Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-86 Council Minutesf~INUTGS OF THF 410RKSNOP MEETTNG CITY COUNCIL I.ITTLE CAPIADA, P1tNM1lESOTA October l, 1986 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a workshop meeting of the Council of the City of Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the lst day of October, 19II6 in the Counci1 Chambers of the City Center locateci at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Acting M~yor Beverly Scalze chaired the meeting and cal1ed it to order at 7:15 P.P4. and the followin9 rnembers of the Council were present at roll call: M[ME3FRS PRESEMT: P1ayor P1r. P1ichael Fahey (arrived Counc9lman P~ir. William Blesener Councilman P1r. Rick Collova (arrived Counci1woman f4s. Mugs ~larciini Councilwoman P4rs. ~3everly Scalze FlLSO PRESENT: City Cler'~ h4r. Joseph Chlebeck f3uilding Inspector P1r. John Palacio Fire Chief Mr. Dick f2oss Recreation Director h1r. Jim Moretan Public 4lorks Supt. Mr. Roger Glanzer Recording Secretar,y Nlrs. Kathleen Glanzer City Auditor P~r. Robert Voto 19II7 P1r. Robert Voto, City Auditor, presented the Council with a report f3udget outlining the City's bonded debt tax levies as aietl as total tax levies. Voto presented the Council with an analysis of bonded tax levies and explained the City's strategy or plan for each 1ev,y. Next Voto presented a graph i1lustrating historical tax levies by bond issue. The next exhibit that ~aas presented outlined scheduled versus estimated tax levies. Voto recommended that the City levy $fi00,000 for 19£37. This amount included $115,000 fior 1986 Storm Sewer E~onds and $25,000 for 19II6 P4S11 E3onds. 7:25) 7:30) The next exhibit, Exhibit D, outlined estimated tax levies by bond issue through the year 2,000, at which time no 1evies 4aere anticipated, Voto explained that 1994 is estimated as the peak year with a levy at $650,000. However, Voto predicted that increased assessed valuations wilt bring this amount do~Nn to $600,000. Voto reported that the State is consi<lering changes with regard to assessed valuation for commercial and industrial property, wh9ch will decrease taxes for this property wh91e increasing it for residential, Changes are a1so being considered with regard to school district tax levies, which could cause dramatic changes. Voto also stated that improved investment yields as eve11 as cash connection charges will assist in keeping estimated tax levies at the $500,000 level. Exhibit F shov~ed the history of property tax levies in the City. Page -1- f~INU7ES Cit.y Council October 1 , 1986 Voto pointed out that in 198b the City budgeted $100,OD0 for street repairs and $50,000 for land acquisition. Exhibit G showed a 9raph of historical tax levies, while Fxhibit N was the summar,y of the history of property tax levies in the City. Voto recommended that the City approve an annual tax levy to assure that monies are available for major capital outtay purchases. Such levies should be part of a long-term plan. Additionatly, such ntonies should be transferred to a separate Capital Improvement Fund. This fund should be hudgeted separately as a Capital Improvement Program and Long-7erm Budget. Fxhibit I showed actual/proposed prooerty tax levies from 19£31/1952 through 19£36/19II7 with options. Fxhibit J was the general purpose revenue base from 19£30 through estimated 1987, and Exhibit K showed assessed valuation, tax levies, and mill rates from 1979 through estimated 19II7. Voto pointed out that under Option A, the mill rate for 1987 would be 21.903, under Option !3 the mill rate would be ?1.530 and under Option C the mill rates would be 20.917. Voto pointetl out that the City would be dropping almost 1 mill ~~ihile absorbing a$46,000 decrease in revenues as the State ~aill be eliminating revenue sharing. In Exhibit L, Voto presented the Council r~ith a proposed resolution establishing a Capital Improvement Fund. Under this Fund, tfie City ~vould approve a 5-Year Capital Improvement Program which 4aould be funded from the monies in this Fund. The Council would establish priorities for the various proJects listed in the Program. Council discussed the $100,000 the City budqeted for in 1986 for street repairs. The City Clerk reported that street improvements will be assessed for, but initially the City has to pay for the projects and it will take 3 to 5 years for the money to return to the City through assessments. Voto stated that it is a Council clecision on the length of time to assess street improvements, but suggested that if possible, the assessment period should be 2 or 3 years. The City Clerk pointed out that overlaying costs are estimated at $6.50 per front foot and it would be possible to assess such improvements in three ,years. The Clerk aiso suggested that the overlaying costs for condominium units should be a 1.year assessment. Council discussed whether or not the City had indicated an assessment period at recent public hearings on street improvements. Council felt it indicated a 9 to 10 year assessment period for major road reconstruction. Voto reported that the Cit,y is also looking at financing 1and acquisition through a storm sewer project, and, therefore, money set asicle for land acquisition will be freed up and can be placed in a Capital Improvement Fund. Page -2- MINUTES City Council October 1, 1986 Fahey suggested that the Council decide on whether to adopt Option A, ~, or C, after reviewing the 19~7 proposed budget. P1r. ~lesener pointed out the increased number of categories under the City's new computer system. Blesener reported that it is difficult to determine the amount of increases in various areas due to the increased number of categories. Council reviewed the Fire Departments' budget proposed at $97,120 versus $90,300 for 19~&. Fire Chief Dick ~oss explained that the increase was due to a$1,000 increase in remunerations for drills and fire calls and a large increase in insurance costs. There is also an increase in the amount budgeted for physica1 examinations. Council ti~as agreeable to the Fire Department budget as proposed. The budget for Fire h4arshall was proposed at 510,755 versus ~10,'L75 in 19~6. John Palacio requested that the Counci1 increase the ~150 budgeted for Conferences & Schools to $300. Pa1acio also requested that ~400 be budoeted for ~ootis & Periodicals as a new c;„~ r~~i~ h~~ ,~~nted in 19~5 and suaqested that the City purchase eases suggested 1,305. * correction Council next considered the proFosed 1987 Council budget of-~3t~;~Q >~: Res. No. versus a 19~6 budget of ~~5,-1-8(;. Council discussecl Council salaries 86-10-426 as it was noted that sxlaries for Council can only be increased during an election year, and it was the concensus of the Council to leave salaries for the Mayor and Councilpersons as is. Council cut ~700 from the C,en. Plotice & Pub. Information portion of the budget and eliminated $1,?00 under Ordinance Publication and $300 under Eiuilding Rental. Therefore, Council approved a budget of $32,000 for Council during 1987. Municipal Court portion of the budget was approved at $30,250 for 1957 versus $28,100 for 19IIFi. Council next approved a budget of $5,920 for E1ections which reflects no increase over 19H6, It saas pointed out that there are currently no elections scheduled during 19II7, but this could change. The Clerk portion of the budget was approved at ~,65,605 for 1987 versus $f1,375 for 1986. The Attorney portion of the 1987 budget was proposed at $23,400 versus $19,100 in 1986. Fahey reported that the Attorney is requesting approximately a 109'o increase. Fahey suggested that he will negotiate with the City Attorney to try to lo~aer this increase. Council cut $4,000 from 'the Other portion of the Attorney budget as a+ell as $500 frorn the Civil Litigation category. This loHiered the proposed budget to ~19,400. Council reserved approval of this portion of the budget pending Mr. Fahe,y's neqotiations with the City Attorney. Page -3- MINUTES City Council October 1 , 19£36 The 19II7 budget for Engineer is proposed at $5,400, ~ahich reflects a$1,000 decrease over the 19£36 budget. It was the concensus of the Counci1 to approve this portion of the budget. The Planning portion of the budget was proposed at $13,375 versus $11,~9?_ for 1986. Councit cut S250 from the Engineer-Other category and $200 from the Attorney-Other category. Council approved the Planning budget at $12,925. Council approved the City Nall portion of the budget at $18,745 versus $1£3,270 for 198Fi. Police Protection was previously approved by the City at $277,511 for 1987 versus ~230,600 for 19f36. Protective Inspection had a proposed budget of $33,735 for 19F37 versus $31,725 for 1~II6. John Palacio, (iuilding Inspector, requested that additional money be budgeted under Conference & Schools as he would like to attend the 1987 ~lational Conference of Buildinc7 Inspectors which would be held in Kansas City. It was the concensus of the Council that it was agreeabte to attendance at State-wide conventions, but not national conventions helcl out-of-state. Ho~aever, Council stated that it ~vould consider each request on a case-by-case basis. The City Clerk felt that there k~~ere some errors in the year-to-date figures reflected in the agendas and that amounts paid through Flugust of this year were actually higher. Council approved the Protective Insnection portion of the budget as presented. Emergency Servfces/Civil Defense is proposed at fif~,012 for 19H7 versus $5,100 for 19£36. The Civil Defense Director pointed out that a portion of his salary is reflected in the 19£37 budget as the City will be reiinbursed 50% of this salary from Federal funds. Council indicated that the 19£36 Civil Defense budget should be amended to reflect this salarp as vaell. The Council approved the Emergency Services/Civil Defense portion of the budget as presented. Council approved the {Inimal Control budget at ~a4,16n versus ~4,~88 budgeted in 1986. Council reviewed the 19£37 proposed Streets budget in the amount of $136,750 versus $215,347 for 198fi. It was noted that in 1986 the City budgetetl $100,000 for Street Repairs, and there is nothing budgeted in this category for 19f37, Roger Glanzer, Public lJorks, noted that there is an increase of $4,000 in the P~aintenance Materials category of the budget. This is due to increased repair of City streets. There is also a$10,000 increase in the Snovaplosving portion of the Street Budget. Council discussed snowplowing and it was suggested that the Public !alorks Superintendent and 3i11 [3lesener meet ~•aith the County regarding snowplowing and their bilting of the City for the ploNiing in addition to a 40°~ administration fee. Page -4- r•~tNUT~s c;ty coun~;l October 1 , 19f36 Glanzer reported that he omitted R6,000 that should have been budgeted for under P1achinery £t Equipment. ~1anzer requested that this be added to the Eiudget. 3lesener reported that the reason for the increase in ~he Streets budget is that the Cft,y has made a commitment to take better care of its streets, which should pay off in tne long run. It was the concensus of the Co~ancil to approve the Streets budget at $1~42,750. The Storm Seeaer portion of the budget was proposed at $5,100 versus ~3,Q00 for 1~£36. Council decreased the Repair Storm Seaaer categor,y b,y $1,000 and increased the Repair Storm Sesver-Contracted category to $1,000. Council Lhen approved this portion oP the budget ~aith a total oF 55,000. Street Li9hting was approved at .~a37,000 which reflects no increase over 19~36. Gtanzer reported that in the Sanitation portion of the budget, the Renta1s-Other Ea,uipment category should be increased to 57,000. Council also decided to budget $400 for County blaste Tax. Council approved Sanitation at ~~3,000 versus a buciget of 59,600 for 19II6. C~ty Garage budget was proposed at $9,200 versus $7,525 for 19~36. Council approved this portion of the overall budget. The Recreation budget was proposed at $06,601 for 1987 versus $II7,82G for 1986. Scalze pointed out that the 19f36 budget incl+wded $?.5,000 budgeted for land acquisition which oaas not included in the 19£37 budget. Scalze pointed out that the Regular Fmployee category reftects salary increases for the part-time recreation directors as she has nroposed. Council approveci the Recreation budget as presented, reserving action on salaries until later in the meeting. 7he 19£37 Parks I3udge~ was proposed at $37,410 versus $42.,175 for 1986. The budget proposes $17,000 under Other Improvements 4ahich Mrs. Scalze explained ~•~as to cover the cost of playground equipment in Spooner Par'~, a tot lot and trail ~•iork. This $17,000 in addition to money rolled-over from previous budgets would be used to pay for these items. Council was in agreement with the 1987 Park budget. The Senior Citizens portion of the budget was proposed at $3,3£38 for 19H7 and reFlects no increase over 1986. Council felt that the Senior Citizen Coor a~R r's salary should be increasecl from Correction $150 per month to R~£3A p~'~r'ihY~nth and increased the budget to xes. no. ~3,56fl to reflecY, the salary increase. 86-10-426 Paae -5- MtNUres City Council October l, 19~6 The Community Services portion of the budget was proposed at $2?_,369 for 19~7 versus $14,~61. Council decreased the Canadian Da,ys category b.y $500 and increased the Historical Society category b,y $1,500 to budget for a sign and marker in the Gervais Mill Par~. Therefore, Councit approved an increasetl Community Services budget of ~23,3fi9. Shade Tree ~udget eaas proposed at $6,320 for 1987 reflecting no increase over the 1986 budget. Council approved this portion of the overa11 budget. In the Unatlocated portion of t~e ~udget, the fity Clerk suggested that the 4dorkers Comp. categor,y be increased to ~8,000, and the Insurance, General Liability and Insurance, Umbrel1a, be combined into an Insurance Package category at $24,000. The Clerk also suggested that the Public Official Liability category be decreased to $4,50~ and that Contingencies be decreased to $33,500. This decreased the proposed Unallocated budget to $70,000 from the $~3,000 that was proposed, The 1986 Unallocated bud~et s•aas $99,754. Council next considered employee salaries for 1987. Mrs. Scalze submitted a letter to the Council suggesting a 7.9.25% salary increase for the three part-time Recreation ~irectors. Scalze's letter included documentation of her reasoning for this increase. Fahey stated that he had a problem with such a substantial percentage increase as there is no handle on the number of hours that these Directors work. Fahey pointed out that in the past the City has granted across-the-board percentage increases to its employees +vith a fesv exceptions and that is e~ihat he was prepared to do tonight. Fahey suggested that a six-month study be done, during which the Recreation Directors wou1d keep trac'~ of their time worked. This would give the Council a feeling for the number of hours involved and whether a substantial increase was warranted. ~ahey stated th<it the only other way to fairly compensate the Directors, and for which the Council would be the least criticized, would be to go to a voucher system. Flowever, Fahey felt that that would be too cumbersom~. Scalze pointed out that she has compared what Little Canada is paying its Recreation Directors to vahat other cities of similar size are paying. That is the basis for her 29.25% increase. Slesener did not feel it soas possible to compare full-time recreation programs tiaith part-time programs. ~lesener also stated that he would like to see a time study done in order to determine if the t4ao Assistant Directors are putting in a similar number of hours as the two are paid the sam2 salary. Collo~ia stated that he tiaas totally against going to a voucher system. Page -6- P~1INUTES City Councit October 1, 193fi Fahey agreed that a voucher system eaou7d be unrealistic. Floe~~ever, Fahey felt that in order to justify a?9.25% increase, a time study would have to be done. Fahey stated that if the study justified the increase proposed by Scalze, it could be made retro-active to the first of the year. Sca1ze pointed out that other departments have increased their number of enip1oyees, while Recreation has not. Fahey feit that the time study would reflect the significant; amount of time the Directors spend on their jobs. Scalze also pointed out the significant increase in population over the last fevd years. Rlesener stated that he would b~ agreeable to the 29.25~ increase, ifi the City has the information it needs to back up the increase< Collova also stated that the Council would be able to determine if there was a basis for the equa1 pay received by the t~ao {~ssistant Directors. Fahey oointed out that the budget reflects a 5% salary increase for most City employees, and suggested that this be the increas~ granteQ to Recreation Directors at this time. However, if the ti+ne study rndicates that the increase shoi.ild have been greater, the budget can be amended at a later date. rahe,y suc~gested that the time study contain some fairly detailed reports. Scalze stated that she was not opposed to the time st~ady, and h1r. Morel an i ndi cated that he ~~roul d do the stucty i f that i s vihat the Council requcsts. Scalze pointed out that the ?_9.25% amounts to $4,000. Council discussed the time study and decided that it should be,yin immediatel.y. f~1r. E3lesener indicated that he felt that salary oP Kris VanSchoonhoven ~•~as too low. Council decicied that VanSchoonhoven was classified properly, but noted that the mean salary for her position, according to salary survey books, was between $1,~409 per month and $1,~443 per month. VanSchoonhoven is currently being paid ~1,213.33 per month. 1lfter considerable discussion, it ~~ias the concensus of the Council to bring VanSchoonhoven's salary to the mean in a t~~io-year process, and set her salary at $1,375 per month for 19II7. Fahey proposecl a 5% salary increase for other City employees. Pac~e -7- r~tIPiUTES c;t,y coun~;t October 1 , 19F36 Roger Glanzer requested that City employees receive a 6~ increase. After discussion by the Council, it s~as the Council's concensus to support a 5'z% percent increase, a~ith the exception of Kris VanSchoonhoven, e~~hose salary was set at $1,375 per month, and Joe Steele, who the Counc~l agreect last year would be brought to the same sa1ary level as Dan Drake in 19II7. The Building Inspector requestecl that the Council consider an increase greater than 5,q for his position. Palacio pointecl out the busy construction season the City has experienced in 19£~Fi, rahey replied. that after revieviing the salary survey for cities of similar size, the ftuilding Inspector's salary :das in line vaith salaries of other Building Inspectors. Fahey assured the ~3uilding Inspector that tPie Council has been happy with his work, but did not think an increase over 5'-;q m~as warranted. Formal action on the pronosed 19f37 Budget will tal<e ptace at the October £3, 1986 Regular Council meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ ~ , ~1<-"% ~ ~ ~~~ < ~ / ~ ~~/ . ~ -` I<a h1een Glanzer' ~") Recording Secretary Page -H-