Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-82 CCMSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 Mayor Eder called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m. with the following Councillors present: Morgan, Mottaz and Novak. Also present was City Administrator Whittaker,,and Marilyn Banister, Accountant. 1. AGENDA: The Council agreed to defer item #1 until after the Personnel Committee meeting, M/S/P Morgan/Eder to approve the Agenda as amended. Carried 4-0. 2. FINANCING AND ACCOUNTING FOR 201 CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM: Whittaker explained that the City's share of the expenses for the 201 Construction Grants Program, On -Site Sewer Systems, could be financed out of the reserves in the General Fund until those expenses can be assessed to the benefited.. property owners. The Council agreed that these should not be considered expenses to the General Fund and that a separate construction account should be established to receive the grant funds and pay out the construction costs. M/5'/P Novak/Morgan to establish a construction fund for the 201 Construction Grants Program and to assess the balance of the 201 cost construction cost less grant income - plus interest, to the benefited property owners on a one year assessment. Carried 4-0. 3. OTHER BUDGET CONCERNS: A. Newletter Expense - Newsletter Editor, Mary Meyer, explained that she pastes up, edits and checks the copy of the Newsletter before it is printed, in addition to the responsibilities that the former editor had. Whittaker said that the Newsletter editor has not had a raise since 1981. M/S/P Morgan/Mottaz to approve an increase of $25 per issue, subject to this bring possible within the levy limit. Carried 4-0. B. Assessing for Street Improvements - The Council agreed unanimously that street maintenance costs should not be assessed unless this was unavoidable. Eder said that he would limit assessments to overlays and major maintenance,;;should they become necessary. The Council decided not to consider assessments for street improvements in 1983. C. Animal Revenue - Whittaker explained that the present revenues are approximate y 1,000; and, the present expenses are approximately $7,550. Banister indicated that the present licenses are for two years; and, that a one year license might generate some additional revenue. M/S/'-•` Novak/Mottaz to return to an annual license, to notify license holders when their license should be renewed, and to indicate an increase in revenue under Animal Control Licenses in the Budget. Discussion - --Mottaz said he believes the City should encourage the State Legislature to change animal control laws so that controlling the number of dogs and neutering programs become more practical --Morgan said that we should put the animal licenses on the word processor once the City computer is in place. Whittaker indicated that the City Code would have to be amended in order to change the license year from two years to one year. Carried 4-0. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 -2- 3. OTHER BUDGET CONCERNS: D. Clean -Up Days - The Council unanimously agreed that Clean -Up Days serve a very important purpose by keeping the boulevards and backyards free of waste and debris. Whittaker explained that the City lost money on the last Clean -Up bays; and, that the City probably would not generate enough revenue through fees to pay for Clean-up Days in the future. He went on to explain that part of the reason the fees did not pay for the Clean -Up Day was that the Tri-Lakes Association was given the prividedge of dumping without charge. The Council agreed that in the future the Tri- Lakes Association should pay the dump charges as other residents do. The Council agreed that expenses for two Clean -Up Days should be put in the 1983 Budget; and, that the City Administrator should estimate the approximate revenue those two Clean -Up Days would generate and show that as a revenue in the 1983 Budget. Whittaker estimated that the expenses would run about $3,000 and the revenue may run $1,000. E. Intern - Whittaker explained that in addition to the Waste/ Energy —Plant project, the City will be involved in the 201 Construction Grants Program and in development of three surface water management plans for the three watersheds in the City. He explained that these additional projects would severly tax his time and make it difficult for him to adequately perform the other jobs now expected of him. Mottaz said he felt the intern would be essential. Morgan asked how long the intern would be necessary and how it would be financed. It was explained that the City hoped Washington County would finance the estimated cost along with the Engineering Feasibility Studies on the Waste/Energy Plant, for a total of $90,000. Mottaz explained that 2/3 of this cost would come from Ramsey County and 1/3 from Washington County. Novak expressed her concern that the City would be changing its philosophy; and, would in effect be doing the planning for a party that wants to develop property. In response, Whittaker said that we had asked the County to provide these review costs, as they are the developer of the Waste/Energy Plant. Several Council people felt that we should not show this expense in the Budget. We should just handle it as a pass -through cost as we do with other subdivisions. Eder suggested that the City establish a Waste Management District if the Counties will not pay these costs and that these costs be assessed against all the people in the Waste Management District. Mottaz indicated that the whole County would benefit from this project; therefore, the whole County should pay the cost of the study. Morgan indicated that; in these difficult times, the City might not be able to afford an intern. He suggested that it might be good management to cut costs in order to pay for the intern. He said if the project is not financed by the County, the City should not do the studies. Mottaz said the City cannot afford to ignore this project. He said the project will have a significant impact on the City; and, the City must plan for it whether or not our costs are reimbursed. He compared this project to the earlier City cost and related to the 3M development proposal and the Dayton -Hudson development proposal. Novak and Morgan questioned whether or not the City had paid for any of the reviews related to those two projects. Eder said that we not only have to be concerned about the plant itself, but all of the adjacent area. He said the plans should include all of Section 32 so that we do not have random piecemeal development in this area. He felt that somehow the City must control this project and its impacts. Morgan said he felt the City Administrator should have more time, at this time, to handle these projects because many major projects the City had lined up several years aqo are now completed_ SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 -3- 3. E. Intern - Continued ie the Comprehensive Plan-,-the-new-Zoning-Ordinances Mattaz said- this assumes that the Administrator is not being kept busy at this time. Novak suggested that the City Council may have to cut down on the Administrator's responsibilities if the work related to this project becomes too great. The Council agreed to wait until the Counties had reviewed the budget for the Waste/Energy Plant to determine whether or not the City could afford an intern. The Council also discussed the fact that the City may have to employ the City Attorney and Engineer and Planner to review parts of this application and that those costs will have to be taken into account. F. Surface Water Plan - Was not discussed. G. Capital Improvement Program h. Parr The Council agreed that it may be difficult to budget an additional $8,000 into the Park Capital Improvement Program in 1983. Morgan indicated that he would like the Park Commission to review the Capital Improvement Program again before the Council meets on the 21st. Novak indicated that she had great pride in our park system, but, that perhaps more development would significantly increase our maintenance and police costs to a point where it would not be practical to manage this. Mctta.zindicated that, if the Park Commission reviews the plan, he would like to see the Vita Course taken out of the 1983 Budget and he would like the Park Commission to consider putting the Vita Course in a more active park. The Council also agreed that the bleachers in Pebble Park and the playground equipment in Tablyn Park and the tennis courts for Demontreville Park ought to be reevaluated. There is some feeling that these items may not be necessary before 1986. Mottaz expressed his concern that the City might put additional money into this reserve while it still has some of the proceeds of the Park Bonds in this fund. He doubted the wisdom of keeping $60,000 in the reserve when the City is paying 7% interest on the money investing the money at 12% and the cost of the equipment this money will buy is going up at a rate of 9% or more per year. Morgan said that there is a balance in this fund because the Park Commission had been able to generate and match grant monies and save a considerable amount for the City. The Council agreed to ask the Park Commission to review the Capital Improvement Program and make a recommendation September 21. 2. Maintenance Department - The Council discussed the philosophy of creating_reserves to buy equipment. Whittaker explained that the City was no longer in a position to put significant amounts of money into reserve each year; because the City was at its State mandated levy limit and did not have sufficient room within that limit to levy for reserves. Whittaker also referred the Council to his August 31 Budget Memo,where he discusses the effect of putting money into reserve. The Council agreed that all additional funds within the levy limit should be levied so that an equipment reserve can be built back up, even though this will not pay for all equipment purchases. The Council expressed its feeling that this reserve will limit the amount the City has to borrow and decrease the amount of interest the City would have to pay for equipment in the future. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 3. G. Capital Improvement Program - Continued ^:!, Maintenance Department^ The Council- agreed that all equipment on the Maintenance CIP should be given a 10 year life expectancy except for the motor grader and the lawn mowers, which should remain as they are in the present CIP. The Council asked if the City could buy 3 year Equipment Certificates instead of 5 year Equipment Certificates to limit the amount of interest that we would be required to pay on the bonds, should we have to borrow. The Council decided the grader should be moved to 1984 in the CIP. 3. Fire Department GIP - The Council made no recommendations for change in this program. 4. FINANCING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM/RESERVES - The Council had already discussed this under Item G. 5. OTHER BUDGET CONCERNS: A. Waste HaulerLicenses - Whittaker explained that the City rates or lins rae approximately the same as other communities. He also explained that the State now restricts us from charging more than our cost for license fees. The Council agreed that the present $25 rate for these licenses is adequate. B. Building Permit Fees - Whittaker explained that going to the State Fee Sc edule for Building Permits would probably double the City's revenue in this department. The Council instructed the Administrator to find out the actual difference in fees and report to the Council on September 21. C. Revenues - The Council was advised that the revenue from the EMS Fund would only be $600. The Council agreed that the police fine should be listed at $10,000, as the fines in 1982 are likely to reach $10,000 by the end of the year. D. Expenses - The Council agreed that the City should wait at least one more year before considering electronic voting machines. There- fore, the $3,000 in the 1983 Budget under Elections should be eliminated. E. Fines - The Council discussed the fact that the fines from poliE'etickets and complaints do not pay the cost of going to court. They agreed that the City should encourage the Washington County Judges to raise fines so that they at least pay for court costs and the City's legal expenses. Councillor Novak asked for clarification of several items in the proposed budget. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.