Loading...
072808 CC Reg MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JULY 28, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; Acting Administrator/Director of Public Works Brown; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Acting Administrator Brown noted SLMPD Chief Litsey was scheduled to arrive at 8:00 P.M. to discuss Item 11.A, Approval of the SLMPD Budget. He also noted Item 12.A, Change Order 1 for the 2008 Sealcoat Project, was no longer needed as Blair Bury rescinded the request from the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association to delay seal coating of Boulder Bridge Drive, Boulder Bridge Lane and Boulder Circle; there was not consensus among the members of the HOA. Sealcoating of those streets will occur as scheduled. Mayor Lizee requested Item 7.C, Report by the Dick Osgood from the Lake Minnetonka Association, be added to the agenda. Councilmember Turgeon requested item 11.B, Request for Proposals, be added to the agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, July 14, 2008 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of July 14, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 14, 2008 Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2008, as Amended in Item 7.A, Page 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 change "Chair Dahlberg" to "Chair Dallman" and in Sentence 3 change "The Park Commission raised donations totaling $5,000" to "A donation of $5,000 was made from the Park CIP", and in Item 9.E, Page 9, Paragraph 6, Sentence 1 change "Excelsior Fire District Fire District Budget" to "Excelsior Fire District Operating Budget". Motion passed 5/0. SH®REWOOD CITE' COUNCIL REGULAR MEE'T'ING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 2 of 18 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-056, "A Resolution Appointing 2008 Primary and General Election Judges." Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. RECESS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting to an Economic Development Authority Meeting at 7:10 P.M. 6. RECONVENE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lizee reconvened the City Council regular meeting at 7: 30 P.M. 7. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Approval of Lease Documents between the Shorewood Economic Development Authority and the City of Shorewood Acting Administrator Brown stated at its meeting just before this topic, the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA) approved the Ground Lease between the City of Shorewood and the Shorewood EDA, and the Lease-Purchase Agreement between the Shorewood EDA and the City of Shorewood. It also adopted a resolution awarding the sale of $1,310,000 public project lease revenue bonds. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the Ground Lease between the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, and the Shorewood Economic Development Authority dated August 1, 2008, and the Lease-Purchase Agreement between the Shorewood Economic Development Authority and the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, dated August 1, 2008. Motion passed 5/0. B. Award the Sale of Public Project Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-057, "A Resolution Awarding the Sale of $1,310,000 Public Project Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A (City of Shorewood, Minnesota Lease Obligation); Fixing Their Form and Specifications; Directing Their Execution and Delivery; and Providing for Their Payment." Motion passed 5/0. SHOREWOOD CITY C®1JNCII, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 3 of 18 C. Report by the Dick Osgood with the Lake Minnetonka Association Dick Osgood, Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Association, stated in the most recent publication of the Lakeline magazine [the flagship publication of the North American Lake Management Society (NALMS)] there was an article about climate change which had a graphic depicting ice on/ice off records of lakes in the northern tier of the United States. The graphic shows the average ice out date for Lake Minnetonka (which was April 15`i') is changing; the average ice out has been earlier in the year. The length of time the lake is ice free is longer and the water temperature of the lake is higher; therefore, aquatic invasive species (AIS) are becoming more aggressive and native species are less able to fend them off. The NALMS president's message in the same issue states lake management philosophies must become less conservative to ensure lakes are fully and effectively protected, and protective actions need to be more intensive, aggressive and comprehensive. AIS is an issue throughout North America. Mr. Osgood then stated he would like to review the LMA's Milfoil-Free Lake Minnetonka campaign, provide an update of the three-bay milfoil treatment project and discuss the possibility of adding Gideons Bay to the project. Mr. Osgood explained the preliminary report on the three-bay project is based on his observations and well as the DNR's observations. The treatments of Grays Bay have been the most effective; there is little milfoil left and there is no matting on the Bay. He had observed people swimming along the Highway 101 causeway and that was impossible last year. The treatments of Carmans Bay appear to be the least effective; about three-fourths of the treatment area has quite a bit of milfoil in it. He has not yet received a credible explanation of what he observed. Phelps Bay is in pretty good shape. As of last week there was no milfoil matting on the water's surface; typically it would be wall-to-wall milfoil at this time of the year. There was an area in the Enchanted Island cove area of the bay which wasn't as effective and that area was retreated just over one week ago. He stated he and others have been working with the manufacturers, applicators and others to refine the treatments and formulations and to pursue trying to get a guarantee for future year's treatments. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the residents in the Phelps Bay retreated area were notified of the effort. Mr. Osgood stated he notified Woodruff's neighbor and another resident; those individuals stated they had made calls and sent emails to the residents (at least those wllo had contributed to the project) that there would be a re-treatment and reminding them of the water-use restrictions. Osgood stated all of the properties adjacent to the retreated area were supposed to have been posted. Woodruff stated his property was not posted, and he was astounded by the method used to inform people of the re- treatment. Osgood stated to his knowledge all of the properties that received the re-treatment were notified in advance and posted. Woodruff stated at a meeting held in January 2008 the DNR explained the "drift" from the spring 2008 treatments would be approximately 500 feet; therefore, those residents, e.g., like himself, who had not participated in the treatment effort should have been notified. Osgood explained had the re-treatment been the same as the original treatment they should have been notified; but, the re-treatment was a granular formulation which does not drift. Mayor Lizee noted the LMA contracted with an applicator firm to do the treatment. Mr. Osgood provided an overview of the LMA's Milfoil-Free Lake Minnetonka campaign. The highlights are as follows. - It's a campaign to rid Lake Minnetonka of milfoil and keep new AIS from entering the Lake. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL 12EGiJLA121V1EE'1'1NG MINi1'T11S July 28, 2008 Page 4 of 18 - Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) remains the number one concern of the LMA's members and the users of the Lake. - EWM can be managed lake-wide. It started in 2005 with the Milfoil Forum; there was the partial treatment of three bays in 2006; and there was the total treatment of the same three bays in 2008. The hope is to expand the treatment to other bays. - Other AIS which threaten the Lake include zebra mussels (the most imminent), spiny waterflea, hydrilla (which is more aggressive than EWM), and brazillian elodea, rusty crayfish, viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS). There is no way to control these species. - There needs to be a vision, leadership and investment to address the problem. - Milfoil-Free Minnetonka is the LMA's vision and plan about ridding Lake Minnetonka of EWM and preventing new AIS from gaining a foothold in the lake. - The funding needed to adequately protect and manage Lake Minnetonka for AIS concerns is about 10- to 20-times what is now being spent. Lake Manitou, Ind., spends about $500,000 per year for its hydrilla control program; that lake is 20-times smaller and approximately five times as much is spent controlling the problem there. - Lake Minnetonka is the collection of small interconnected lakes. - The risks of AIS are not additive. For example, if VHS were to invade Lake Minnetonka, large mouth bass fishing would disappear. - Hydrilla was found in Wisconsin in 2007. - The six elements to the plan are: expand the milfoil treatments; monitoring and surveillance; prevention; early detection and rapid response; research; and education. - The investment to protect and manage Lake Minnetonka can come from Lakeshore owners and businesses, lakeshore communities, regional and state organizations, and lake users. For the three-bay treatment in 2008, lakeshore owners contributed over 70 percent of the cost; that funding approach is not sustainable. The Watershed District's funding formula which identifies what each community pays is set by State Statute. The LMA had recommended user fees for boats and trailers (similar to a park entrance fee); it is done in other states and would likely be controversial. Mr. Osgood stated residents along Gideons Bay have requested a plant inventory of the Bay be done this year so the Bay can be treated in 2009. The cost for the plant inventory is approximately $6,600. A Tonka Bay resident and his family are fundraising for this effort and have committed to raise funds to cover those costs. He stated he had committed to asking the cities of Excelsior, Shorewood, and Tonka Bay to help offset the costs. He asked if the City would be willing to contribute $1,000. In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Mr. Osgood explained Carsons, Gideons, Libbs and St. Albans Bays had been identified as having milfoil concerns and they would be good candidates for treatment. Property owners on Gideons Bay had approached the LMA about treating the Bay. The LMA would coordinate and administer the treatments, but the funds must be raised by the lakeshore owners. Before Gideons Bay could be considered for treatment in 2009 a plant inventory has to be completed this year, and the Lake Vegetation Management Plan has to be amended and approved by the DNR. Approximately 20 percent of the shoreline on Gideons Bay is in Shorewood. Mayor Lizee stated partnerships have to be built before AIS can be stopped and controlled. Those partnerships are between the lakeshore owners, the Lake Minnetonka communities, and regional and state organizations. Mr. Osgood stated the Watershed District has a provision which may allow for regional taxing around Lake Minnetonka. The State Legislature increased the surcharge for boat licenses in 2007. He stated arguments could be made that a larger portion of DNR funding from boat licenses SH®REW®®D CITE' C®UNC1L REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 5 of 18 should go to Lake Minnetonka; the number of boats on the lake versus the total number of licenses issued is a significant portion. Mayor Lizee stated 20 percent of the $6,600 cost for the plant inventory is $1,300 and the City was being asked to contribute $1,000. Councilmember Bailey stated he was uncomfortable with doling out funds using this ad-hoc approach; it was not a good way to budget. The appropriation for Phelps Bay earlier in 2008 had a very compelling and imminent deadline; that did not mean the City would contribute additional funds to control milfoil. He stated he would not support the contribution at this time; that initiative should have to compete against other proposed initiatives for City funds during the budget process. If during the budget process it's determined the City could make a sustainable contribution to the LMA for the management and control of AIS, that would not be unreasonable. He expressed discomfort with this grass roots approach. If there is no follow through at the regional or state level to help with this effort, then the lake communities would have wasted their funds. Mr. Osgood stated in addition to the financial impact of the contribution, it would also convey to other regional and state organizations that there is support to move this initiative forward. Mayor Lizee stated the leadership has started with Lake Minnetonka communities. The LMCD, Watershed District, the DNR, and the State have to be encouraged to invest in this initiative. Mr. Osgood stated even if there is no funding by the three cities, the residents have committed to paying for the plant inventory. 8. PUBLIC HEARING None. 9. PARKS Acting Administrator Brown stated there had not been a Park Commission meeting since the last City Council regular meeting. 10. PLANNING Commissioner Geng stated there had not been a Planning Commission meeting since the Last City Council regular meeting. 11. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of the SLMPD 2009 Budget This was discussed after Item 11.B on the agenda. Acting Administrator Brown stated the meeting packet contained a 2009 Operating Budget Proposal for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department which the SLMPD Coordinating Committee endorsed at its June 25, 2008, special meeting and recommended that it be forwarded to the member cities' councils for their review and approval. The packet also contained a memorandum from him highlighting a few items in the budget. He noted that on May 14, 2008, the SLMPD Coordinating Committee hosted a joint SHOREWO®I3 CITY C®IJIiTCIi., f2EGiJLf112 I!'IEE'TING 1!!IIl~IiJTES July 28, 2008 Page 6 of 18 meeting of the SLMPD member cities' councils to present the SLMPD Strategic Action Plan and afive- year operating budget forecast which included the cost of implementing the strategic goals identified in the Plan. He then stated SLMPD Chief Litsey was present this evening to address the Council. Chief Litsey noted the "Minnesota night to unite" events will be held on August 5, 2008. This event replaces what had previously been called "national night out". To date there were six Shorewood residential neighborhoods signed up. If any of the Council members want to know which neighborhoods have signed up they should contact SLMPD Community Service Supervisor Dave Hohertz. Chief Litsey explained each member city has a yearly obligation to fund the long-term debt service for the public safety facility; no vote is necessary to approve the obligation. The amount of each member cities' obligation varies based on tax capacity (ad valorem). Bonds were issued for the facility in 2002 and 2003. In December 2006, the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA) initiated refinancing of the bonds and the savings that will be derived from the refinancing begins to be realized in 2009. The City's obligation is going down in 2009 (by $11,063) due to the savings and also due to the change in the City's tax capacity. The member cities make the payments on their obligations to the SLMPD; the SLMPD holds the payments in trust until the bond payments are due and all interest earned remains in that trust. He noted he had received a request from one member city to estimate the potential savings from the bond refinancing, and he had accommodated that request in the material included in the meeting packet. He noted during the SLMPD Strategic Plamling initiative the need to address funding the long-term care and maintenance of the facility was identified as a strategic goal. Litsey stated he thought it would be worthwhile to recap the SLMPD Strategic Planning process; the outcome of that process is incorporated into the proposed 2009 operating budget. He explained the strategic planning initiative was kicked off at the January 17, 2007, Coordinating Committee meeting. That process was initiated after several years of uncertainty over funding for SLMPD operations. During that time the SLMPD tried to maintain status quo operations while the issue of the funding formula was resolved. In 2006 the arbitrators made a decision on the formula which went into effect in 2007. Litsey then stated after the issue of funding was resolved, the SLMPD and member cities councils were able begin to focusing on defining strategic goals. After the kickoff session in 2007 he met with each of the member cities' councils (with the exception of the Excelsior council which he met with in October 2006) to solicit feedback on what the councils hoped would be accomplished from the process and what the councils would like to have included. There was general consensus that the SLMPD was running well, and it was prudent to go through a strategic planning process. At its October 30, 2007, meeting the Coordinating Committee agreed to establish a Strategic Plamling Group (the Group) comprised of Coordinating Committee Members (the mayor of each member city), Coordinating Committee Alternates (a designated councilmember from each city), Operating Committee Members (the administrator/manager or staff designee from each city) and SLMPD Police Chief and Deputy Chief. The composition of the Group allowed for each member city to have 40 percent of its council participate. Litsey explained the Group met five times from January 27, 2008, through April 22, 2008, for a total of 8.5 hours. There were three phases of the initiative: Phase 1 -Information Gathering; Phase 2 -Define Key Issues; and, Phase 3 -Develop the Plan. Staff spent a tremendous amount of time gathering and analyzing data and preparing presentations for the work sessions. Minutes were kept for each work session. The Group extensively reviewed the following types of information and data -staffing; demographics; crime statistics; city specific issues; law enforcement trends on the federal, state and local level; an internal analysis of the SLMPD organization and what personnel think the future needs are; service levels; activity; recruitment of personnel; career development; equipment; facilities; and SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 7 of 18 technology. Members of the Group were very committed to the process. They were thoughtful, respectful, and were open to ideas. There were many opportunities for t11e members to provide input into the various iterations of the Strategic Action Plan. There was considerable discussion about what it would take to fund implementing the strategic goals identified. The Group favored four strategic goals after a considerable amount of discussion and review of materials provided; these priorities were identified as critically important to the future of the SLMPD. The goals are as follows. - Establish a timetable for phasing in additional police officers earmarked for the patrol division. - Increase the overtime budget so that manpower issues due to training, illness, injured on duty, time off request, etc., can be more readily accommodated in the work schedule. - Maintain pace with changing technology. Ensure there is a sufficient fund balance available to update, replace, and add new technologies. - Establish a capital fund for the long-term care and maintenance for the public safety facility. Litsey read an email he sent to the members of the Group on May 30, 2008. The email was as follows. I want to thank each of you for serving on the Strategic Planning Group. The group met five times between January and April 2008 to complete their initial mission. These work sessions collectively totaled more than 8% hours. This does not include the countless hours of prep time spent on research, data collection and putting together three PowerPoint presentations totaling 223 slides. The Strategic Action Plan is a culmination of this exhaustive effort in which all members of the group had an opportunity to weigh in on the plan. It was then finalized after all suggestions were taken into account and incorporated into the document, This unified effort was then presented for consideration by the Coordinating Committee at their meeting on April 30, 2008. It was accepted as presented and forwarded to the Joint Meeting of City Councils held on May 14, 2008. The one exception is that Group Member Laura Turgeon did suggest an alternative method of presenting the budget forecast, which was then incorporated into my presentation before the City Councils. I am pleased to say this was a very inclusive process thanks to each of you participating in the group. Each member city was afforded up to three representatives to be part of this group, two of which were elected officials (forty percent of each city council) and the other being an administrative staff member. The. SLMPD was represented by its command staff. All the work sessions were open meetings, so any city council member not part of the group was welcomed to attend as was the public and the media. Additionally, the information presented at these work sessions was and still is available for the asking. This is now before your respective City Councils for consideration as part of the 2009 budget process. Your input will be extremely important being you were part of the group and helped advance the Strategic Action Plan. Thanks once again for participating in such a meaningful and important process. Litsey stated the Coordinating Committee hosted a joint meeting of the member cities' councils on May 14, 2008, so all the council members could have the opportunity to hear the same presentation on the strategic planning process and the Strategic Action Plan, and they could hear responses given to questions asked by the various council members and to items clarified. If additional clarification was needed he got that to the appropriate individuals. He also had afollow-up meeting with Councilmember SHOREWO®D CITY C®UNCIL REGULAR MEETING iVtINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 8 of 18 Woodruff on June 2"`~ to address concerns he had. He had afollow-up meeting with Councilmember Wellens on June 5`~' to address eight issues Wellens had expressed to him via email; he received a copy of Wellens email on May 27"' and he promptly responded to his issues. On June 9`~' he met with the City Council during a work session to share his responses to Councilmembers Wellens and Woodruffs issues (as documented in the minutes of that meeting). He noted a digital recording was made of that meeting, and he encouraged other city councils to view the recording if they had questions about the process. He also noted that Councilmember Bailey was not in attendance at the June 9`~' meeting; he made himself available to Bailey at his convenience, but Bailey did not contact him. Litsey then highlighted the 2009 operating budget process. Litsey explained the key strategic goals identified for 2009 were phasing in an additional patrol officer starting July 1, 2009, and adding additional funding for technology. The proposed 2009 operating budget was presented to the SLMPD Operating Committee on June 24, 2008. He paraphrased the Operating Committee's sentiments which were the budget was a lean budget yet sufficient enough to maintain current operations and incorporate the strategic action plan. He explained the Operating Committee (comprised of the member cities' administrators/managers) is the advisory group to the SLMPD; it was created through policy by the Coordinating Committee in 2004. It is not officially part of the Joint Power Agreement. Its purpose is to help facilitate good communication between the SLMPD and the member cities. Litsey then explained at its June 25`x' special meeting, the Coordinating Committee considered the proposed 2009 operating budget. The Committee considered the perspective of the Operating Committee. The Committee also thought the budget stayed true to the strategic action plan recommendations and it sustained current operations, and the Committee made some suggestions of areas to keep in the forefront for future budget considerations. The action taken was: Newman moved, Ruehl seconded, endorsing the proposed South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Operating Budget for 2009 and recommending that it be forwarded to the member cities' councils for their review and approval. Motion passed 4/0. The Committee decided it was prudent for the Committee to prepare a position statement; a unified statement in support of the strategic planning process, the strategic action plan and the implementation of the first part of the plan in 2009. The action taken regarding the position statement was: Ruehl moved, Newman seconded, accepting the Coordinating Committee's Position Statement as amended, and approving it be included in the 2009 operating budget packet that will be distributed to the member cities' councils. Motion passed 3/0. Committee Member LaBelle had to leave the meeting before this action was taken for family reasons. At the close of the meeting Committee Member Ruehl thanked Chief Litsey for all of his efforts which were instrumental in making the strategic planning process a success, and for his preparation of the draft 2009 operating budget. He also thanked all of the police officers for their wonderful work. Litsey stated the member cities' were being asked to consider the 2009 strategic action goals as part of the proposed 2009 operating budget. The councils would consider implementing future goals during future budget discussions. Litsey then stated at its July 1, 2008, meeting (which he did not attend) the Greenwood Council unanimously approved the proposed 2009 operating budget, noting Greenwood Councilmember Hill was not in attendance at the meeting. The Excelsior Council unanimously approved the budget at its July 21, 2008, meeting. There was considerable discussion about the budget at this meeting. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 9 of 18 Litsey read the following statements printed in the Sun-Sailor newspaper about the budget after the Excelsior meeting. - Although the conclusion of the strategic plan group was that four additional offices would be the best to meet the patrol division's needs, the group determined that adding two officers was the best scenario to meet the department's needs while being mindful of the financial burden it would place on the cities, Litsey said. - Councilmember Greg Miller participated in the strategic planning group. He said there's a strong case to be made for increasing the department's patrol division by four officers. "I think it was a good compromise," he said. Litsey read the following statements printed in the Lakeshore Weekly News about the budget after the Excelsior meeting. - The need is there," said Excelsior Mayor Nick Ruehl. "We're not covered in all areas as we should be." - Council Member Greg Miller also supported the additional officer, saying the coverage area could potentially use up to four more officers on the street. - "Even .... by adding two officers, we're still on the low quadrant of 1,000 residents per officer, compared to our neighbors," said Miller. Litsey stated at its July 22, 2008, meeting the Tonka Bay Council decisively approved the budget with a three to one vote, noting Councilmember Ken Folley was absent. Litsey read the following statements printed in the Sun-Sailor newspaper about the budget after the Tonka Bay meeting. - Mayor Bill LaBelle said the eye-opener for his was learning that, at times, the department has just one officer patrolling the cities. Calling that unconscionable, LaBelle said he looked at how the department could get around adding staff, but endorsed the plan to increase the patrol staff. - Although the plan calls for adding a second officer in the latter half of 2011, LaBelle noted that the cities aren't committed to doing so. If city officials find that the addition of one officer has a significant impact upon the department, "maybe [additional] officer two never comes on board," he said. Litsey read the following statements printed in the Lakeshore Weekly News about the budget after the Tonka Bay meeting. - Litsey discussed that it's not uncommon for the department's staffing levels to drop to one patrol officer on duty. - "There is something fundamentally wrong to have one officer on when we cover four cities," said Litsey. - For the month of April, there was one officer on for nearly 180 hours of a possible 720 hours. That meant going anywhere from three hours to 15.5 hours in a day with one patrol officer on duty during that month. - "It's unconscionable that that's what occurs," said Tonka Bay Mayor Bill LaBelle. SHOREWOOD CI'T'Y COUNCIL R~GULAIZ MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 10 of 18 Litsey noted that to date the collective vote total was twelve in favor of the 2009 operating budget and one opposed. Litsey stated this evenings meeting packet included a memorandum from Acting Administrator Brown highlighting the proposed budget, and in an email to the Council Brown encouraged the members to contact Litsey if they had any questions or concerns prior to the meeting. Litsey's work and cellular phone numbers were provided to Council. Litsey then stated on July 25`x' he followed up with an email to the City Council encouraging the members to contact him directly prior to the meeting if they had any questions or concerns, and his work and cellular phone numbers were again provided. He offered to make himself available most any time over the weekend to meet. In his email he pointed out that the City's debt service payment for 2009 went down. He noted he was at work on both Saturday, July 26"', and Sunday, July 27"', and he received no phone calls and/or emails from the Councilmembers. Litsey commented that he downsized his budget proposal narrative for the proposed 2009 operating budget. He noted as appendixes in the proposal he included an organization chart for the SLMPD, a copy of the Strategic Action Plan provided to the member cities' councils for the May l4`~' joint meeting, copies of the guest editorial comments he wrote for the two local papers, and the Coordinating Committee's position statement. He also noted the operating budget narrative addresses each budget line item. He then highlighted the budget proposal narrative provided. Highlights are was follows. - The preliminary budget proposal represents a prudent, responsible and straightforward approach for meeting the operational requirements of the SLMPD. - The budget proposal maintains current operations while incorporating the key goals identified for 2009 as part of the strategic planning process. - Both the long-term debt service obligation and the annual operating budget are included in the member cities' financial obligations to the SLMPD. - Aside from the strategic goals, there are a number of significant factors behind the 2009 increases that extend beyond economic and/or inflationary considerations. They are pensions, health insurance, ammunition and gasoline. - Pension -The increase reflects the impact of a previous decision by the Minnesota Legislature which mandated greater contributions from the employer and the employee to ensure adequate fund balances for both the Coordinated Plan and the Police & Fire Plan (the majority of the SLMPD personnel are covered under this plan). The contribution to the Police & Fire Plan will increase nearly 52 percent between 2006 and 2009; the increase for 2009 alone is 93 percent. - Health Insurance -The SLMPD is part of the LOGIS Health Care Group; a consortium of local governmental agencies that collectively negotiate with providers. 2008 was the first year of a three-year contract negotiated with HealthPartners. The increase is capped at 16 percent for 2009 and 2010, and the budget takes into account this anticipated increase. There was only a modest increase in costs in 2008. - Ammunition -This budgeted amount for ammunition increased over 150 percent over 2008. The cost for ammunition has escalated significantly because of the war in Iraq (which pushed up demand) and growing industrial powers bidding up the cost of needed raw materials used in the manufacturing process. Adding the Emergency Response Unit has increased the amount of ammunition needed for training purposes. To try and help mitigate the cost the Department went to a quarterly POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) approval process to limit the number of large rounds an officer has to shoot. - Gasoline -Gasoline prices are rising by historic proportions with no downturn in sight. Every 10 cent increase in the price of gasoline sustained over the course of the year costs SHOREWOOD CI'T'Y COUNCIL REGULAR IVIEE'TING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 11 of 18 the SLMPD an additional $1,250 (assuming an annual fleet consumption rate of 12,500 gallons). The SLMPD has implemented a number of proactive strategies in recent years to mitigate the volatility in gasoline prices, but streets still need to be patrolled and calls still need to be answered. The strategies included switching primarily to Chevy Impalas for squad cars which have a V6 versus V8 engine and use less fuel; the newer cars also have an active fuel management system which cut out cylinders when the vehicle is not being driven aggressively, and the Department gets a fleet rate on gas. The SLMPD cannot do more with less. - Nearly 83 percent of the 2009 operational expenses are attributed to salaries, payroll taxes, pensions, health insurance benefits, uniforms and training. The majority of the SLMPD personnel are designated by Minnesota Statute 179A.03 as essential public employees. That designation entitles them to binding arbitration to settle contract impasses in place of the right to strike. They would likely be awarded an increase based on the statistical norm among other comparable law enforcement agencies. - The budget is required to support other numerous operational expenses which are unique to a JPA organization. Some of the expenses included the public safety facility; replacing, maintaining and fueling a fleet of vehicles; insurance for liability, property and employee injuries; professional services; and managing, supporting and upgrading a variety of technologies. Minnesota has a Tort Cap limit on insurance claims, but there is no cap on Federal actions. Therefore, people are pursuing use-of--force cases through the federal system where there is no cap and where they can collect attorney fees. The cost to carry an additional $2 million in standardized insurance coverage (above the $1 million it already carries) is approximately $5,000 per year. - The proposed 2009 operating budget which was endorsed by the Coordinating Committee represents a 9.5 percent increase over 2008. It included the strategic goals for 2009. The increase is extremely close to the 9.25 percent increase in the 2009 budget forecast prepared for illustration purposes. The endorsed budget is a lean budget. Litsey stated the strategic planning process was one of the most extensive processes he had been involved in. It was for a good reason - to move the organization forward. Litsey then stated he had been asked numerous times what had changed to warrant the need for additional patrol officers now. He noted prior member cities' councils had recognized the need for additional staffing and had been working toward rectifying the problem. He had been championing the cause of additional staffing since he began his tenure as Chief in 1999. He noted in each budget he had prepared he addressed the SLMPD's past, present and future; and as far back as 2000 he addressed the need for additional staffing and in particular patrol officers. He stated some progress has been made, but because of the level of the staffing shortage progress is not as far along as he would like. He explained in 2000 the City of Shorewood had its own special policing officer which came about because of the former Clinton COPS (i.e., COPS' MORE) grants program. That program allowed organizations to increase their staffing level while phasing in their out-of-pocket costs for the additional officers. When Federal funding for the officer ended, he was a strong proponent of absorbing that officer into the SLMPD's full compliment of officers. In 2001 the SLMPD added apart-time Community Service Officer (CSO) position; that CSO position transitioned into afull-time position in 2002. At that time there was discussion about the need for additional officers, but because the Shorewood officer had been absorbed into the SLMPD a decision was made to wait to hire additional officers. The CSO position was considered a means of lightening the police officer load in the short term by helping with some of the duties which did not require a fully licensed officer; the CSO position was not intended to replace the need for a police officer. During 2003 - 2006 the SLMPD was in a holding pattern while the member SHOREWOOD C1T~' C®UIVCIL REGgJL,AIt MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 12 of 18 cities were trying to resolve their differences with regard to the SLMPD funding formula; the SLMPD was treading water just to stay afloat. Also, during that time emphasis was placed on the construction of the public safety facility because it was a great one-time opportunity to partner with the Excelsior Fire District. That was a considerable expense for the member cities, so additional staffing was placed on hold until that was completed. After the arbitration over the funding formula was completed, the SLMPD started to move back toward status-quo with regard to operations in 2007. During 2007 the Strategic Planning initiative was started. In 2008 the SLMPD expanded its CSO program by 40 hours per week to provide animal control services; the cost was similar to the cost the member cities' had been paying for contract control services and the expanded program provides additional services as well. Litsey went on to state in 2008 the Strategic Planning Group (the Group) was formed to focus on the future of the SLMPD. The Group developed an acute awareness of the staffing shortage problem. It was a real eye-opener when members of the group realized how frequently the SLMPD had only one officer on duty. The shortages can be from three hours to more than one-half of a day. Feedback he had received was it was fundamentally wrong to have only one officer on duty in a four-city consortium of cities providing policing services. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting at 9:01 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the meeting at 9:08 P.M. Chief Litsey explained that for a typical 24-hour period there are typically five shifts usually having between one to three officers scheduled for duty; normally two are scheduled during the day hours and three during the evening hours and those three continue through bar closing time. He had been hesitant to reveal coverage information publicly for fear it would be used by to take advantage of the system. He reviewed exhibits for depicting staffing shortages for February, May, August and December of 2007. The exhibits were provided during the strategic planning process and clearly demonstrate the seriousness of the staffing shortage. February's and May's shortages were because of vacation time earned, sick time and training and during May there was a vacant position. August's shortages were mainly due to vacation time earned. The December shortages were extensive; there was at least one staffing shortage nearly every day in December. Litsey then explained the SLMPD had geographical challenges. During the strategic planning process he had provided the Group with a comparison of the SLMPD and the Centennial Lakes Police Department (CLPD). The SLMPD and the CLPD operate very similar, with the exception of the CLPD having more police officers. The CLPD had made a decision to have no fewer than two officers on a shift. The geographic area the CLPD serves has some similarities to the area served by the SLMPD; it has lakes, boundaries and distances which impact response. The SLMPD's challenges are actually more grievous than the CLPD's in terms of the time it takes to get from point A to point B because the distances between points can be even further, the times between distances can be longer because the roads in the area are narrow, and the bays and lakes in the area impact travel. Litsey went on to review other things that had changed. The growth in surrounding communities (e.g., Chanhassen and Victoria) place additional demand on the SLMPD. Mandatory booking for DUIs placed additional strain on the police officer staffing. SLMPD patrol officers are first responders to medical calls; while they set up the defibrillators a second person is required to start CPR. An officer can not use a tazer if there is only one officer on duty for safety reasons. Chief Litsey stated he would entertain questions from the Council. SHOREWOOI) CI'1'~' C®UNC1L REGULAR I~lEETING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 13 of 18 Mayor Lizee stated the Council and City appreciates Chief Litsey's dedication to the strategic planning process and the budget process. She commented that Councilmember Turgeon had served as the City's alternate on the Strategic Planning Group. She noted Litsey had met with the Council and various Counciimembers in addition to all of the strategic planning work sessions and the joint council meeting. She stated the Coordinating Committee thinks it is necessary to add one patrol officer in July 2009 while being responsible to the taxpayers and the patrol officers. Councilmember Turgeon noted that Shorewood was the only one of the four member cities under the levy limit. She commented that she had never looked at the SLMPD contract for its union employees and she was not aware of what their salary increases were. She questioned what salary increases were anticipated for 2009 after the contract was renegotiated in 2008. Chief Litsey explained the Coordinating Committee was responsible for looking at the details of the budget. The SLMPD had a negotiating team of two of the member cities' administrators or managers; the participation rotates between the cities. The budget shows the line items for salaries and benefits. The forecast for salary increases includes economic adjustments, market rate adjustments and step adjustments. When an officer is hired there is an aggressive salary increase that occurs during the first three years of employment. Per the request of the member cities, he prepared afive-year budget forecast for maintaining operations and then for including the strategic goals. The forecast was discussed numerous times during the strategic planning initiative and adjusted based on those discussions. This budget, just as in past operating budgets he has prepared, provided a realistic assessment of what the costs to run the Department will be. The 2007 adopted budget came within a few thousand dollars of the salary projections. The SLMPD's contracts are competitive; non-union adjustments are competitive as well. The SLMPD tries to pay average or slightly above. The increase he received this year included an economic adjustment as well as a market rate adjustment; the market rate adjustment brought his salary to the average category for this group. Chief Litsey explained the 2008 adopted budget includes 15 officers for one half of the year, and that is what is included in the 2009 proposed budget. The 2008 budget included reimbursement for the SLMPD's participation in the Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force (MFCTF); that grant supported that additional officer who left the Department earlier than planned. The revenues were offset by increased payroll costs associated with the SLMPD's participation in the MFCTF. The revenues from that grant are not in the 2009 budget, nor are the expenses for that officer. He projected what the salary increases would be for 2009 based on what the trends are. The union economic adjustment for 2008 was 2 percent every six months; which averages to about 3 percent. Councilmember Wellens stated the presentations provided to the Strategic Planning Group didn't appear to contain a lot of crime related summary data and statistics. Chief Litsey stated the presentation for the January 30~'' meeting contained a great deal of information about that. The data was discussed at great length, as were the pros and cons of using certain types of summary data for comparisons. Departments track crime data differently. The one fairly constant piece of data is the Part 1 and Part 2 offenses tracked by the State; he could easily increase the SLMPD's incidents by tracking many menial calls. The Department handles many calls for service that are not crime related; it's just trying to get up to par for staffing for the level of calls it handles. To provide adequate coverage, the SLMPD should have two patrol officers and two power shifts. Although it is not the most opportune time to add officers, he thought it imperative that officer safety be addressed. It was clearly articulated by one member of the Group when that person stated "we have to protect those who protect us". Mayor Lizee stated she would entertain a motion in support of the proposed 2009 SLMPD operating budget. SH®REWO®IA CITI' C®iJNCIL, i2EGIJLAR 1l~lEE'1'ING IV1Il~1UT'ES July 28, 2008 Page 14 of 18 Councilmember Turgeon stated she would not support a 9.5 percent increase over 2008. She would entertain another number. The increase for the City would be approximately $85,000. The City would pay approximately $1.2 million for its portion of the debt service payment and the operating budget. The proposed increase would cause the City to reduce other items in its budget to stay within the levy limit. Councilmember Bailey expressed concern about the size of the increase. He explained the City has an approximate $5.3 million budget and a 3.9 percent increase (the levy limit) would be a little over $206,000. The City's portion of the proposed increase would consume a significant portion of what the City's allowable increase could be. He commented levy limits will be in place until 2011. He stated the economy appeared to be entering a recession, and Council had directed Staff to prepare its first draft of the City's operating budget with a zero percent increase. It will take a major contribution by the member cities just to maintain current operations. He stated he appreciated all of the work that the Group put into the process, but he questioned if it was the appropriate time to approve such an increase. The EFD member cities had already approved a 4.7 percent budget increase for tl~e EFD (this includes the operating budget and the CIP) and he could entertain something more than that for the SLMPD. A 6 percent SLMPD budget increase would consume approximately one-third of the City allowable levy increase, and he would entertain an increase in that ballpark. Chief Litsey explained the State Legislature created special levies that could be incorporated; they are for all costs attributed to police and fire wages and benefits and that represents well over 50 percent of the budget. Taking a simplistic point of view (not including the City's commercial taxing capacity), if you take the additional amount the City was being asked to contribute in 2009 and divide that by the number of households the amount would be approximately 95 cents a month per household. The proposed addition of one officer will not eliminate an officer's risk as the job is inherently risky; it will help mitigate the risk. It is incumbent on the communities to help mitigate the risk and not leave the officers vulnerable to the extent they are currently. That is fundamentally not right. He requested Council consider officer safety and show its appreciation by helping mitigate the risk. To put officers in a situation where they are in a reactive mode for anywhere from 3 - 15 hours a day is the Council's choice from a policy perspective. He noted that the City had two elected officials as representatives on the Strategic Planning Group; they knew full well that it would be a significant increase and they had numerous opportunities to provide input. Councilmember Turgeon stated from her vantage point the Strategic Planning Group had the task to identify the strategic goals. The Group received a budget amount and increase for 2009 (of 5.8 percent) for maintaining current operations but it did not receive the supporting budget detail. The rest of the 2009 operating budget was not provided to the Group to review the entire picture. The Coordinating Committee had all the detail. There were no votes taken by the Group. Once she saw the entire operating budget projection she understood the total budget impact. Chief Litsey stated with all due respect, the budget was part of the process. The Group had struggled for several meetings with the budget. There was an exercise with the Group where the total impact on the 2009 budget was discussed at a high level. The Group struggled with that exercise and asked him to work it through, and bring it back to the group which he did. The Group discussed the fire-year budget forecast. The first scenario included maintaining current operations only. Different scenarios were then forecast based on adding the strategic goals in a staged manner. The scenario he prepared provided ayear-to-year comparison, and Turgeon had requested a cumulative forecast be prepared (which was done). That method was also presented at the joint meeting of the member cities' councils. The Group members understood what the cost would be to maintain current operations and fund the strategic goals. Turgeon stated she did remember going through the budget during the planning process. Litsey stated he was quite pleased that the proposed budget was only SHOREWOOD CITY C®1JNC1L REGIJI,f112 MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 15 of 18 0.25 percent higher than the budget forecast prepared for illustration purposes. The entire Group had input about the budget. Councilmember Wellens stated because the City could have a levy increase of up to 3.9 percent did not mean that he was committed to doing that. He commented the City had already approved a 4.7 percent combined operating budget and CIP increase for the EFD. He stated from his vantage point there was no evidence that the SLMPD had abused mutual aid services, an issue he had brought up before. Chief Litsey stated the software had not tracked that, but an adjustment was made to be able to track that in the future. Wellens stated because the communities served by the SLMPD were in a wealthier area he assumed there is less crime. Therefore, he questioned why the SLMPD should have as many officers per capita as other departments. Litsey stated from the beginning he stated there is no one-size-fits-all comparison. The Group was provided alternative comparisons (per capita, demand comparisons, geographical barriers, and scheduling) all of which indicated there is a staffing shortage. He commented one weekend alone the SLMPD had 7 DUI arrests. Chief Litsey stated Shorewood had to decide if it wants a reactive department (one that responds and retreats) or a proactive department (one that spends an extra five minutes at a family crisis). He cited a recent situation where an officer responded to an open door at the plaza and he had to enter the building alone. Fortunately nothing happened. The Group considered the possibility of reallocating resources, and it didn't exist. He stated as a professional the SLMPD staffing does not satisfy its needs. The other member cities' councils considered the proposed budget at length; they did not want the increase but thought it was imperative to mitigate officer risk to some degree. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Chief Litsey explained the Deephaven Police Department does not have the issue of bars and the number of people imbibing at those establishments. The DPD doesn't serve multiple communities. Deephaven's demographics are different. It doesn't have the geographical challenges. Therefore, the two schedules cannot be compared. Litsey stated he had nothing personal to gain out of implementing the strategic goals. Because he was approaching retirement age, it would be easier for him to ride out his remaining years and put in a minimum amount of time. Instead he is a workaholic. He took on the strategic planning initiative at the direction of the Coordinating Committee. He hoped t11e Council would consider his professional judgment when making their decision. Councilmember Wellens stated there are many departments around the country that have single officer coverage, and it's not a problem for them. Chief Litsey questioned what Wellens basis was for making the comment. Litsey explained that officer kill summary data is as high if not higher in rural areas where there tends to be single officer coverage; it's because they don't have backup coverage. Wellens didn't think there is a problem with single officer coverage. Chief Litsey stated it was up to the Council to make a policy decision and weigh serving the public and providing officer safety against the City's financial means. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would take Chief Litsey at his word for the need for additional officers. He would not support a 9.5 percent operating budget increase over 2008. He would support a smaller increase and Litsey could spend that however he chose. He commented that he did not want to micromanage the SLMPD budget line item by line item. The SLMPD 2008 adopted operating budget reflected an 8.5 percent increase over the 2007 adopted budget. Chief Litsey clarified the 2008 adopted budget reflected a 5.5 percent increase over the 2007 adopted budget; animal control services were added after the budget was adopted in 2008. The SLMPD had been averaging increases in the 4 - 5 percent SHOI2EW®~D CITE' C®UI~tCIL, IgEGITLAIZ M~ETIIl~G MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 16 of 18 range. He was not willing to support the addition of an officer at the expense of the rest of the operation; that was not prudent. The Department has been doing more with less; it's to the point where less will be done with less. He explained if the budget is not approved by all member cities it will go to the default provision in the JPA. Councilmember Turgeon asked Chief Litsey if he would be willing to live with a lower percent increase; she stated she threw 6 percent out because it had been referred to previously during the meeting. She didn't want to go to the default provision. Litsey explained that is not his decision, but he would take that to the Coordinating Committee for discussion at its meeting tomorrow. The budget would have to be around 6 percent to maintain current operations. Mayor Lizee stated the strategic planning process has been a long process, and there has been a tremendous amount of involvement by member cities representatives. The December 2007 staffing shortage exhibit depicts there was a staffing shortage nearly every day of the month. The residents in the communities expect there to be a minimum of two officers per shift. She did not understand how this Council could not support that. The SLMPD has a number of fixed costs that have been discussed. The proposed budget was considering the entire community. Slie stated earlier in the meeting the Council approved bond financing for the City Hall renovation which will cost the taxpayers slightly over $100,000 in 2009 alone, and it is roughly the same through 2028. The City's portion of the increase for the proposed 2009 SLMPD operating budget is approximately $85,000. She expressed her disappointment. Mayor Lizee stated it did not appear Council would approve the budget; therefore, she will bring that decision back to the Coordinating Committee. Mayor Lizee thanked Chief Litsey for his time and efforts. Discussion moved to Item 12.A on the agenda. B. Request for Proposals This was discussed after Item 10 on the agenda. Councilmember Turgeon stated her request to add this item was to discuss requests for proposals for audit services and legal counsel services for 2009. She stated these RFPs were to be done by the end of July. Acting Administrator Brown stated staff has been working on updating the goals and priorities and staff thought the RFPs had to be completed at a later date. Staff questioned if this activity should wait for the new City Administrator Brian Heck to be on board so he could be involved. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought the process could be started and RFPs requested. Mr. Heck could be part of the selection process. It would be worthwhile to know the cost for audit services for budget purposes. It was her understanding Director Burton was to prepare the RFP and to have it done by the end of July. She also thought the legal counsel RFP was to be done by the same time. Acting Administrator Brown stated Staff can start that process. Staff has been quite busy with other priority activities. sxoREwo®~ C1T~ C®uNCrL x~cuLAla M~ET1~G M1~ruT>/s July 28, 2008 Page 17 of 18 Councilmember Wellens suggested that the legal counsel RFP ask for two bids; one would include legal counsel being present at regular Council meetings and the other would be for providing phone or email support for things that come up at the meetings. He thought the second option could result in savings, and he commented he did not think the City Attorney was needed at many of the meetings. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City should take every opportunity it has to do things differently. He expressed disappointment that the RFP for audit services had not been completed and publicized. He had requested it be done by the end of July. He was disappointed that Staff did not inform Council it would not be done by then. Mayor Lizee stated this could be an opportune time to revisit the goals and priorities. She explained when the decision was made to not hire an external acting city administrator, there was Council consensus that some of the tasks may not be done as fast as had been planned. She stated Staff had been asked to do things that were not on the goals and priorities list and others items took more time consuming or complex than originally expected. From her vantage point she wondered if it was prudent to select a new legal counsel when it was possible that none of the current Councilmembers would be part of the 2009 Council. Also, the new City Administrator did not start his employment until August 18`i' Mayor Lizee questioned why the City should send out RFPs for audit services based on the quality of the services that had been provided. Councilmember Woodruff stated from his vantage point it was a good business practice for Council to find out what the services the City maybe able to get for less for similar costs than it is currently paying. The costs should be factored into the budget process. He stated the City's bond rating was wonderful, and the items that contributed to that rating were wonderful. It is his desire to get the RFPs this year and hopefully in time to incorporate the cost findings into the 2009 budget. Discussion returned to Item 11.A on the agenda. 12. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Approving Change Order No. 1 for the 2008 Sealcoat Project This item was removed from the agenda as there was no longer a need for the change order. 13. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff This was discussed after Item 1 l.A on the agenda. Acting Administrator Brown stated he had emailed Council earlier in the day about Xcel Energy's need to change out the transformer at the signal at intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road; the signal will not be functioning from 9:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M. on July 29`x'. There was a proposed meeting of the Southshore Center working group proposed- for July 30, 2008, at 4:00 P.M. There was an SLMPD Coordinating Committee meeting scheduled for July 29, 2008, at 5:30 P.M. The City had received a number of comments for the Tour-de-Tonka event scheduled for August 2"d. The event organizers had not filed for an event permit. The City will sweep the roads to be traveled by the event participants which have recently been sealcoated prior to the event. There is a budget work session scheduled for August 4`''; it replaces the meeting scheduled for July 21S` that was cancelled. The revised City Administrator SHOREWOOD CITY C®UNCII,1tEGUI.Ai2 MEETING MINUTES July 28, 2008 Page 18 of 18 performance review form will be distributed to Council. Staff had distributed revised RFPs with revised insurance requirements for the owner's representative position to the three companies that had submitted RFPs; to date two of the three original responders had submitted revised RFPs. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Attorney Keane stated a motion for summary judgment had been heard regarding the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club situation over 60 days ago. A ruling has not been issued. Director Nielsen stated the 90-day court order compliance period for Mr. Phillippi to remove the shipping container is approaching. Mr. Phillippi had requested an extension from Staff and was denied. Councilmember Wellens questioned if Staff understood there was Council consensus to have the RFPs for audit services and legal counsel services completed by the next Council meeting, and that his request to have an option in the legal counsel RFP where attendance for City Council meetings should be bid separately. Acting Administrator Brown stated Staff would attempt to get them done, but they do take time to prepare. Attorney Keane suggested Staff check with the City's risk specialist with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust on that suggestion. Councilmember Bailey stated he was not sure it was prudent to rush preparation of the RFPs to the August 11 `~' meeting; quality should not be sacrificed for time. There was consensus to try and have them done by the August 25`x' Council meeting. Councilmember Woodruff stated because of his involvement with the LMCC he was selected to attend the National Association of Television Owners conference at no cost to the City; there are three other LMCC members attending. His specific interest is broadband. He is attending the Metro Cities Revenue and Taxation Policy meetings. The Metro Cites group is very pro the administrative enforcement policy with the exception of traffic. B. Mayor & City Council 14. ADJOURN Bailey moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting Session Meeting of July 28, 2008, at 10:08 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: t/ ___. ~e ~ g~~ ~;ti' .. < ~ Christine Lizee, Mayor A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk