Parks and Trails Replacement Plan Fund Joint Parks and Natural Resources Commission/Audit and Investment Commission Meeting

Agenda October 6, 2020 | 7 p.m.

Public Safety Education and Training Conference Rooms Public Safety, 2100 Radio Drive

Please note: Due to COVID-19, the October 6, Parks and Trails Replacement Plan Fund Joint Commission meeting is taking place virtually and at Public Safety in the Public Safety Training Center. Members of the public may attend the meeting, but will be required to comply with social distancing parameters as determined by the City. Members of the public may also join the meeting using a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device. Public comments will be accepted during the meeting by using the link to the virtual meeting to join the meeting and then submit your questions via the online Q&A feature within the meeting. * Please note that all agenda times are estimates.

7:00* 1. Call to Order – Parks and Trails Replacement Plan Fund Joint Commission Meeting 7:02 2. Special Order of Business – Presentation of Outstanding Volunteer Award to Timothy Brewington, II 7:10 3. Approval of the Minutes of the Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Joint Commission Meeting – September 1, 2020 7:15 4. Parks and Trails Replacement Plan Funding Mechanism

9:00 5. Adjournment

If a Commission member cannot attend this meeting, please contact Belinda Reed at 651-714-3584 by Monday, October 5, 2020. Thank you.

The City of Woodbury is subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The City is committed to full implementation of the Act to our services, programs, and activities. Information regarding the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act is available from the City Administrator's office at 651-714-3500. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 72 hours in advance of an event. Please call the ADA Coordinator, at 651-714-3500 (TDD 651-714-3568) to make arrangements.

City of Woodbury 8301 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, MN 55125

651-714-3500

Minutes of The

Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Joint Commission Meeting

Tuesday, September 1, 2020 Audit and Investment Commission Members In-person or Virtual: Blake Darsow, Ken Johnson, Jeanine Kuwik, John

Lehman - Virtual, Aileen Lyle (Chair), Richard Osborn Parks and Natural Resources Commission Members In-person or Virtual: Greta Bjerkness (Chair), Timothy Brewington, II –

Virtual, Arin Kurttila, Bruce Montgomery, Deborah Musser, Rachel Nelson, Jakob Neau - Virtual

Commission Members Absent: Heidi Conrad, Audit and Investment Ross Dahlin, Audit and Investment Karin Freymann, Parks and Natural Resources City Council In-person: Mayor Anne Burt, Council Members Steve Morris and

Amy Scoggins Staff In-person or Virtual: Angela Gorall, Assistant City Administrator Clinton Gridley, City Administrator

Tim Johnson, Finance Director Michelle Okada, Parks and Recreation Director Belinda Reed, Recording Secretary

Robert James, ICT Director (Virtual) Ben Stroback, IT Manager (Virtual) Item 1: Call to Order

Parks and Natural Resources Commission Chair Greta Bjerkness, called the meeting to order at 7

p.m.

A roll call was conducted and each in-person and virtual commission members and staff members were introduced. Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of the Audit and Investment Commission Meeting - August 13, 2020 Audit and Investment Commission Co-chair Ken Johnson, asked for the approval of the August 13, 2020, Audit and Investment Commission meeting minutes. MOTION: Moved by Co-Chair Johnson to approve the August 13, 2020, Audit and Investment

Commission meeting Minutes.

Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 2 VOTE: In favor All in-person and virtual Against None Absent Heidi Conrad Item 3: Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Ms. Okada thanked the Commissioners for their participation highlighting the importance of maintaining the high quality of life, equity and access that Woodbury has established as our park system. In recapping the Parks and Trails Replacement Fund (PTRF), Ms. Okada noted the Parks and Trails Replacement Plan was identified as a Strategic Initiative by the City Council. The fund’s purpose is to address the growing liability of the aging parks system by supporting the replacement of park and trail amenities, with the average yearly replacement need identified as approximately $2.9 million. To help guide the meeting discussion, Ms. Gorall reviewed five key questions that the joint Commissions will be asked to answer as the process moves forward.

1) Recommend this overall pursuit – Yes or No 2) Recommend this overall approach – Yes or No 3) Support the financial options under consideration – Yes or No 4) Support the timing for implementation of the selected recommendation – Yes or No 5) Support the final recommendation to Council – Yes or No

The joint Commissions reviewed the overall timeline of the process through the potential use of the fund beginning in 2023. It was noted that whether the approach would be to use either franchise fees or property taxes, or some combination thereof, it would involve the same process and timeline. Mr. Gridley noted that with a property tax approach, the property tax component would become part of the 2022 Budget action; money would be fully collected by the end of the year 2022, and usable in 2023. Mr. Gridley noted that in 2020, the Council made an initial deposit of $500,000 seed money into the PTRF. With the added $186,000 from the Operating and Capital funds, which would normally be spent on parks and trails, the 2021 Budget fund balance currently totals $686,000, which falls short of the $2.9 million that has been identified as the current average yearly replacement need. To provide a sense of scale with regard to franchise fees, the Commissioners were provided rate book information, a comparable Municipal Legislative Commission Cities Franchise Fee Comparisons (handout) and comparison graphs. Rate Books Staff noted that every utility has a rate book which outlines how the utility charges their customers. The book lists each city and then breaks down by type of customer/user, followed by the effective and expiration dates of the fees. It was noted that while Xcel Energy is the sole provider of electricity in the City of Woodbury, gas service is provided by both Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. It was noted that the utilities do not charge an administrative fee for collecting franchise fees.

Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 3 The Xcel Energy’s electric rate book lists 89 Minnesota cities that are charging franchise fees. While the majority of the 89 cities use a flat fee, 14 cities use something other than a flat fee/some type of percentage. The Xcel Energy gas franchise fee rate book lists 42 cities that are charging franchise fees, with 11 cities using something other than a flat fee. The CenterPoint Energy gas rate book lists 66 cities using franchise fees, with 14 cities using other than a flat fee. Because Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy rate books do not have corresponding/identical titles for each of their different user types, at some point staff will have to reach out to each utility to translate. Mr. Gridley noted that one of the things that staff is looking for the Commissions to think about has to do with whether it makes sense for staff to continue with researching franchise fees to fund the PTRF, or if the Commissions are leaning towards use of a combination of franchise fees and property tax or just property tax. For instance, if the Commissions determine pursuing and collecting certain information is a non-starter, it would help staff manage the process moving forward, by focusing on the preferred approach. Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) Cities Comparisons The Commission members were provided a sheet with Comparison Cities, Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) Association consisting of 17 suburban communities sharing similar characteristics; a group Woodbury often is compared with. Staff focused on residential electric monthly franchise fees. Comparison cities, which charge a flat franchise fee for electric averaging $2.89 per month, were reviewed. Mr. Gridley noted that another way for the Commissions to provide guidance to staff would be to determine whether a fixed dollar amount or a percentage franchise fee is preferred. With a fixed fee, the Commissions inquired about how rate increases might be handled and if a rate increase would be brought back to the City Council. Staff noted that the comparison cities handle their fees differently. Mr. Gridley noted that with franchise fees, there could be in place an enacting legislation that year one it is this, year two is this, and year three … etc., and it occurs in one action if it is a franchise fee. If it is property tax, it is a one-year and revisit; year by year decision, while franchise fees you can encapsulate a bunch of years. Conversely, with property taxes the value grows, whereas franchise fees do not have that natural growth. The City Council levies $1, not the rate: the rate is the outcome. With regard to how the various cities are using their franchise fee funds, staff noted the majority of the comparison cities are using their franchise fee funds for roads, while other communities use the fees for parks and trails, underground utilities lines and other things important to their communities, or add the funds to their general fund. Mr. Gridley noted that with a $2.9 million goal, with a resolution Council could create the action

Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 4 that establishes a multi-year plan that indicates the rate plan for each year, as one action by one Council at one time that would flow into multiple years. It does not naturally inflate other than the addition of houses, but it was noted that the addition of houses probably does not keep up with the cost index. With regard to how many cities might be using a blend of franchise fees and property taxes, staff noted it might be difficult to answer depending upon what the use is and whether the franchise fee can cover it. As to whether a franchise fee would be more favorable from a cash flow perspective, with reference to the timing of the collection, it was noted the franchise fees are collected by the utilities from customers on a monthly basis, with the utilities dispersing payment to the cities on a quarterly basis. Comparison cities’ residential gas and electric monthly franchise fees vary by city. Some cities charge the same for both gas and electric, while others have varying fees for gas and electric. The comparison cities’ residential gas monthly franchise fees is averaging $3. If the overall bill at the end of the year is higher for gas and less for electric, and it is determined that the franchise fee should be a similar percentage for what the customer is paying in total for the year, then the fees cannot be the same. Other charts shown exhibited small commercial and industrial monthly franchise fees for comparison cities vary depending on non-demand times versus demand times and large commercial and industrial monthly franchise fees. The portfolios of each city vary with regard to what types of businesses they have. The Commissions asked staff to provide a definition for non-demand time and demand time. Comparison Cities - Franchise Fees Going forward, with regard to comparable city information, staff asked the Commissions whether they would like more information about fees/details, percentage options, view data differently, or whatever other questions they might have. A Commissioner inquired about the flat fee option and whether the fee would be assessed by identity of payer or by individual property. An example given was whether the school district, with a number of building, would pay one fee or a fee per each property. Staff noted each property would have a separate meter and each property would pay a flat fee. In order to get a better lens around equity, it was noted that some of the comparison cities have more diversity compared to Woodbury, and in order to get a sense of percentage of franchise fees, more information on how that might impact incomes was requested. Staff noted that the City of Woodbury receives no revenue from sales tax dollars. Initial Options With a $2.9 million goal, Woodbury is currently putting in a property tax contribution (which includes both commercial and residential) annually of $686,000 into the PTRF, which represents a

Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 5 $20.58 yearly impact on a median value home with a median value home defined as $340,000. This leaves a yearly deficit of $2,254,542, which is currently not being funded. A discussion took place with regard to funding the entire $2.9 million yearly using only property taxes. The impact yearly to the median value home would be $88.22. Staff was asked to provide additional information as to what the yearly impact would be on the largest commercial property taxpayers, if the entire $2.9 million were funded by property taxes only. It was noted that the total number of property taxpayers is less than the number of franchise fee payers, because franchise fees would be applied to every meter across the city, including non-profits that do not pay property taxes. Staff was asked for the non-profit percentage of the City’s base. With regard to multi-family units and apartments, it was noted that depending on how their building is set-up, residents of multi-family units would pay a franchise fee either directly or indirectly through their rent payment. If was noted that if 100 percent of the $2.9 million were paid exclusively by franchise fees, there would be no impact on the medium home value property tax payment. Option 1 (Low End Fee) If the city maintains the property tax contribution of $686,000 each year into the PTRF, which equates to $20.58/year per a median value home, and added a $1.25 monthly gas and electric franchise fee on the median value home, which combined totals $1,183,341 per year, there would remain a deficit contribution of approximately $1,071,201 per year. Staff was asked to obtain Xcel Energy’s definition for small commercial and industrial versus large. Option 2 (High End Fee) If the City were to fund the entire amount of the PTRF yearly from franchise fees, representing approximately $81 to each payer, the franchise fees would generate $2,957,445 with approximately a $16,903 surplus. If the total funding where to be generated using only franchise fees, Xcel Energy recommended using an equal percentage of the customer’s total bills for both gas and electric, by charging $4/month for electric and $2.75/month for gas. Staff was asked to investigate in the case of a property tax delinquency, how that would work in relation to franchise fees and what would be the risks. In addition, if the City collected more in franchise fees than was needed to fund the PTRF, would any overage be placed in the General Fund or moved to a different year? As to the mechanics, it was noted that a franchise fee would be enacted by ordinance, which is a longer deliberation process than a resolution. In a hybrid plan, where part of it is dedicated from ordinance, the other one is a budget resolution every year. A future council could decide that it is

Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 6 not as high a priority and not fund the property tax portion fully; the franchise fee would be fully funded unless the ordinance was repealed, but the property tax portion would be subject to deliberation every year. It would depend on how the ordinance is written. A Commission member noted they would not support the drafting of an ordinance that would leave it flexible as to how the funds would be used -- would want a specific declared purpose. A Commissioner asked for the process used to enact an ordinance. Staff noted that in the case of a franchise fee, the process would include City staff working with the City Attorney, reaching out to the utilities to make sure it was in compliance, a workshop with Council for any changes or adjustments and then it would be for adoption with a 10-day notification prior to consideration. Once it becomes a law in the books, it would not come up each and every year like the property tax levy. Staff noted that the League of Minnesota Cities has a model franchise fee and an attorney specializing in franchise fees, both of which are available to Woodbury. It was also noted that Woodbury currently has franchise fees ordinances on the books. When looking at the long-term liability of a franchise fee, there was discussion with regard to possible negative revenue impacts. Examples were given including the impact being experienced by cities that currently have lodging taxes and how that revenue stream may be impacted during the current pandemic, or non-payer utility customers that change to solar power. Another example noted was with water conservation measures in place, there has been an impact/reduction in water revenues. A discussion took place comparing the exposure differences between a fixed franchise fee and a percentage franchise fee. The question was raised with regard to what the affect/exposure would future energy efficiencies have on the long-term liability of a franchise fee. Staff asked the Commissions if there was anything that could be eliminated at this point. A Commissioner noted they would be more comfortable if there is a plan for fully funding the plan noting that Option 1 with $1 million year one, $1 million year two, just does not seem like the issue of funding the PTRF is being addressed. When reviewing the slide entitled “Initial Options – Option 1 (Low End Fee), a Commissioner commented that a natural third option would be to generate enough franchise fees to also cover the funding deficit of $1,071,201, for a total franchise fee contribution of $2,254,542. Staff noted that when the city goes into a neighborhood for a street rehab project, the street rehab fund has been picking up the cost of the trails; however, the city is reaching the point where the street rehab fund cannot continue to pay the trail costs as well. A discussion took place as to the level of commitment to the franchise fee by the City Council. It was noted that researching other communities, there is usually a robust public process regarding the franchise fees and exactly what those fees will be used for. It was also noted that the PTRF is a living document that will grow with constant evaluation and transparency that has been set-up as a fund, separated from the General Fund.

Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 7 A discussion took place with regard to how many residential households use both gas and electric. Staff noted that Xcel Energy lists 1,600 more residential electric customers than residential gas customers in Woodbury. CenterPoint Energy, which is a provider of gas only, has approximately 650 residential gas customers in Woodbury. The Commission inquired about the number of small and large commercial meters in the City. Staff noted that while the utilities were very transparent on the number of residential customers, the information provided on commercial and industrial were only rounded numbers. A discussion took place with regard to the in-house extensive process of the Parks and Trails Replacement Plan inventory to identify the $2.9 million needed yearly and whether a peer review would be useful to assure the number to be funded is the right number, before franchise fees and/or property taxes are considered. Staff noted the plan recommends replacement of specific park and trail amenities based on standard life expectancy, which is based on local and national professional standards and practices. Council Member Morris asked if the City has a depreciation schedule policy or if there is a document that shows how we are classifying assets. Mr. Tim Johnson noted that from a financial standpoint, that is a different set of assets, as a lot of assets are below the threshold of what Finance will look at for financial purposes, that are on this list. It was noted that the PTRF is a much more detailed list than exists on the accounting system because Finance is looking at large assets. Council Member Morris noted he would like to see clarification or documentation as to the asset value decreasing or increasing and how the plan adjusts to those changes, if the fund is to be funded. Ms. Gorall again reviewed the five questions that were discussed at the beginning of the meeting with the first three questions addressed, as follows:

1) Recommend this overall pursuit – Yes 2) Recommend this overall approach – Yes 3) Support the financial options under consideration – Yes

Questions 4 and 5 will be addressed at the next meeting. 4) Support the timing for implementation of the selected recommendation – Yes or No 5) Support the final recommendation to Council – Yes or No

Ms. Okada asked for any direction or specifics the Commissioners would like to provide for staff to research with the utilities. A Commission member reiterated with Woodbury known as a good place to do business and a good place to invest in business, they would need to see a lot more information on the real financial impact on the City’s commercial properties. Mr. Gridley noted that for every $1 paid in property taxes by businesses, about $.11 to $.13 cents goes to the City of Woodbury. For every $1 in residential property taxes paid, $.25 cents goes to the City. The State of Minnesota collects about 50 percent of a commercial property tax bill.

Parks and Trails Replacement Fund Meeting Minutes September 1, 2020 Page 8 Staff noted that the City of Woodbury does not have a sales tax option that other cities have available to them. With approximately 20,000 residential properties, staff was asked to see if Xcel Energy would provide ratio information between commercial and all residential. It was noted that the rate sheet categorizations are determined/established by the utility. The rates are determined by the city. Item 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

City of Woodbury, Minnesota Office of City Administrator

October 1, 2020 To: City of Woodbury Audit and Investment Commission and Parks and Natural

Resources Commission From: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator Subject: Parks and Trails Replacement Fund

Summary As directed by Council, staff will continue to present information to the Parks and Natural Resources Commission and the Audit and Investment Commission seeking input on the financing approach and timing for the Parks and Trails Replacement Fund. Over the next few months, staff will present the plan and funding options seeking your review, feedback, and ultimate funding recommendation. At the upcoming October 6, meeting, we will continue to focus on the five questions outlined at last month’s meeting:

1) Recommend this overall pursuit? a. Strategic initiative, establishment of fund b. Comprehensive asset and depreciation planning

2) Recommend this overall approach? a. Evaluating options by Commissions b. Making recommendation to the Council

3) Support the financial options under consideration? 4) Support the timing for the selected recommendation? 5) Support the final recommendation to Council?

Staff will further outline benefits and disadvantages of both tax levy support and franchise fees as sustainable funding mechanisms for the Parks and Trails Replacement Fund. We will review a varied approach to these funding mechanisms to determine how we might approach funding the plan with franchise fees in total, blended with other sources, or not including franchise fees in the funding solution. Recommendation This item is for the update, discussion, and feedback purposes only; there is no particular action required. Specific feedback is requested regarding questions the Commissions may have on the fund, plan, or potential funding mechanism. Fiscal Implications Within the 2020 Budget, $500,000 from property taxes was allocated to begin seeding the replacement fund. The proposed 2021 Budget currently includes $686,000 from Property Tax Levy, Property Tax reallocation from General Fund and Property Tax reallocation from Capital Improvement Fund. The total funding goal is approximately $2.9 million per year to sustain the fund.

Audit and Investment Commission Parks and Natural Resources Commission October 6, 2020 Page 2 of 2

Policy 2019-2021 City Council Strategic Initiative, Parks and Trails Replacement Plan Critical Success Factor, Quality of Life Public Process Parks and Natural Resources Commission and Audit and Investment Commission meetings August-November 2020. Additional public process will be conducted as appropriate. Background Woodbury’s parks and trails are essential assets that enhance the quality of life in our community. The City maintains 3,386 acres of park and recreation land, 76 sport courts, 152 miles of paved trails, 55 named parks, 19 irrigation systems, 123 athletic fields, 31 buildings/structures, and 46 play structures. Unfettered access to quality parks and trails support health and well-being, equity, economic development, and preservation and protection of the natural environment. The age of individual assets and continued growth of the system necessitates a robust plan for maintenance and eventual replacement. The plan that is being developed recommends the replacement of specific park and trail amenities, based on professional and safety replacement standards and standard life expectancy. Staff will continue to evaluate each area of the system regularly and as items are due and requiring replacement, they will be moved from the asset plan to the Capital Improvement Plan, and eventually presented with the annual budget request. With increasing asset-liability, the time to respond is now, to avoid severe depletion of the overall system. A long-term funding plan is needed to support the Council Strategic Initiative and the Replacement Plan for the parks and trails system. Written By: Michelle Okada, Parks and Recreation Director

Angela Gorall, Assistant City Administrator Approved Through: Clinton P. Gridley, City Administrator Attachment: 1. 9.1.2020 Joint Commission Meeting PowerPoint

Presentation

Parks and Trails Replacement Plan & Fund

Audit and Investment Commission

Park and Natural Resources Commission

September 1, 2020

•Last Meeting Recap

•Key Questions for Commissioners

•Overall Timeline

•Comparison Cities with Franchise Fees

• Initial Options

Agenda &Main Discussion Points

Last Meeting Recap

• Importance of Parks and Trails Replacement Fund

• Council Strategic Initiative

•Growing liability of aging parks system

•Average yearly replacement need is ~$2.9 Million

Liabilities vs. Funding

$2.9 Million

$686,000Current Available Funding

Current Average Yearly Need

Last Meeting Recap

•Fund will support the replacement of park and trail amenities

• Comprehensive Asset and Depreciation Plan

•Assumptions of Plan reviewed

•Franchise fees 101

1) Recommend this overall pursuit? • Strategic Initiative, Establishment of Fund• Comprehensive Asset & Depreciation

Planning

2) Recommend this overall approach?• Evaluating options by Commissions• Making a recommendation to Council

3) Support the financial options under consideration?

4) Support the timing for implementation of the selected recommendation?

5) Support the final recommendation to Council?

Key Questions

No Yes

No Yes

No Yes

No Yes

No Yes

Overall Timeline

Timeline Actions

August, 2020 – November, 2020 • Audit & Investment Commission and

Parks and Natural Resources

Commission joint meetings

• Formation of recommendation to City

Council

January, 2021 • Council workshop and presentation of

recommendation

January, 2021 – August, 2021 • Council evaluation

• Potential public involvement process

• Potential initial Council action

January, 2022 • Potential first collection of franchise fees

2023 • Potential use of funds commences

•Rate book information

•Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) Cities

• handout

•Comparison Graphs

Comparison Cities –Franchise Fees

Comparison Cities - Franchise Fees

•Xcel Electric example

•89 Cities listed*

•14 use something other than flat fee

*Only Xcel customers

Comparison Cities - Franchise Fees

•Xcel Gas example

•42 Cities listed*

•11 use something other than flat fee

*Only Xcel customers

Comparison Cities - Franchise Fees

•CenterPoint Gas example

•Different user types than Xcel

• 66 Cities listed*

• 14 use something other than flat fee

*Only CenterPoint customers

Comparison Cities - Franchise Fees

•Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) Cities

• Association of 17 suburban communities sharing similar characteristics

•Handout of current MLC Cities rates

•Metro Cities over 40,000 currently not included:

• Brooklyn Park, St. Louis Park, Coon Rapids, Blaine, Minneapolis, St. Paul

•Questions• More comparable City info

• More about fees, details

• Percentage option

• See data differently

• Other

Comparison Cities –Franchise Fees

• Initial Options• Current Situation

• 100% Options

• Low – High Options

Initial Options

Initial Options - Current

Initial Options – 100% Property Tax

Initial Options – 100% Franchise Fee

Initial Options – Option 1 (Low End Fee)

Initial Options – Option 1 (Low End Fee)

Initial Options – Option 2 (High End Fee)

$686,000

$2,940,542

$686,000

$1,183,341

$2,957,445

$2,254,542

$1,071,201

$(16,903)

$(500,000)

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

Current Fund Financing 100% Property Tax FundFinancing

Option 1 Fund Financing(Low End Fee)

Option 2 Fund Financing(High End Fee)

Property Tax Contribution Franchise Fees Contribution Funding Deficit

Total Median Value Home Impact$20.58 $88.22 $50.58 $81.00

Options – Timing Component (example)

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 8

•Questions• More options

• Elimination of options

• Fee questions

• Timing questions

• Impact questions

Initial Options

1) Recommend this overall pursuit? • Strategic Initiative, Establishment of Fund• Comprehensive Asset & Depreciation

Planning

2) Recommend this overall approach?• Evaluating options by Commissions• Making a recommendation to Council

3) Support the financial options under consideration?

4) Support the timing for implementation of the selected recommendation?

5) Support the final recommendation to Council?

Key Questions

No Yes

No Yes

No Yes

No Yes

No Yes

•Next Joint Commissions Meeting October 6

• Staff review and analysis of questions from tonight

• Consensus on next meeting goals

Next Steps