Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2009_tcwsmin0810Council Work Session August 10, 2009 Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Umstattd presiding. Council Members Present: David S. Butler, Thomas Dunn, II, Katie Sheldon Hammier, Marty Martinez, Ken Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Kristen Umstattd Council Members Absent: all present. Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Deputy Town Manager Kaj Dentler, Director of Utilities Randy Shoemaker, Director of Finance Norm Butts, Chief of Operations and Inspections Bob Lilly, Assistant to the Town Manager Kathy Leidich, and Management Specialist Debi Parry 1. Work Session Items for Discussion: a. Flag Display Update Tom Mason stated that staff has looked at various options in conjunction with the Assistant Director for Parks Bill Ference and have decided that Battlefield Parkway may be the best location for expansion of this program. He stated Dominion Virginia Power has given permission for the Town to use their light poles and staff has ordered materials and flags in various sizes to determine what will be best for these locations, Further, he stated more information will be provided in September. There was no Council discussion of this item. b. Right-of-Way Sign Enforcement John Wells stated per Council direction, staff has drafted a letter to the County expressing concern regarding enforcement of right-of-way sign removal within the Town limits. Mayor Umstattd verified the essence of the letter is to request the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors instruct the administrator of the sign removal program to direct staff and citizen volunteers to stop removing signs within the Town boundaries. Mr. Wells stated the discussion at the Board of Supervisors meeting was that this enforcement was not to occur within the Town; however, that direction has not been followed. Council Member Dunn stated he had concern with the County taking on this program as it should be the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) or their designee. He stated this has given too much power to individuals who have not received adequate training and have been too aggressive. Council Member Wright stated as we are VDOT's designee for the Town of Leesburg, we have staff take care of sign removal and do not need additional assistance from the County. Town Council Work Session of August 10 2009 Page 2 Council Member Butler stated he would prefer that the request be expanded to exempt signs for houses of worship throughout the County as there are residents who worship outside the Town. Council Member Dunn stated he believes State law allows houses of worship to have signs on Friday through Sunday to direct individuals to their buildings. He stated this goes back to having untrained vigilantes to go out with more authority to remove signs. Council Member Butler asked that his comments be mentioned in the letter. Council Member Reid concurred with Council Member Dunn's comments regarding vigilantes. He stated the new ordinance only allows signs to be placed in the right-of-way for an hour before an event and an hour after. He stated this places a hardship on a number of real estate agents who are holding open houses. He asked why the Town cannot exclude this program from within the Town's boundaries. Mr. Wells stated the direction from the Board of Supervisors was not to implement the program within the Town`s boundaries; however, the individuals enforcing the program have crossed into the corporate limits of the Town. c. FY 2010 Street Resurfacing Tom Mason stated this program includes 24 street segments in Town that staff is proposing to resurface along with associated curb, gutter and sidewalk repair. He stated the total program is approximately $1 million, which is $100,000 less than what was approved last year. He stated staff also provided four back-up locations to be resurfaced, if there is adequate funding remaining. Council Member Dunn stated during the budget discussions he suggested that this program be reduced by 25 percent and still supports that proposal. He stated the savings could allow for other needs such as additional police officers. Council Member Wright stated he drove on the various roads proposed for improvement and spoke with staff regarding the improvements proposed for Tolbert Lane as opposed to one of the projects on the back-up list. Mr. Mason stated that segment of Tolbert Lane has been temporarily relieved of heavy traffic because of the opening of Battlefield Parkway. He stated once Miller Drive is extended it will connect through Oaklawn with Tolbert Lane increasing the traffic volumes. He stated there are proposed road improvements on both sides of this segment of Tolbert Lane where the adjacent property owners will install additional lanes for turning movements. Further, he stated the condition of the road is very poor and if we allow the problem to continue the new improvements will not work with the existing road. Council Member Wright stated Tolbert Lane is in poor shape now and if the existing conditions are not improved more work will be required on this road besides simple milling and paving. Council Member Butler asked if it is traditional to look at roads with a pavement condition index (PCI) score below 60. Town Council Work Session of August 10 2009 Page 3 Mr. Mason stated staff has a goal of maintaining an average PCI score of 60 for the entire Town. He stated most of the PCI scores on the proposed list are 50 to 40. He stated there are some roads included that have a higher score; however, they have a heavy traffic load that requires more frequent resurfacing. Council Member Butler stated Sycolin Road is scheduled to be widened in a couple of years and considering its PCI score of 59, could that repaving be deferred. Mr. Mason stated that is part of the Sycolin Road Phase III capital improvements project which is unfunded. He stated the cost for that project is approximately $11 million, Council Member Reid verified the funds used for this project are in the operating budget and asked if it were to be cut could the money be used for other projects. Mr. Mason stated the Town received $2.4 million in state maintenance money and staff is required to report how that money is used. He stated the Town always spends more than what the state contributes; however, the number one item to address in maintenance is road resurfacing. He stated other activities are also included in this funding. Council Member Reid stated there are many other needs in the Town, one of which is near the intersection of Sycolin Road and Hope Parkway at Stratford. He suggested that the guard rail be moved and the road bumped out as part of the Sycolin Road capital project. He stated a traffic light is also needed at this intersection. He asked why Tolbert Lane would be rated at 18 when the traffic volume has declined, yet the cul-du-sac at Stratford Place has grass growing through the pavement and has a higher PCI rating. Mr. Mason stated generally where grass is growing through cracks it is the result of a block crack. He stated that is not as bad an indicator of pavement failure as the alligator cracks. Council Member Reid asked the last time North King Street was paved from Cornwall Street to Union Street. Mr. Mason stated one lane was paved several years ago; however, staff has held off on further paving because of the North King Street Drainage project which will require that the road be dug up to allow pipes to be installed underneath. Council Member Reid further discussed the need to repave Catoctin Circle from South King Street to Harrison Street and Kincaid Boulevard at this time. He stated he would Tike to see the proposed paving of Sycolin Road, Catoctin Circle from South King Street to Harrison Street and Miller Drive or Kincaid Boulevard postponed resulting in a savings of $182,000. Further, he stated we could also give direction to staff regarding an amount to cut and let them decide which projects are most important, Council Member Wright stated he drove on the roads proposed in this program on his own and sent questions on the program to staff. He stated he Town Council Work Session of August 10 2009 Page 4 did not want to leave the perception that he was offered anything that was not offered to the rest of Council. Council Member Reid suggested straw votes tonight on the reductions he proposed or providing staff with an amount to cut from the budget. Mayor Umstattd asked that Mr. Reid restate his proposal and stated she would be happy to proceed with the list as staff presented. Council Member Butler stated he would support deferring the projects outlined by Council Member Reid. Council Member Wright asked if Council Member Reid's list is deferred would he have objection to moving the alternate Ifst up to the primary list. Council Member Reid stated that would eliminate the savings and he has not looked at those projects. He stated he would rather keep the project under $1 million and put the savings into other needs. Council Member Wright stated he would not have concern with deferring some of the projects outlined by Council Member Reid; however, he would like the alternate projects moved up. He asked if there is concern that we will not properly expend the VDOT maintenance funds and therefore lose funds for next year. Mr. Mason stated any funds shifted from maintenance to construction would no longer be eligible for reporting as maintenance funds. He stated It probably will not matter much to cut back in a few spots; however, if substantial cuts are made it will be tougher to restore the program. Council Member Reid verified VDOT maintains roads in the County and asked how they determine which roads will be paved given their budget reductions. Mr. Mason stated VDOT is using stimulus money for their major resurfacing jobs. Council Member Reid asked if the Town would lose the funding or if it simply could not be used for construction. Mr. Mason stated if we use the funding the state allocates under the urban maintenance program for construction then we would have to reimburse VDOT for those funds. Council Member Wright stated $100,000 was cut from this program during the budget discussions, He stated any project deferred this year will have to be done next year and he would want to understand any implications of that before further cuts are made. Council Member Martinez stated he concurs with Council Member Wright's comments regarding substituting deferred items with items from the alternate list. He asked if the Town would risk losing money if the maintenance funds are used differently than what was intended, Town Council Work Session of August 10 2009 Page 5 Mr, Mason stated they will not cut us in the future; however, they will make sure that the funds are used correctly. Council Member Martinez stated the project Council Member Reid is referring to on Sycolin Road from the Bypass to north of Hope Parkway is truly a capital project and is included in the Sycolin Road Phase III project, Further, he stated he would support deferring the projects proposed by Council Member Reid; however, he would then like the alternate list moved up. Council Member Reid suggested creating a separate construction project for Sycolin Road and Hope Parkway so it can be completed sooner. He stated there may be some need to reduce the milling and paving program as he proposed and move those funds to the other projects mentioned by Mr. Mason. Vice Mayor Hammier stated we currently spend more than the $2.4 million from VDOT. She supported a disciplined approach in scaling back on what is spent beyond that level. She suggested directing staff to cut approximately $150,000 to $170,000 from the program and then return to Council in a year to provide an impact report and specific analysis. Mr. Mason stated the program is multifaceted. He stated the Town spends $300,000 to $400,000 more than what is received in maintenance payments; however, all of those services funded have been identified by previous Councils as being important to the citizens of Leesburg. Council Member Refd expressed support for Vice Mayor Hammler's recommendation. Council Member Dunn stated the deferrals originally proposed by Council Member Reid total $220,000 and if the Miller Drive project is added the reduction would be $290,000. He stated if we cut the budget here we can reallocate the funds to other maintenance items that are already funded in the budget; therefore, the funds could be reallocated to hire three police officers. Mayor Umstattd stated there are constraints on how the funds can be used. Mr. Mason stated the $1 million for milling and paving combined with the other activities would Tike exceed the $2.4 million provided by VDOT. He stated if $100,000 was cut and reallocated to another use the Town would probably be all right for this fiscal year. Council Member Martinez stated he appreciates Council Member Dunn's concern with public safety. He stated he would like to hear Chief Price explain the need for additional officers and he would then have no problem supporting the request. It was the consensus of Council to consider the original project list and a list including $175,000 in reductions tomorrow night. d. Utility Rate Changes John Weiis stated since the last meeting there has been a high level of Council interest in system cost. Staff and the consultants have looked into the operational costs with an eye towards savings and potential rate reductions. He Town Council Work Session of August 10 2009 Page 6 outlined the revised set of rates for in-town and out-of-town customers stating the In-town water rate increases have been reduced to five percent for each of the first three years of the five year period. He stated the out-of-town decrease for water and sewer has been reduced in the first year and the out-of-town differential is now 41 percent for water and 52 percent for sewer. Further, he outlined various sample bills for commercial, out-of-town, in-town, and high-use surcharge users. Mr. Wells stated to create these savings staff has removed funding for two years from a supervisory position that will become vacant at the end of the year. He stated staff also looked at a $400,000 reduction in the utility operating budget to address the clear well tank problem which will be adjusted to a capital project, He stated the utility fund capital improvements project fund will be reduced by $298,000 over a two year period. Further, he stated he met with the energy consultant who stated most of the ~~lower hanging fruit" in terms of energy savings have already been attained by staff and there are longer-term savings options that could be achieved with a capital investment. Mr. Wells outlined responses to earlier questions posed by Council including whether the new financial proposal is sound, how to avoid large swings in rates in the future, how the enterprise fund works, why a rate study is being conducted at this time, how the court ruling affects rate setting specifically and what happens if the Town does nothing. Further, he outlined what the Town would need to do in order to eliminate the proposed 5 percent increase for in- town customers and the potential implications. Council Member Dunn stated the main issue for him is budget cuts; however, we are moving forward with a long term solution with only partial information. He stated Council does not have the results of the management study and he does not feel that Council has looked at all aspects of the department to identify cuts and alternatives. Mr. Wells stated if Council would like to have a discussion regarding $630,000 in reductions he would want to know which service areas Council would like to reduce service in. He stated any major cuts will likely result in service impacts to customers. Council Member Dunn stated not having any real evaluation until the last hour makes it difficult to do a proper analysis of what Council should consider reducing. He stated this is a great effort; however, he would like to see Council set the out-of-town rates at what the court directed and then step back to conduct a full analysis before making longer term decisions, He stated it seems when things are pushed, we can come up with more effective spending; however, we are not there yet. Vice Mayor Hammier verified the information provided by Mr. Wells tonight will also be provided tomorrow night. Council Member Martinez asked if Mr. Wells is saying that any additional cuts Council may make to the Utility Department would lower the quality of service that the residents have enjoyed. Town Council Work Session of August 10, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Wells stated the cuts recommended along with the revised rates this evening can be accomplished within the budget and should not materially affect the quality of service provided. He stated he is concerned with any cuts beyond what was recommended. Council Member Martinez stated Council Member Dunn had a valid point when he asked why these cost reductions recommended tonight were not imposed earlier. He asked if they are now proposed as a result of the lawsuit. Mr. Wells stated a budget represents a snapshot in time and one of the key points is when we get a budget we do not assume we will spend every dollar. There are times when we can identify cost savings as part of general operations after budget approval and in this case we have an upcoming retirement that is allowing us to reexamine this position, as is done with ail vacancies. Further, he stated, the Town, as an organization looks to identify cost savings every day. Council Member Martinez further discussed cost efficiencies, utility management and the reliability of the utility functions in the Town. He stated the citizens of Leesburg have a lot of pride in the utility system and he is very proud of the way this system has been managed. Further, he stated some of the issues are because of the decisions Council has made, so first and foremost Council needs to make decisions based on the best quality of life that can be provided to the residents. Council Member Wright stated one of the reasons we are able to adopt rates higher than mentioned in the court order is because we conducted this rate study and asked if we simply just address the court order and leave the in town rates alone then can we not use the rate study as our defense for adopting the higher rates. Jeanette Irby stated part of the reason for doing the study is to make the system healthy and just adopting the court order would create a significant deficit, which would not be in compliance with the order's direction to set a fair and reasonable rate. Council Member Wright stated adopting the court order figures would have the water rate differential at nine percent and the sewer rate differential at 43 percent. He stated by doing the rate study we are protecting the system and showing the validation for Implementing a differential higher than was ordered by the court based on our changing circumstances. He stated in researching the water surcharge change and the 100 percent sewer change he was comforted in knowing that we will not be operating fundamentally different than Loudoun Water as they have a lower tripping percentage for their surcharge and charge 100 percent sewer for their commercial users across the board. He asked if there would be any harm in not making the calculation change from winter quarter to low quarter for the surcharge. Mr, Wells stated it could be left as it is today. Council Member Wright asked if the 100 percent sewer charge is adopted on September 1, it could be unfair to those residents who are already watering their lawns. He stated we also have not had time to study alternatives to this Town Council Work Session of August 10 2009 Paae 8 calculation. He asked if there would be a concern with holding off on this change till January 1. Mr. Wells stated there is no problem with that in the short-term as it gives staff the opportunity to evaluate alternatives. Council Member Wright stated staff calculated 3.4 percent of users are impacted by the high water usage surcharge. Further, he stated 5,8 percent of users have irrigation systems. He verified staff reanalyzed the entire sewer system CIP and reevaluated and proposed cuts to operation costs. He stated there has been much discussion of capital costs; however, the capital costs have more of an impact on the differential than on the rate. He concurred with Council Member Martinez that he would not want to violate the Town's permits or state/federal law nor does he want to jeopardize quality of service or public safety by making cost cuts. He verified staff and the consultants believe this current rate study is conservative and applies our current situation to affect current rates. Further, he stated he hopes to move these rates down in the future; however, Council is forced to make this decision now to be in compliance with the court order and bond covenants as the only way the utility fund can harm the general fund is through the bond rating. Council Member Butler verified the Town would still be running a significant deficit in the Utility Fund whether or not we prevailed in the court case and asked that this be emphasized during staff's presentation tomorrow night. He stated tomorrow night at the end of Council comments before the public speaks, he would like to provide a presentation. He stated he will show the presentation only if Mr, Wells and Ms. Irby review it to insure the content is accurate, a majority of Council approve and if it feels right at the time. Council Member Reid stated he would support a conversation about reductions. He stating looking at the budget and statistics there has been a decrease in the number of calls handled by the Utility Maintenance Division. He asked why the number of plans reviewed by the Utility Administration Division has tripled. Mr. Shoemaker stated as part of the overall improvement to the Town's land use process the Utilities Department has begun review of water and sewer items related to applications; whereas, this was done previously by the engineering staff. Further, he stated the drop in calls for Utility Maintenance is a result of the proactive maintenance that has been performed. Council Member Reid asked if the Utility Administrative Division could be funded by the General Fund. Mr. Wells stated that function is a responsibility of the Utility Fund. He stated if we were to be audited in that regard the integrity of the enterprise fund would be of concern. Council Member Reid stated when he asked the consultants they could not tell him for sure if any other utilities in Virginia use General Fund monies. Town Council Work Session of Auaust 10, 2009 Paae 9 Ms. Irby cautioned that the City of Falls Church is currently being sued by Fairfax Water for using utility system monies to supplement the general fund. She stated you cannot use taxpayer dollars to fund an enterprise fund. Council Member Reid stated he is concerned with the $16 million in undesignated fund balance, He questioned whether the Town is amassing tax revenue. He questioned why the General Fund cannot loan the money to the Utility Fund. Mr. Butts stated that generally accepted accounting principles and Government Accounting Standards Board (GABBY) require that enterprise funds be self-sustaining. He stated if we took General Fund money and used it to subsidize an enterprise fund, we would not be in compliance with those standards. He stated during bond issues, some of the questions regarding the enterprise fund focus on whether the enterprise fund is self-sustaining. Council Member Reid questioned why the Airport Fund, which is an enterprise fund, gets contributions from the General Fund. Mr. Wells made the distinction that the Airport Fund was not intended to issue debt. It was set up as an enterprise fund to receive grant funds. He stated the Utility Fund is set up as an enterprise fund to be able to issue its own debt. Council Member Reid questioned how much of the rate increase would be to fund the Lower Sycolin Creek Conveyance System and what the current cost for that project is estimated to be. Mr. Wells stated the current estimated cost is $7.5 million, Council Member Martinez clarified that the Airport Fund has the ability to get grant money from the State and Federal government. He stated he cannot recall any time the Airport Fund was supposed to be self-sustaining, He stated with the Utility Fund, the amount borrowed is based on not using General Fund money. Mr. Wells clarified that using General Fund money for the Utility Fund would put the credit rating for the entire Town at risk. Council Member Reid stated he would like to see something in the Bond Covenants that Indicate why General Fund or tax money cannot be used for the Utility Fund. He also questioned why the Town has to set in-town and out-of- town rates at the same time. Myron Olstein, Draper Aden, stated there are two criteria to setting the rate, one is the court order and the other is the bond holder requirement of 125% coverage. He stated the proposed rates will give the Town 126% coverage. He stated anything below that, would give the bond holders the legal right to put a lock on the utility facilities. He stated this is pretty specific that borrowing money that is in reserves is not part of the calculation. Council Member Reid stated he is trying to reduce the rate of increase to the inflation rate. He questioned what percent of the $7.5 million is rate increase Town Council Work Session of August 10 2009 Page 10 and why the Town needs to spend this money to provide utilities to Bolen Park and the jail. Mr. Shoemaker stated most capital projects are funded at 55% debt service and 45% cash. He stated this project is unique as it is a capital investment for the Town and is under an established pro rata that the Town adopted a few years ago. He stated the debt on that will be recovered through an additional fee when someone connects to the system, He stated part of the project includes abandonment of existing pump facilities for the airport and other development in that area. Council Member Reid questioned whether the connector to Goose Creek could be resized to provide everyday service. Mr. Shoemaker discussed pressure zones and added agreements would need to be made with Loudoun Water and Loudoun County and additional capacity would be needed at the water treatment facility. Council Member Reid questioned why the Utility Fund is being reduced to ix gross revenue. He questioned whether this would be a red flag to the ratings agencies. Mr. Wells stated he felt that the overall package of reserves is enough for the ratings agencies. Council Member Reid questioned whether space could be leased in the Utility Maintenance Building to offset the rate increase. He requested that examples in tomorrow night's presentation be scaled for the average homeowner. Mr. Butts pointed out that tax exempt financing for government uses requires only 10% of a project be used for non-governmental uses. He stated available space could be leased, but it would have to stay below the 10% level. Mayor Umstattd clarified that Council Member Wright wanted to delay the implementation of the change to 100% sewer billing until after January 1, 2010 and the language would remain winter quarter, rather than the proposed low quarter. She questioned what the implications for the Utility Fund would be. Ms. Irby stated the consultants do not feel these changes would have too much impact, but would give staff time to come up with alternatives. Mayor Umstattd stated she will be making a motion to readvertise the rates presented on July 13 in the Draper Aden report. She stated these rates were not seriously considered by Council and she believes not considering these rates does the citizens a disservice. Council Member Dunn stated he would Tike to discuss these rates now. Council Member Wright clarified that the court ordered the Town to use the Utility Rate method as presented by the plaintiffs. He stated we modified that by using current numbers and smoothed out the increases. He questioned what range of differentials the Mayor would like to use. Town Council Work Session of August 10 2009 Page 11 Mayor Umstattd stated a high of 112% for water and 344% for sewer Council Member Wright stated that would put the Town at greater risk with the Court. He stated those percentages are not based on the most recent numbers provided by the consultants. He stated doing this rate study and maximizing the differential protects the citizen's interest. Mayor Umstattd stated her concern is in trying to adhere to the Judge's order, we would have lower rates out-of-town, than in-town. She stated none of the scenarios presented are in strict conformance with the Judge's order. She stated her suspicion is the Judge had something else in mind when he wrote the order. She stated the one clear thing the Judge said was to use the Utility Rate method. She stated under this method, the citizens have a right to a decent rate of return, which is not being provided in the numbers that have been proposed. Ms. Irby clarified the specific Utility Rate method used by the complainant is referred to as the Court Ordered Utility Rate Method (COURM). She stated he arrived at a rate using that specific method. She noted the consultants ran the numbers using that method as well as a number of other methods, She advised the least risky path for the Town to take with regard to further litigation on this particular rate study is to follow the Court Ordered Utility Rate Method until the appeal is heard by the Supreme Court. Vice Mayor Hammier stated she feels Council is getting proper legal advice from the Town Attorney that there is no 97% to 220% differential that will comply with the court order. She stated the risks are tangible related to legal fees. Council Member Butler stated the out of towners will still be paying more than the in towners, He stated the vast majority of the rate Increase is due to the deficit in the fund rather than the change in the differential. He stated he did not feel the court would look kindly on the Town modifying the method the court used for the purpose of trying to maintain or exceed the 100% differential that the court already found to be unfair and unreasonable. Council Member Dunn questioned whether 228% differential for out of town customers allow the Town to operate on an even basis. Council Member Butler stated he did not feel it would help in the long run, as it would be a single year change. Mayor Umstattd stated it would not be just for the first year, but would help keep in town rate increases at or below the inflation rate. Council Member Dunn stated he did not vote for the appeal on the constitutionality of the rate, but on the fact that the judge dictated to an elected body what they should do. He stated he would vote against this proposal because he does not feel the judge gets to make the decisions in this Town. He noted the Council does not have to raise in town rates, but is choosing to make that choice sooner than needed. Town Council Work Session of August 10 2009 Page 12 Ms. Irby discussed what would occur if Council fails to take action at the meeting tomorrow night, There was discussion regarding the Mayor's proposed rates and whether they comply with the court order. e. Fiscal Policy Mr. Butts stated the draft resolution amends the fiscal policy for the Town. He stated staff has added a section dealing with the Utilities Fund which mirror the recommendations made by the consultant. He described the changes that have been made. Council Member Wright stated he appreciates the ability to monitor circumstances and assumptions and use those to adjust rates as time goes by. Council Member Reid suggested wording to the proposed resolution regarding decreasing expenses and increasing revenue and the undesignated fund balance. Council Member Butler stated he is concerned about funding for future plant expansions and asked that language be added to ensure that adequate funds be set aside for expansion plans. Mayor Umstattd stated she concurred with Council Member Wright's concerns about adding customers. She stated within the next five years, the Town will be at or near capacity and feels that looking for customers outside our service area may not be prudent. She stated given the information that was available at the time the last plant expansion was approved, it was necessary. She cautioned rezonings that will consume more capacity will occur. She stated she wants to make sure that nothing in the fiscal policy precludes the opportunity to assess a differential on outside customers. Mr. Butts stated the intent is not to preclude a rate setting method. Ms. Irby stated the Town's charter allows a differential and trumps any fiscal policy. 2. Additions to Future Council Meetings Council Member Wright stated the first set of meetings in September occur on the first and second days of school, He suggested holding one set of meetings in September and moving it to the third Tuesday of the month to give the public more opportunity to attend. Mr. Wells stated there is nothing on the draft agenda that would require the first meeting to be held the second week of September, Council Member Dunn stated he is hesitant to suggest fewer meetings for Council. He suggested not changing the meetings. The majority of Council Members concurred with Council Member Dunn. Adjournment Towh Council Work Session of August St7 2009 Page 13 {fin a motion by Council Membor Martinez, secan bVright, the meeting was adjourned at 51:00 p,m. 2069 tcvrsmin06i0