discussed the Planning Commission’s recommendation with the applicant and staff. The applicant requested that the building be permitted as constructed at 1,080 square feet versus the recommended 520 additional square feet, subject to removal of the building triggered by additional residential development on properties adjacent to the applicants’ property. The applicant concurred with the continuation of the application to allow City staff and the City attorney time to review options in which to properly proceed with the applicant’s request. There was discussion on the possibility of processing a post-construction variance application, which includes an application fee of $800.00, the requirement that a restrictive covenant be recorded regarding the triggered removal of the structure and the posting of the financial guarantee to ensure the future removal. A restrictive covenant and escrow were suggested by the City attorney as the means in which the City can guarantee the removal of the structure when the appropriate trigger has been met. th The applicant, Richard Leicht, 6192 65 Street South, Cottage Grove, was in attendance and spoke regarding his application. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO TABLE THIS TO THE SEPTEMER 4, 2013 REGULAR MEETING AND TO PROVIDE FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF AND LEGAL COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COTTGE GROVE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. 9. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUSLY RAISED COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS A. Receive Response to Council Regarding Highlands Park Splash Pad Parks & Recreation Director Dockter reviewed his report regarding the Highlands Park Splash Pad. No action taken. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Council Member Peterson announced that August 15 is the next Fare for All; August 20 is the next Beyond the Yellow Ribbon meeting; August 29 is the next Red Rock Corridor meeting; August 31 is a fundraising event at the West Draw Park; and on September 14, the Cottage Grove Lions Club are selling brats and beer. Cottage Grove City Council 6 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting th Council Member Olsen noted there was a project underway at the intersection of 70 Street and Co. Rd. 19 and he wanted to remind people that the businesses at that corner are still open for business. Council Member Thiede stated that the Strawberry Fest Committee is working on planning the Monster Bash on October 25 and the parade on October 26. For additional information, go to their website at: cottagegrovestrawberryfest.com. Bailey personally thanked public safety staff on the Night to Unite event, the EDA golf outing, and lastly, the Council will be holding a workshop session tonight to finalize the 2014-15 budgets. 11. PAY BILLS MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF CHECK NUMBERS 182299 THROUGH 182709 IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,441,270.09 AND EFT PAYMENT OF $148,252.19 (CHECK NUMBERS 182299 – 182623 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,461,113.05 AND EFT PAYMENT OF $21,336.07 WERE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL APPROVAL). MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. 12. WORKSHOP SESSION – OPEN TO PUBLIC th A. Review the Draft Feasibility Report for the Jamaica Avenue (70 Street to Military Road) Street and Utility Improvements Project th The Council reviewed the feasibility report for the Jamaica Avenue (70 Street South to Military Road) Street and Utility Improvements. This segment of Jamaica Avenue South is showing significant signs of surface deterioration. The proposed improvements include reconstruction of the existing street, realignment of the Jamaica Avenue / Military Road intersection, and installation of trunk storm sewer and trunk water main. City Engineer Levitt highlighted the required improvements, easements, permits, estimated construction costs, financing, project schedule and recommendation to Council. There was Council consensus to authorize staff to proceed with the improvement project as a 2015 project and to have staff consult with Ryland Homes on amending their staging plan to develop to the west versus to the north. B. 2014 Budget City Administrator Schroeder reviewed the information included in the Agenda Packet on storm water utility rates and levy limits. City Administrator Schroeder stated that the proposed includes media, staff is continuing conversion to the Fire and Paramedic model as an enhancement of current services, they are dditional public works staffing, proposing the increase in customer service technology which is website updates for rentals and right-of-way permits. City Administrator Schroeder stated that the budget Cottage Grove City Council 7 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting would improve our information technology hardware and software throughout the organization and provides for increased costs in payroll via labor contracts, benefits, general insurance services, fuel, capital outlay items, and others. The budget levy is part of our long-term financial planning. Staff believe that the budget as currently configured addresses the mission and the financial plan as Council has requested that we address. He then referenced the spreadsheet which provides the list of decision items and staff recommendation. He stated he would like to review the items “on the board” and make some decisions on which items to add/delete from the budget. In order to prepare for the Workshop Session on August 24, 2013, staff would request direction from the Council. Council Member Thiede stated that he tends to get a tired of always saying we are below the average. In his opinion, until you tell him that we are providing a greater value and technically that value is a combination of costs and amenities. There is room for us to always improve. That being said, something that is a little more important to him is what the actual cost pressures on the budget and obviously that is made of a couple of things - the cost of living increases and the consumer price index. He noted that he went back to 2008 and forward and took a look at those and between 2008 and 2013, cost of living did go up 11.47 percent, CPI index went up 11.15 percent, which averages out to 11.32 percent so that does suggest and supports the fact that we have actually been doing a very good job because in that time our increase in the levy was .47 percent and the actual City portion of the tax decreased 12 percent. From that it suggest that there is support for the 4.37 percent. That said, he still thinks that there are things that were discussed that we may not have to spend the money on right now and he has the 3 percent in his head as a total between the two. Take 4.37 and reduce it to 3 percent which will require a reduction of 167,613 from the current budget. As we go through the list of items “on the board”, if there is any way to get that 163,000 out. We have a lot of support to go back to the voters and say that we have a great value in Cottage Grove, we created a little more value here after looking at things a little closer and he would prefer to see a little more steady change and maybe a steady increase over the years and some ups and downs. That is to share with you the analysis he did to take a look at the numbers. Council Member Lehrke stated that he had a question on the levy limits. Are we automatically stuck with the levy limits or can we say no to this $30,000 of LGA. Finance Director Roland responded that “we are stuck” with the 3 percent levy limits. We do not have a choice. Council Member Lehrke asked if we can make some of this a legislative priority. If we don’t like levy limits, can let our representatives know. Finance Director Roland responded that you can but the problem that you have is that levy limits weren’t even discussed in the legislative session until the last three days, and the last three days of the session when deals are made, the levy limit was written into the law and as we are being told by the Department of Revenue and by the League of Minnesota Cities, the language in that particular levy limit law was not clear. What you are hearing tonight is that what the Department of Revenue is interpreting is different than what we originally showed you because her assumption was that these levy limits were going to work like other levy limits did and that meant that you took the amount of your total levy, Cottage Grove City Council 8 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting subtract your debt or special levies, you got a number and that number you got to increase by 3 percent and then you got to add your debt back on. That is not the way they are now talking about it and mind you, this was three months ago that this law went into effect and they are just now as cities are doing their budget and are under the time crunch saying no we are interpreting this in a broader sense. They are saying that we can take the entire amount of our levy times 3 percent, then add the debt on, so the phase that was used with her today was “double dipping” for our special levy. There is actually more money that is on the table that we are going to leave on the table because of the way the interpretation is. The problem that she sees with this and you can talk about legislators, having gone through this a few times, what is going to happen is this knowledge is going to come out and people are going to look at cities like Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights and like us and say it is suppose to be a 3 percent increase, how can you possibly be levying more than that. Burnsville at 5.7 percent, their levy is going up, they are going to say that it is perfectly legal under the levy limit law. What do you think those legislators who are going to run for re-election next year are going to do first thing when they get back in office next January. They are going to say we are going to clean up this levy limit law and because cities levied above that 3 percent we are going to keep it in place for the next year. By the way, we are probably going to tighten it up. So if you did levy to the maximum, which we are not, you probably would be possibly treated more harshly. This is her opinion that levy limits are a political play to make the legislators look better because they can say that they reduced your property taxes, we set this levy limit, we know the City’s can’t handle their own finances, and the we wind up fulfilling their prophecy by doing what we need to do to get the dollars that we need to run the City and they come back and say, we we told you that cities cannot handle their finances, we need to put these levy limits back in place because we as the legislature know better. Council Member Lehrke stated that it is exactly what he is saying and frankly he would like that most of the Council Members would agree. Do we like levy limits? We have a new legislator so he does not know where he stands or feels about it but if we don’t reach out to him and if we don’t tell it is a priority for us then he can do whatever he wants and he is going to be right in saying that the City of Cottage Grove never said anything. Finance Director Roland responded that we deal with the LMC and Metro Cities who have policy statements that flat out say that that levy limits are a bad idea, they are a mechanism that doesn’t work, that it doesn’t have the control that we think it should but no matter what they say and what they talk about, this is always something that republicans and democrats alike come back to as a way to solve a political problem. She stated that she is sure that Dan, Katie and Denny knows that we don’t want levy limits. They know that. Council Member Lehrke stated that maybe it would be a good idea for the Council to send a letter because he wouldn’t be surprised if he asked any one of them and they said not no they did know that. Whether they know or not, they don’t know it officially. But if it is something that is such a pain in ug in fact we heard multiple times that we should talk about the reason that we don’t want to lower…Council Member Thiede is talking about 3 percent and one reason to stick with the current number is because of levy limits, because Cottage Grove City Council 9 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting we don’t know what will happen next year. We are having a problem this year and we don’t know what the future looks like and unless we reach out to our delegation, it is never going to happen. Mayor Bailey stated that the Council can make a determination to send a letter what he will share with you that he has had a conversation with Robin and Ryan and he has already reach out to our legislative group and asked them to have a meeting. We are working on a tentative date in early September. The intent is that we would meet with them quarterly. It was just going to be a meeting with him but we could possibly hold a workshop if that is something that you would like to do. His intent and he is taking a lead from Woodbury where the Mayor and Staff meet with their legislative groups every few months and based on that and seeing how they have they have been managing through it and some of their issues, it is probably relevant for us to do the same. He stated that he has already reached out to our legislative group and they are all in agreement to meet , they all heard directly from him as Mayor but the Council can make the determination that he is not a fan of levy limits and never have been and his guess is whether it is in there or not, you know how the legislative groups are all doing whether it is state or federal, sometimes you don’t even know what stuff that was in it until it is too late and they go back like they are about to during the special session. Council Member Olsen stated that while we are certainly spending a lot of time talking about levy limits and what could possibly happen later, which is a guess, would the proposed budget be any different if levy limits were not in place? City Administrator Schroeder responded no, that we are talking about two things tonight. Council Member Olsen commented why do we give a dam. Council Member Lehrke stated that it locks us in for next year when they say 3 percent over your previous budget. Finance Director Roland stated that when we were here in May we didn’t know there were going to be levy limits, you knew what was on the table. We presented a scenario which she believed at the time was the brutal truth, she believed that we had some things that we needed to solve and she believe that some of that was impacted by levy limits because we picked a number that was lower than ultimatelywe probably needed to do all of the things. Council Member Olsen stated that nine percent would have never got approved. Finance Director Roland responded that she know that. I understand but you needed to know what was hanging out there. You needed to know what challenges were looking at given the situation. Levy limits did impact the level to which were were able to go that we reasonably believed that we could cover. It impacted the conversations around the table when we were looking at how do we get to our good to great goal, how do we get to the things that the Council has said are important to them that we need to be able to fulfill. Council Member Olsen stated that under that guise, you just read that the Department of Revenue gave you different direction that said that we could levy up to 13.4, so why aren’t you recommending that? Cottage Grove City Council 10 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting Finance Director Roland stated that we have a budget right now that we put before you two weeks ago that is balanced, we can live within it, it provides for the things that we believe that you want to provide at a reasonable percentage increase that we believe that you can live with. Council Member Olsen stated that in May it was 9 percent so what changed? City Administrator Schroeder stated that what she is hearing from her peers about the Department of Revenue interpretation of the law isn’t typical in our experience and if it is not 100%, it is darn close to it, is that the State treats your general operating levy as that that they want to limit and the debt is outside of that. Council Member Olsen stated that it is different this year based on a different interpretation of the way that the current law is written. But his point is, if you know that to be fact and that is the current interruptation which means it is the acceptable interreptation and you think that 9 percent is what we really need based on your May report, why not come back to us with nine percent and say we misunderstood the way that the law was interrepted, now we get it and we still think this is right. Finance Director Roland stated that because you reacted so significantly Council Member Olsen stated that it never would have passed. That is his point. Council Member Lehrke stated that our conversation now is what are we going to do going into the future and levy limits play into that. If we looked at this chart, we are looking at .47 and if we said let’s catch up to where the County’s are and levy 12.01, we can’t because there are levy limits. We can’t as Council Member Thiede is saying, if we levy less now our hands are tied and we are tying them tighter is a problem. So he is in a situation from his point of view that he is saying, maybe we need to raise the taxes higher so that we can afford it in the future, because if they keep putting the levy limits on and they don’t allow us…but he is going to go 30 years out of 42, the odds are in our favor. Council Member Lehrke stated that we could have said if last year, we could have said if the year before, we certainly could have said that. He would say two things to that point, we have the same legislators whoever voted for it now, voted to pass it this year. We will have the same people next year so it makes sense that their logic isn’t going to change. The leadership doesn’t have any conversation now about a levy limit next year but they didn’t have a conversation about it last year. It popped up at the end. Nobody, not even the legislators will say they didn’t know anything about it so they are all lying to us or it did just come up at the last minute. The point is, if they don’t even know what is going on as to whether or not they are going to tie our hands, how can we effectively manage the City when we have somebody else tying our hands. That is the point. We can’t plan into the future if we have no idea what they are going to do. Council Member Olsen stated that 30 out of the last 42 years, they have done Cottage Grove City Council 11 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting it so we could have had that if conversation two years ago and said 28 out of the last 44 years, this happened…it never came out. What he is saying is that he is not prepared to just assume that that is the way that it is going to be in 2015. I am not prepared to do that, and he won’t. Council Member Lehrke stated that the way we kept this low is by spending cash. We can’t keep spending cash. Council Member Olsen stated that in one year we spent cash to buy capital equipment. One year so that’s not a fair assessment. The budget remained flat because of the way that the staff managed expenses. Not because we supplemented with cash, we supplemented with cash last year to buy necessary equipment - one time. Council Member Lehrke responded that he would not argue the details but we took over $10 million in cash out of here. Not one million. That is money that is gone, it is money that previous Council’s saved, it is the reason that we are able to keep a low rate is because we are spending the cash that other Council’s built up for us. Now we are in a position where money is tight now. We might be able to spend more cash but now all of a sudden levy limits do matter to us because before we were staying so low, we had so much cash, but now we don’t. So now two or three years into future we need to think about today. Mayor Bailey stated that what he would like to do is have a conversation about levy limits and it is true that we don’t necessarily know what is going to happen next year. We can all guess but as we all do, we do a two year budget. We hit them one year and we look at year two to try to figure out where all the money plays and factors into. He stated that he heard from Council Member Thiede that he was looking at the 3 percent number. He stated that he is personally fine with what Council has proposed to us, although there are some things on this list that, he does need to get an understanding of what Council wants to do. Council Member Olsen stated that there are some items on the list that we need to clarify. Mayor Bailey stated that that is what he wants to know because that will have an effect on what the ending result could be, whatever that may be. He stated that he knows that Council Member Thiede mentioned somewhere around $160,700. The easiest thing to look at is the EAB issue but you could sway him one way or the other, the only issue he has with the whole thing is that we have spent money up to this point to try to preserve our trees within the community and she does not know whether a one year fix to our budget and the budget is balanced with it in there and we already planned for this process. That is where the Council was even in the tough budget discussion that we had opted to say that the trees in the community are extremely important and we wanted to keep them but somebody could probably twist his arm a little bit on that one if you wanted to but his intent would be to keep that intact as much as possible. Council Member Olsen stated that when he looks at the spreadsheet, he sees Cottage Grove City Council 12 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting engineering intern and the parentheses makes him think it is a negative but it actually an add on. City Administrator Schroeder stated that it creates a deficit. Council Member Olsen stated that it is a proposed add on. Streets Public Works January hire you have January hire but he said he could start them in July so the impact of that would be a $32,250 difference but that is already built into the budget, right? City Administrator Schroeder responded yes it is in the budget. Eliminate Public Works intern, Council Member Olsen stated that is a reduction of $15,550. City Administrator Schroeder stated that he is recommending that the Council not do that. Council Member Olsen stated that Public Works Director Burshten had asked for that position to be considered a management analyst position and he does not see that budget impact anywhere on here. City Administrator Schroeder stated that what the Council talked about on that particular day when Public Works presented their budgets, was could we eliminate the Public Works Intern in order to move the Streets position earlier in the calendar. Council Member Olsen stated that that was not his understanding. His understanding was what would it cost to take that public works intern and actually create that management analyst position. Finance Director Roland stated that that was not what they took away. City Administrator Schroeder stated that from memory, the cost of that was represented in the proposal of $70,000 to $72,000 and the intern is.. Council Member Olsen stated that it would be a net add from the intern of about $55,000 to $57,000 of additional cost. Council Member Olsen stated that the EAB was a $162,000 subtraction. City Administrator Schroeder stated that the conversation that they had was could you quick treating what Zac proposed was he was not treating next year anyway, he is cutting in the next two years and so what we are saying is if you are interested is not treating, that is a 2016 budget conversation. Council Member Olsen stated that if we eliminate this, that eliminates the funding for ancillary services beyond what we can provide internally to remove some of those trees, right? Finance Director Roland responded yes. Cottage Grove City Council 13 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting There was discussion on what was an ice lift or scissor lift. City Administrator Schroeder stated that the conversation here was instead of public works and the ice arena getting a new left, why not share one. Where we have left that is “perhaps” but we haven’t come to a conclusion there so we are suggesting that both be left in the budget at this point. Mayor Bailey asked why there was a budget impact under the ice lift versus public works. Finance Director Roland stated that we did not include the PW Lift in the budget that was presented to you. Mayor Bailey asked if you did for the Ice Arena? Finance Director Roland responded correct. Council Member Olsen then mentioned that for insurance, we all agreed that that was something we wanted to do so you left that in there. Fire/Paramedic January Hire – Council Member Olsen stated that he asked Craig multiple times and he said that he would like it in July so why is that even in there. City Administrator Schroeder stated that it was on the board. Council Member Olsen stated that if we leave it as it, it is neutral and the (80,000) and (20,000) can be crossed off. City Administrator Schroeder responded yes in the narrative there is we actually see that in the Council contingency, it wouldn’t be in the departmental budget. City Administrator Schroeder again provided Public Safety Director Woolery with another opportunity and asked him what he wanted to do. Public Safety Director Woolery stated that we need to save those kids along Jamaica Avenue and have two fire medics start in January so since there are no sidewalks along there, you need the responders. He stated that like he said last time, if they were hired in January, it would enormously help our scheduling and staffing and be able to build a police schedule that is not so dependent on medic coverage. Council Member Olsen stated that here is the reason he asks. He stated he is not sure how he is going to vote on this budget yet but if he is going to swallow an increase, I want to be able to show that there is a valid reason for it and I think something like that is a valid reason. Public Safety Director Woolery stated that they bid the public safety schedule starting in October and so we need to know this. They are looking at options to be able to address a number of things on all divisions – fire, EMS and Cottage Grove City Council 14 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting police and how to provide the best coverage. Adding two in July can work but it isn’t without some pain and discomfort. Having two in January helps enormously to balance coverage on the EMS side for fire. Council Member Olsen stated that with that said then what he would like to see us keep the engineering intern in the budget, the streets worker starting in July, eliminate the public works intern but add it as a management analyst so there would be a $57,000 net net, eliminating the EAB is a responsible decision for next year but we need to keep it under consideration for 2015 if he is going to be treating in 2016 or whenever that happens, and then following up with the conversation we just had with Public Safety Director Woolery, hiring those two positions in January which he feels is quite possibly the most important piece of this whole spreadsheet. That would be his input. He stated that he is open to any conversation about some of the equipment that we are expending funds for and maybe we could put off for another year. Council Member Thiede stated that he was interested why none of the other equipment was on here and looking at equipment that is a year old instead of brand new. He would like to see more justification at the time of purchase and just because we apportion money for it in the budget at this point doesn’t necessarily give final approval for the purchase. Council Member Olsen stated that when we talk about that. If you were to get your management analyst that you are very passionate about, would you be willing to give up your walk behind paver for another year, for example. Public Works Director Burshten responded yes sure but could he pick a different piece of equipment and he asked for the list. Council Member Olsen asked Public Works Director Burshten what he would give up as far as equipment. Finance Director Roland stated that what we agreed to was that the paver was in the budget. Mayor Bailey asked how not purchasing the paver would affect the budget. Finance Director Roland stated that it would affect the budget by reducing the amount of money that we would transfer out of the general fund and into the equipment replacement fund because that piece of equipment will come out of the equipment replacement fund and we transfer an equal amount of money out of the general fund. Ultimately it reduces the general fund expenditures by that amount. It is just moving money from one pocket to another. Public Works Director Burshten stated that the paver is estimated to cost $110,000. Council Member Thiede stated that getting another $160,000 out of the budget is no big deal, right? Finance Director Roland stated thanks Dave. Then there was discussion on the EAB. Council Member Lehrke stated that we are paying $162,000 a year so if we delay it one year, can we start up again? Cottage Grove City Council 15 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting City Administrator Schroeder responded that it is a budget number. Council Member Olsen agreed that it is a budget number and is flexible. Parks & Recreation Director Dockter stated that historically they start with smaller trees and to be honest, we haven’t spent $162,000. To be honest, just to give you 30 seconds to not do anything and just keep the inventory that we have, we are just delaying the inevitable. He stated that he would really like to see us at least continue some level of removal especially now that we all these volunteers wanting to take their trees down. Keep something, even if it is $100,000 or $80,000 it would sure help to keep moving forward to reduce that inventory because it just gets worse as the trees grow, they get more expensive to remove. Now is a great opportunity to take them down at the most reasonable price. Council Member Olsen stated that if we are going to allocate those tower leases to the Parks Capital Improvements Fund can you use some of that for your EAB? Parks & Recreation Director Dockter stated that this is the first that he has seen of this. Council Member Lehrke stated that he thinks he is in favor, from the discussion we had previously, unless there is more, the treatment idea maybe sounds like it could be a waste or not or maybe you are delaying something, but cutting them down, you are going to have to cut them down at some point. It is probably cheaper now than later because they are going to be bigger and more expensive so it is going to cost us more to do it later whereas when it comes time to talk about the treatment, now he is in favor of have a discussion to get rid of that but I think we should keep going with cutting them down. Parks & Recreation Director Dockter stated that for the next two years, that money is just for cutting trees down. Mayor Bailey stated that the $162,000 is not for treatment it is for cutting. Parks & Recreation Director Dockter stated that every third year it is for treatment. Council Member Lehrke suggested that after the third year we stop treatment and spend the money on removal and not waste that money. Mayor Bailey stated that if in three years from now his guess is we will have a better understanding if it is any closer to us to be honest with you. Parks & Recreation Director Dockter stated that what he thinks we still have enough smaller threes where if you reduce that to $100,000 or whatever number you choose, we can target some of those smaller trees, stay within that budget but he would just recommend that moving forward and in 2015 keep that number where it is at for now and we can always analyze it again later. Cottage Grove City Council 16 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting Public Works Director Burshten stated that the program is set up at $164,000 for 12 years and the analysis was cheaper to do that over 12 years once we remove everything but things have changed a little bit. Taking down 400 trees a year and replace 400 trees. At $200 a tree to replace and $150 to remove. Council Member Olsen asked if we should leave that in and then start Craig’s people in July to offset that a little bit. Council Member Thiede commented that if nothing else we could reduce it and potentially cut it in half. Then there are a few other things that probably could be done and his guess is that these guys are good enough to give us another house. Council Member Lehrke asked if $100,000 would cover all the people that are volunteering. We should at least cover the people that have said that they voluntarily give up their tree. Parks & Recreation Director Dockter stated that it is very close. It will get us very close if not there and the key is progress. At least we are continuing progress, if we stop it then he would get worried. Mayor Bailey stated that if we reduce the $162,000 to $100,000… Finance Director Roland stated that then you just balanced out the add back of the management analyst position and the insurance. Council Member Olsen asked what about Craig’s positions? City Administrator Schroeder stated that they start on June 23. Finance Director Roland stated that all she is saying is if you change that to $100,000 instead of $162,000, you have just balanced out Les’ person and the insurance payment. We would still need to reduce the difference by $20,000 for Craig’s people and the $1,395 for the engineer. Essentially what that would do is just reduce the amount of money that you are going to give to the golf course by that amount. Council Member Lehrke stated that so we are cutting the one time cost that we are replacing it with… Finance Director Roland stated that it still does not bring down the levy amount. Mayor Bailey stated that this money that we may be getting, is that retroactive? Public Safety Director Woolery responded no, you can’t use it for budgeted position and the timing of the receipt for the award would Mayor Bailey stated that it makes more sense to go with the mid-year or will it not even affect that. Finance Director Roland stated that it would not affect 2014. Cottage Grove City Council 17 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting Public Safety Director Woolery stated that you wouldn’t see an award until fall. Fire Chief Redenius stated that the latest that they would project an award would be the middle of September. Finance Director Roland stated that that is why we would be carrying this no matter how much we decide it is, we would be carrying this in the Council Contingency portion because technically it would not be a budgeted position. Council Member Olsen stated that we could fund it in 2015. Finance Director Roland stated that it would be funded by the general levy in 2014. Council Member Peterson stated that she was okay with the way the budget was proposed and she definitely likes that the management analyst position being added back into the budget, she was okay with the changing the EAB to $100,000. Council Member Thiede stated that looking at the numbers, the first one adds up to $391,070. Finance Director Roland stated that that is because the total impact of all funds. Council Member Olsen stated that it is not just the general fund, she is talking about enterprise funds ad most of that is the tower leases. Council Member Thiede stated that if we were looking at this and just for the sack of argument, if we just eliminated the $162,000 that would bring the budget down to 3 percent. None of this affects the 4.37 percent and the previous 6.48 percent. When you first came out the week before, it was 6.4 percent and then we went down to 4.37 percent so this is actions from the 4.37 percent to get it down further. Is that correct? City Administrator Schroeder stated that the third option would be to eliminate it but you don’t reduce the levy or increase the levy. That would be a third choice. For instance in past years we allocated towards future budget reductions. Finance Director Roland stated that currently under the levy that we have proposed at 4.37 percent, the budget is balanced in the general fund with a contribution from the general fund to the golf course of $55,000. You could cut the contribution to the golf course and that is $55,000 you wouldn’t have to levy. You could do that right now. That is a third of what you are talking about get you down to 3 percent but she understood that that was important what we wanted to cover at least some of the deficit that we were running into at the golf course. It doesn’t come close to covering what is actually in the deficit position for the golf course but it covers some of it. That was one of the goal that we saw that the Council wanted us to do and that is what we Cottage Grove City Council 18 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting did. You could cut that right now and there is $55,000 of your $162,000 but there would be no money for the golf course. Council Member Thiede reiterated that we definitely want to support the golf course and that is why he is saying that you guys need to try to figure out where that could come from. Personally he thinks that we are a little over zealous with some of our equipment replacement and our repair costs are extremely high in service costs and I know you put some other stuff in later and how we are charging ourselves and we are putting essentially creating a higher budget for the departments because they are having to pay higher costs with that six percent add on. His opinion is that we can probably find some of the dollars there more so than we have on this sheet. Council Member Olsen stated that you could cover the whole thing the whole thing with cash and post. Council Member Olsen stated that you could cover the whole thing with cash the fund and leave it exactly as it is and nobody pays anymore money and then you still have you higher levy in cash you have levy limits next year. You could do that too. There are all sorts of ways to skin the cat but it is a question of what is your end goal. Council Member Lehrke stated that as far as the service thing too, I don’t know how that necessarily helps us either because we are overcharging the police and fire department but that goes into Les’ if we are overcharging more than what it is then it is just profitable for that. Finance Director Roland stated that we tried to do was to show that we are at least competitive with the police and so she does not want to characterize that it is overcharging because if we didn’t have fleet and we had to take all of those cars and trucks out it would not be as cheap as we are able to fund it now. We would also be paying a lot more in gas and diesel because we wouldn’t have the tanks that we have available and the charge backs that we can do under the contract that we are on with gasoline and diesel. Council Member Thiede stated that a part of his comment would be is that you are actually treating it like a profit center as opposed to treating it as a cost center. Because if you treating it as a cost center, you just allocate any overhead and other costs as you charge for labor. He would probably charge straight across for parts in the cost center, he wouldn’t be unless you actually are looking at ordering costs for parts, but again there should be the different departments, you should have if they are serving other departments, then there is allocation. It looks like you are treating public works as a profit center. The way that you are actually applying the markup on parts and things like that and you are showing revenue, expenses. Finance Director Roland stated that it is the nature of an internal service fund in the fund accounting system as to how you have to show it with regards to show it with regards to revenues and expenditures. Cottage Grove City Council 19 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting Council Member Olsen stated that it is much more transparent to do it the way we are doing it. Council Member Lehrke stated that even if it a profit center and overcharging was his word, if we are overcharging then it only benefits the Public Works Department at the detriment to the Public Safety Department. If we are looking at the big picture, it doesn’t matter to us. The only thing that we could do is if we got rid of the police service because for 1999 he had his oil changed and a 10-point inspection and tires rotated but you are not going to get those cheap rates on the bigger projects and then we will have to lay off a mechanic and I don’t think that is where we are headed. Council Member Thiede stated that he was not suggesting that. Council Member Lehrke stated that it his only point is that it is moving money from one pot to the other pot and maybe we could do it differently. Not that he disagrees with what you are saying because it would just show up differently. Maybe then they would feel better about taking the car down to Les Auto Body but it is not going to change our yearly budget. Council Member Thiede stated that we would have to look at what portion of the parts are actually a part of the budget at a six percent add on fee probably doesn’t add up to a percentage on the overall budget but it is inflating the budget. Council Member Olsen asked Council Member Thiede if he wanted to cut some equipment, what would you cut. Council Member Thiede stated that you made a good comment about the walk behind paver. He stated that he saw Hardives and they weren’t doing too bad with the paver on the pads over on Hinton Avenue. They got into a little bit of th a bind when they got close to 80 Street and they had the dump truck that was having to go ahead of the paver but they got the job done. I don’t know if that is a good comparison or not. Finance Director Roland asked Council Member Thiede if he wants to move that to 2015 or eliminate it all together. Council Member Thiede stated that it is up to you guys to decide or for us to decide. Council Member Olsen asked if there is something else that you would rather eliminate or do you think it is all important and you don’t want to get rid of any of it. Public Works Director Burshten stated that we could look at it, we could push it or anything back other than we would like to get that jetter because we have seen a lot of problems by not having something like that. We have got by without a paver for 25 years so it is something that is a little bit better piece of equipment. Finance Director Roland stated that they are going to have to figure out a way to take it out of storm water. Even with a storm water increase, it is not going to cover the cost of your jetter. We will need to figure something out. Cottage Grove City Council 20 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting Public Works Director Burshten then described what a sewer jetter was. Having one would make their life easier. It would improve their efficiency. Council Member Thiede state that it is tool that improves your efficiency but you don’t necessarily have a tool right now that can do a good job at that. Public Works Director Burshten stated that we don’t have a tool that does that. Because these are needed in backyards where we can’t get a big truck into. Council Member Thiede stated that it is an intangible benefit that would justify it. Council Member Olsen asked if Public Works Director Burshten would be willing to trade your paver for a management analyst position? Public Works Director Burshten responded yes. Council Member Lehrke asked Public Works Director Burshten to tell him about the big jetter and new mini jetter. Public Works Director Burshten stated that … Mayor Bailey advised Finance Director Roland that what he thinks he heard here is that Public Works Director Burshten is willing to give up his paver so that he can get his management analyst position. Finance Director Roland stated that what she is hearing from you is we put the management analyst back in, we start the firefighter/paramedics on January 1, we get the engineering intern and we pay the insurance. Doing all of that with taking $62,000 out of the EAB, you have got $21. The walk behind paver was how much? Public Works Director Burshten responded $110,000 and we are at about $80,000 that you reduced the levy. If that is what you want to do with it. Mayor Bailey stated that in the number that you shared with us, you added the paramedics in January, added the management analyst, replaced the intern, a July start date for streets, and the engineering intern stays, and we reduced the EAB to $100,000 and reduced the levy by about $80,000. If you want to take the money that you were going to give to the golf course, that added to the $80,000 would be $135,000 but she would not recommend it. City Administrator Schroeder stated that we did not take away from that meeting that the management analyst was still on the table. What we took is that moving… Mayor Bailey stated that after these adjustments we just dropped the levy by $80,000 or half of what Council Member Thiede was asking. Council Member Thiede that he will support this. Cottage Grove City Council 21 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting Mayor Bailey stated that he was find with it, he was glad that we are keeping some money in for the EAB. If there is an issue we will have to deal with it through other means. He would be okay with the way that it is broken out. Council Member Lehrke stated that he didn’t know if he liked the budget the way it was but was pretty sure that he liked it better before this. Council Member Olsen asked Council Member Lehrke what he did not like. Council Member Lehrke stated that he will have to digest it a little right now. It just feels like we are adding more long-term money and we are taking a one-time deduction in delaying something. We are delaying this for one year and we are going to delay the walk behind one year (maybe) but we are adding a bunch of other stuff. Council Member Olsen asked what he would like to do differently. Council Member Lehrke stated that he would like to do a lot differently. Council Member Olsen stated now is your shot. Council Member Lehrke stated that he does not think that we have…why spend hours going through a lot of things. To start with he would say that the we could keep the police fire paramedic until July you know he would say we could keep that. First he would probably keep everything as it was recommended. Council Member Olsen asked if that would include the $162,000 for EAB. Council Member Lehrke stated that we could cut that down a little and still pay for the people that have already signed up he would be okay with that. The big ones he is okay with them like the CGAA so those two things. Like he said, the police paramedic which is a $20,000 change. Council Member Olsen stated that if you want to keep them in July, that $20,000 goes away. Council Member Olsen responded that that was correct. You keep them in July. What else do you want to do. The EAB to what number. Council Member Lehrke stated that like he said, he would like to keep it close to the $162,000 unless Zac says that he doesn’t need it but he has heard that they are spending it on cutting the trees down. We are going to have to spend way more than that. Council Member Olsen asked Council Member Lehrke if he wants to keep the engineering intern or not. Council Member Lehrke stated the besides those he would just keep it as it was proposed originally. Besides the EAB which we could make a change to it and okay with adding in the CGAA insurance. Cottage Grove City Council 22 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting Council Member Olsen stated that Council Member Lehrke’s recommendation would result in a larger levy than the recommendations that we were just talking about 10 minutes ago. Is that what you want to do. That is going off this. He stated that now is the time to get specific. If you have cuts, now is the time to talk about it. Council Member Lehrke stated that is the point. That is like what he said to Council Member Thiede, I don’t think that he can sit and say where Les is going to take this over that but if we were to set direction, he would be much better with a lower number than the $4.37 million. He would be happier with a lower thing but he would put that to the department head for them to figure out. Council Member Olsen asked what number do you want. Council Member Lehrke stated that he would want it to be lower than $4.37 or closer to the cost of living. If he is looking at a tax increase that is what he would want to be compared against. Council Member Olsen asked Council Member Lehrke for a hard number of what you would like because if we setting direction, what would you like. Council Member Olsen stated that he would be inclined to support Council Member Thiede’s three percent if he can get to that. Council Member Olsen stated that with both Dave and Derrick both saying three percent then if we cut $80,000 which we have already have done based on some of the conversation at the table, we need to cut another $87,000 so where do you guys want to cut it. There has got to be someplace. If three percent is your number, where do you want to cut it. We can’t just tell them where to start and that is where we get with. This is where we are at. It seems like everything we talking about is just adding prices on so if we were to spend some time to find cuts he would be happy to find some cuts but we are only looking at adding things and we find cuts to supplement the additions but we are not looking at cuts. Council Member Olsen stated that we netted out at $80,000 less, so that sounds like cuts to him but if you want another $87,000 then there must be someplace else to cut. If you think about the walk behind thing, there is a general fund impact to that and if we never buy it, then that is a cut. We didn’t say push if off or never buy it, we just said we are not buying it now. So the question is where is the remaining $87,000 you want to cut if you want to get down to three percent. If that is the goal, then we have to come up with a concrete path for that goal. We have come up with half of it roughly, where is the rest. Council Member Lehrke asked Council Member Olsen what are you thinking. He has made a comment a couple of times that you may not vote for this because you can’t fall a tax increase. Are you looking at a dollar percent. Cottage Grove City Council 23 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting Council Member Lehrke stated that $162,000 for EAB is what we should cut. He already said that. So you are happy with the whole budget as long as it doesn’t have $162,000. Council Member Olsen stated that he wants the other recommendations that he made. He was the first one to speak and he told you exactly what he wants to do. Council Member Lehrke stated that he was confused because you are supportive of the budget with the changes that you suggested right here. Council Member Olsen stated that he wouldn’t have suggested them if he wasn’t. Council Member Lehrke stated that you are happy with the suggestions I get that, but are you happy with the budget now with your suggestions. Council Member Olsen stated that he still thinks we should cut all of the EAB just like he said when he spoke earlier. Council Member Olsen asked if beyond that are you happy with the budget. With the other things that he recommended, he would be comfortable. It is not up to him, it is a consensus so that is what he is seeking. Mayor Bailey stated that he does not know if he likes the budget the way it was but he was pretty sure he liked it better the way it was before. He stated that he would have to digest it a little right now, it just feels like we are adding more long-term. Make your recommendation, what do you want to do differently. Council Member Olsen stated that he the first question he has for Finance Director Roland is is the $80,000 reduction, it would actually take our levy to what. Finance Director Roland responded 3.7. Mayor Bailey stated that a part of doing this is to come to a consensus and he heard 3% at the beginning and he was fine with the original budget submitted, he would not be in favor of eliminating the EAB completely because it is easy to say we are going. Zac gave us a number that he thought was palatable so he went with his recommendation. He is very comfortable going to the voters with a 3.7 increase. With the $80,000 reduction, what will it take us to. We tell them where to started t Cottage Grove City Council 24 August 14, 2013 Regular Meeting 13. WORKSHOP SESSION – CLOSED TO PUBLIC – None. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER THIEDE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING AT [ENDING TIME]. MOTION CARRIED. 5-0. Prepared by, Caron M. Stransky City Clerk