Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/02/05M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Work Session Packets\02-05-2001 W. S\Agenda -- February 5, 2001.doc CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WORK SESSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2001 6:00 p.m. Items Discussed Per Consensus _______ 1. Community Center Fees--Givonna Reed _______ 2. Discussion of Assessment Policy and Street Standards -- Michael Ulrich _______ 3. Presentation by Springsted, Inc. of Golf Course Feasibility Study -- Springsted. Inc. _______ 4. Review Options for Legal Services -- Kathleen Miller _______ 5. Review City of Mounds View Continued Involvement with Airport Issues -- Scott Riggs and Kathleen Miller (no attachments) _______ 6. Review Draft of Monthly Financial Report – Kathleen Miller _______ 7. Northwest Youth and Family Services – Amelia Myla (no attachment) _______ 8. Consideration of Recording Secretary Services for Park & Recreation Meeting Minutes -- Michael Ulrich _______ 9. Consider Potential Acquisition of Property Located at 7980 Groveland Road -- Jim Ericson ______ 10. Discuss Section 6.02, Subdivision 3 of the City Charter -- Kathleen Miller _______ 11. Update on Council/Administrator retreat – Kathleen Miller Item No. 1 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Room Rental Fees for 2001 Date of Report: February 5, 2001 At its December Work Session the 2001 Fee Schedule was before the Council for discussion. The Council expressed an interest in learning whether other cities charge residents a lower fee to use Community Center facilities than non-residents are charged. The following cities responded to my inquiry: Robbinsdale, Crystal, Coon Rapids, Oakdale, Blaine, Shoreview, New Brighton and Columbia Heights. Of the eight cities that responded to my inquiry, seven charge residents less than non-residents to use facilities. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules about what to consider when setting fees. Most cities consider the following in addition to other factors: room size, time of day, day of week, and nonprofit status. Although it’s clear that we may not be comparing apples to apples when we compare our Community Center facilities and services offered to those of other cities, there are some things the Council may want to consider when setting the fees for room rentals: • Other cities typically charge residents more than non-residents to rent rooms. • Mounds View has a relatively new Community Center that is still being paid off. • Many cities allow parties to bring in their own licensed caterer or their own food, which could substantially cut the cost to the renter. • Several of the cities surveyed have no problem renting out their facility because residents have few, if any, alternatives. For your review, I am attaching the results of my survey as well as the Community Center fee schedule that was proposed by tenants of the Community Center. Wherever there is an “NA” that city either does not have such a facility or does not rent it out. I hope this information provides some assistance to the Council in setting room rental fees. Members of the Council also asked for an update on the financial performance/position of the Banquet Center. This issue will be addressed at the February 5, 2001 Community Center Committee meeting. RECOMMENDATION Provide staff with direction regarding where fees for room rentals should be set. Respectfully Submitted, __________________________ Givonna Reed Assistant to the City Administrator Comparison of Room Rental Fees February 5, 2001 City Meeting Room Rental Fees Gym Rental Fees Banquet Center Fees Comments Robbinsdale Russ 612.531.1270 $20/hr (After hrs supervisor add’l $8/hr) Youth/seniors(daily) Res $3 Non $3.50 Adults (daily) Res $4 Non $5 punchcard $25 or $30 Gym $30/hr NA Crystal (Seats 100) Week res $22/hr nonres $61/hr Weekend $47/hr nonres $86/hr Weekly Res $31/hr Non $70/hr Weekend Res $37/hr Non $93/hr Must have licensed caterer or restaurant license $30 dept to use kitchen Looking at creating a business rate to get more daytime business. Rates set up to discourage nonresidents. Coon Rapids Meeting rooms $25 flat rate Nonprofits: free during the week Weekend $30/hr, max $90 NA (max 250 people) Sat: ($150 dep) Res $500 Non $575 Fri-Sun Res $360 Non $430 M-Th Res $210 Non $250 No complaints about cost Oakdale Res $15/hr Non $25/hr Nonprofits no charge NA NA Meeting rooms are in a 2 story house. No Community Center Cont. Comparison of Room Rental Fees February 5, 2001 City Meeting Room Rental Fees Gym Rental Fees Banquet Center Fees Comments Blaine Jim Kapalov 1 room in City Hall and 2 in Parks No charge to community organizations Nonresidents are not allowed to rent NA NA No Community Center Shoreview $15 Res $30 Non NA Sun-Th Res $200 Non $275 ($50 to use kitchen) Fri Res $475 Non $575 ($75 to use kitchen) Sat Res $575 Non $675 ($75 to use kitchen) Renters bring own food or caterer New Brighton Rates vary according to group needs NA (seats 275) must have licensed caterer to use kitchen Fri $300-$555 Sat $625 Res $675 Non Sun-Thurs Columbia Hgts $135-$200 (depending on room selected) NA ($250 deposit) Sun-Fri $550 Sat $580 Kitchen $95 Parties renting the kitchen must bring in licensed caterer Mounds View Proposed Community Center Rental Rates: 2001 Banquet and Conference Center Basic Services Sun.-Thurs. Full room Half room Friday Saturday $250/3hr min.; $75/each add’l hr $125/3hr min.; $50/each add’l hr $500 (no half room) $600 (no half room) Down Payment (required to use/reserve room) $250 Damage Deposit $250 Gym Rental $25/hr half gym $50/hr whole gym Park Shelter Rental $50 clean-up deposit and $50 key deposit plus $20 fee for residents or $50 fee for non-residents. Community Room Rental $10/hr Resident $15/hr Non-Resident $30/hr Corporation $25 deposit required to bring in food. No charge for community organization meetings. Item No. 2 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: February 5, 2001 Type of Business: W.K. WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Assessment Policy and Street Standards Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Staff was requested to put this item on the work session for discussion. Not exactly knowing what direction this topic is headed, information is limited at this time. Finance Director Bruce Kessel has prepared a short analysis of various funding methods ie. Bonds, Special Assessments, and General Taxes. If any Council members have specific concerns or questions that staff may be able to prepare for prior to the meeting, please call me. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Assessment pol review stf rpt.doc City of Mounds View Staff Report August 29, 2018 Page 2 Street Improvement Assumptions: Street Project every other year Franchise fee percentage 2.0% Estimated average collection 175,000 (1998, 1999 & 2000 average, with 2001 using revised estimate of $187,000) Special Assessments: Percentage assessed 22.0% Amount 220,000 Actual rate =25%, however after reducing by 3% for City and/or other non-assessable, net = 22%. Average interest rate charged 6.5% Term, in years 10 Average collection 30,603 Collection used 30,500 Charged 1st year, collection starts 2nd year Interest earnings 5.5% Calculated on 100% of prior year balance plus 1/2 of current year change. Bond Issue: Issue amount 1,000,000 Issuance costs, inclunding discount 50,000 Net Available 950,000 Average rate 5.0% Term, in years 10 Average payment 129,505 Payment used 130,000 Issued 1st year, payment starts in 2nd year Options for City portion of cost: If collections and bond payments are constant: *$1,900,000 would be needed today to meet the City's cost for the next 20 years. *Property tax increase of $163,500 to meet the City's cost for the next 20 years. *Component of above or other options. As size, timing of projects change, assessment policies, bond structure, prepayments, interest rates, etc. change, City's costs will also change. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Work Session Packets\02-05-2001 W. S\Item 04--Legal Services--Kathleen Miller.doc Item No. 4 Type of Business: WS WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Kathleen Miller, City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Discuss Terms of the Retainer Agreement for General Legal City Attorney Services and Various Options Date of Report: February 5, 2001 Background The City of Mounds View has a Retainer for General Legal City Attorney Services with the firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered that is up for renewal. The scope of that agreement is contained in a letter dated October 14, 1999 from Kennedy & Graven. I have attached a copy of that agreement for your convenience. History City Attorney, Bob Long left a message on my voice mail late in the day on Monday, December 4, 2000 advising me that the term of this agreement was up for renewal and requesting that it be added to the City Council Work Session. After adding this item to the agenda staff recommended the City Council continue the terms of the aforementioned mentioned agreement and direct staff to review the scope of the agreement and others options for the City Council’s review at the February Work Session. The City Council concurred. At a subsequent City Council Meeting on January 8, 2001 the City Council approved Resolution No. 4597 extending the term of the Retainer Agreement for General Legal City Attorney Services and directing staff to review this item and bring it back for discussion at the February Work Session. Discussion Several items require review and discussion regarding our current arrangement: Scope of Agreement: The terms of the Retainer for General Legal City Attorney Services are defined in a letter dated October 14, 1999. Those terms include the appointment of a City Attorney, compensation and services rendered. Specifically the contract states the City will pay: • $36,000 per year (based on a regular hourly rate of $105) payable in monthly installments of $3,000 (28 hours) for an annual retainer fee. • For all other legal services the City will compensate the firm $120 per hour for attorneys, $65 per hour for law clerks and $75 per hour for legal assistants. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Work Session Packets\02-05-2001 W. S\Item 04--Legal Services--Kathleen Miller.doc • The City shall compensate firm $135 per hour for all costs, which are passed through to the developer or applicant. Recent Experience: Upon review of the City’s legal arrangement the Department Directors discussed this issue at its December 5, 2000 meeting. Without exception frustrations with the current situation were expressed. Specifically, the time it took for the City Attorney to return phone calls, the lack of accessibility of City Attorney, frustration in dealing with two different attorneys on staff and then having to wait for the City Attorney to coordinate the response, the cost, and the confusion with what is and is not included in the retainer were all mentioned. Since that time Scott Riggs has been our primary contact and many of these issues have been resolved. However confusion with what is included in the retainer and concern with costs continue to provide concern. Comparative Information: In comparing our hourly rate with other communities I found that the dollar figure may vary slightly, but not significantly, yet costs are considerably higher. Mounds View $3,000/month retainer $120/hour--other $135/hour billed to third party Blaine $2,500/month retainer (everything but litigation) $95/hour Shoreview $1,250/month retainer (meetings) $90/hour (City related business) $110/hour--other Falcon Heights $110/hour $90 to $179/hour billed to third party I have attached a copy of the State Auditor’s comparison of Minnesota Cities costs for legal services for the year 1999. The City of Mounds View spent $356,561, three times more than the Cities of Blaine or Roseville. Staff would like to believe that the year 1999 was an anomaly, however 2000 Mounds View financial records indicate that the City spent $274,701 (attached for your review). Options: A number of options are available to the City for the provision of legal services, including: • Hire an in-house attorney. • Send out Request for Proposals for legal services. • Renegotiate the terms of the agreement with Kennedy and Graven and appoint Scott Riggs City Attorney. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Work Session Packets\02-05-2001 W. S\Item 04--Legal Services--Kathleen Miller.doc While the dollars expended for legal services suggests the City could hire its own City Attorney, without the contribution of an outside firm the City would be lacking the expertise provided with a firm that employs attorneys who specialize in a variety of issues. Given the complexity of City government staff cautions against this option. Certainly some economics of costs could be derived from the Request for Proposals option, however as mentioned earlier in this report here appears to be only a slight difference in the rates amongst the Cities which were contacted. The City of Mounds View has worked with the firm of Kennedy and Graven for a number of years, there is a value to the historic advantage this provides that is somewhat elusive. Related Issues: Regardless of whom the City ultimately decides to work with, a number of issues have been identified in relation to the costs the City is paying for legal services including: • The lack of any kind of policy related to usage of consultants. • The lack of policy on recovering the costs associated with the provision of legal services for special projects. • The use of two separate attorneys from Kennedy and Graven to attend to legal matters on the City’s behalf. • Unusual litigation. Oftentimes the City Attorney is conferring with several different individuals on staff as they relate to the same issue. While it might be easier for each and every one of us to pick up the phone and get an answer to our question immediately, some effort should be made to orchestrate these discussions using speaker phones, setting up conference calls, or designating an individual to seek the necessary information. The City could and should be recovering all of its costs from developers and applicants who require additional work on the City Attorney’s part. A deposit agreement could be signed by all applicants, alerting them to the costs and binding them to any charges incurred on their behalf. A sliding fee could be established based upon the complexity of the request. For example, a simple ordinance would be nominal while the request for TIF would be much more substantial. Records would be kept and billing could occur with our regular billing cycle. Before any permits are issued the status of the account could be checked and payment made. Using two separate attorneys often meant staff members would speak with both attorneys about the same issue, or they might speak with one attorney who would then speak with the other attorney about the same issue. The result was both time consuming and costly. The final issue is something every City faces and difficult to predict or adequately budget. Litigation is unfortunately a way of doing business in our current society. The City can develop strict policies on making decisions to litigate, and to what extent. Some of the City’s past litigation has seemingly snowballed. At what point does the City Council become involved to review whether to proceed. M:\MasterFiles\1999 thru 2010\2001\City Council\Work Session Packets\02-05-2001 W. S\Item 04--Legal Services--Kathleen Miller.doc Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to renegotiate the terms of the agreement with Kennedy and Graven for a two-year period and appoint Scott Riggs as the City Attorney. Additionally staff recommends the City Council direct staff to create policies for City Council review that address the usage of legal services and the recovery of costs to third parties in a more efficient and comprehensive manner. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Kathleen F. Miller City Administrator Item No. 8 Staff Report No. Meeting Date: February 5, 2001 Type of Business: W.K. WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: Consideration of Recording Secretary Services for Park & Recreation Meeting Minutes Date of Report: August 29, 2018 Staff has received a request from the Park and Recreation Commission for recording secretarial services for the monthly meetings. It is estimated that this service will cost approximately $3,600.00 per year. Currently no funding exists for this expenditure. If the City Council were to approve this expenditure, a transfer of funds would also be necessary. Staff seeks Council direction in this matter. _________________________________ Michael Ulrich, Director of Public Works C:\Mike's documents\staff reports\Parks\Recording Sec services stf rpt.doc Item No. 9 Meeting Date: February 5th, 2001 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; EDA: EDA Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mayor and City Council From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Potential Acquisition of 7980 Groveland Road Date of Report: February 1, 2001 Background: City staff has been approached by Mr. Greg Johnson, owner of 7980 Groveland Road and the adjacent property located at 2865 County Highway 10, about the possibility of selling the 7980 Groveland Road property to the City. The parcel is currently improved with a single-family residence. Parcel A on the map below shows the location of the property: Currently, parcels A, B, C, D on the map above are being marketed collectively to persons interested redeveloping the property. Parcels A and B are owned by Mr. Johnson, while Parcels C and D are owned by Mr. George Deretich. Parcel C is the location of the former K Gas Station in which the EDA provided funds to demolish last year. Parcel D is currently Mr. Deretich’s residence, and Parcel B is currently Mr. Johnson’s residence/business. February 5, 2001 Work Session Page 2 of 2 Recently, Mr. Johnson received an offer to purchase the property from a group of investors. While Mr. Johnson is considering accepting the offer, he has indicated a willingness to offer the property to the EDA for $150,000. This amount is slightly less than what he is currently being offered. By selling the property to the City, it is hoped that maximum flexibility can be maintained for future redevelopment. The proposed Comprehensive Plan envisions a mixed-use planned unit development in the area. Currently, an appraisal is being done on the property. Necessary Actions: Discuss the possibility of acquiring 7980 Groveland Road. ______________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (763) 717-4021 Item No. 10 CHAPTER 6 ADMINISTRATION OF CITY AFFAIRS Section 6.01. Administrative Responsibility. The Council as a body, shall be responsible for the administration of the City. The Council shall appoint an administrative officer to assist in the administration of City affairs. For purposes of reference in this Charter, this administrative officer shall be referred to as the Clerk-Administrator. Section 6.02. Administrative Organization. Subdivision 1. The Council may by ordinance establish City departments, offices, and agencies and prescribe their functions. No power or duty conferred by this Charter upon a particular office or agency shall be transferred to another. Subdivision 2. The City Council shall hire heads of departments, and such other and further officers and personnel as may be required to operate the City efficiently. The City Council shall determine the qualifications thereof and prescribe the duties to be performed by each, except as otherwise prescribed in this Charter. Subdivision 3. The head of departments and other officers designated by the Council shall report in person to the Council and to the public at least once each quarter at a regularly scheduled Council meeting.