HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.10.13 Work Session Packet City of Farmington Mission Statement
430 Third Street Through teamwork and cooperation,
Farmington, MN 55024 the City of Farmington provides quality
services that preserve our proud past and
foster a promising future.
AGENDA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
June 10, 2013
6:30 p.m.
City Hall Conference Room
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. HOUSING MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
4. CABLE FRANCHISE UPDATE/DISCUSSION
5. CREDIT CARD PAYMENT OPTIONS
6. CITY ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE
7. ADJOURN
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
Council workshops are conducted as an informal work session,all discussions shall be considered fact-finding,hypothetical and unofficial
critical thinking exercises,which do not reflect an official public position.
Council work session outcomes should not be construed by the attending public and/or reporting media as the articulation of a formal City policy
position. Only official Council action normally taken at a regularly scheduled Council meeting should be considered as a formal expression of
the City's position on any given matter.
�o``�` iy��► City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington,Minnesota
�0 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
pt01°�
www.cilarmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor,Council Members,and City Administrator
FROM: Tony Wippler,Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Draft Property Maintenance Code
DATE: June 10,2013
INTRODUCTION
Attached,for discussion purposes only,is a"working"draft of a proposed ordinance amendment to Section 4-5-5 of the City Code
related to property maintenance.
DISCUSSION
The Council has expressed an interest in having staff develop a property maintenance ordinance that would address the exterior
appearance of residential structures and to provide a mechanism to have non-compliant structures brought into compliance.
The main components of the attached ordinance are as follows:
• All protective treatments(i.e.,doors,windows,siding,etc.)must be kept and maintained in good condition;
• Walls must be kept free from holes,breaks,loose or rotting materials;and the structure must be adequately weatherproofed
to prevent deterioration;
• All exterior building structure projects that require a building permit must be completed within six(6)months of building
permit issuance;
• Outlines the duties and powers of the City's Building Official or designee in regards to the enforcement of this ordinance;
• Establishes a procedural process for notifying the owner of the non-compliant structure.
• Establishes a violation for non-compliance.
The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance at its regular meeting on May 14,2013 and requested to attend a workshop
with the City Council to discuss the ordinance.
It should be noted that the attached ordinance is a draft and is likely to change by the time the ordinance is reviewed at a public
hearing.
ACTION REQUESTED
Discuss the attached ordinance amendment with the Planning Commission and provide feedback to staff.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Wippler,Assistant City Planner
(ADDITIONS ARE IN RED)
4-5-5: RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:
(A)Uniform Building Code: All residential units shall meet applicable requirements of
the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code, 1986 Edition, which has been
adopted by reference by the City.
(B) Dwelling Unit Restrictions:
1.No garage, tent, accessory building or motor home shall at any time be used as
living quarters, either temporarily or permanently.
2. Basements and cellars may be used as living quarters or rooms as a portion of the
principal residential dwelling. Energy conserving designs such as earth sheltered
housing shall be exempt from this provisipp '
3. Tents, playhouses or similar structures may be used for play or rec . final
purposes such as children camping out overnight
4. The minimum dimension of Uhy part of the basic dwelling shall be twenty two feet
(22'). This shall not be construed to prohibit smaller individual room additions or to
restrict architectural design flexibility or integrity.
5. All dwelling units shall be designed for placement on permanent foundations
complying with the uniform building code'.
(C)Accessory Buildings:
1. The maximum number of accessory buildings that shall be permitted on each
residential lot is as follows:
(a) One Acre Or Less: Two (2) accessory buildings.
(b) Greater Than One Acre But Less Than Two Acres: Three (3) accessory
buildingsn �
(c) Greater Than Two Acres But Less Than Three Acres: Four(4) accessory
buildings.
(d) Accessory Buildings: All accessory buildings shall comply with lot coverage
and size limitation requirements under the city zoning ordinance2.
2. The same or similar quality exterior building material shall be used in the
accessory and principal building. All accessory buildings shall also be compatible
with the principal building to the extent that the exterior appearance of the
1
accessory building is not at variance with the principal building from an aesthetic
and architectural standpoint.
3. Accessory buildings exceeding one hundred twenty(120) square feet in floor area
shall be designed for placement on a permanent foundation complying with the
uniform building code.
4. The height of an accessory building shall be measured from the mean ground level
to the uppermost point of the roof. Except as expressly permitted by a conditional
use permit, accessory buildings shall be limited to twenty feet(20') in height. (Ord.
093-319, 12-6-1993)
(D) Property Maintenance z
1.General Requirements
(a) Scope: The provisions of this section shall 3 the minimum .-,.ons and the
responsibilities of persons for the exterior.,I ��� enance of structures:
(b) Responsibility: The owner of the preen all mai the structures in'`. "fe condition
that is in compliance with the requirement ft s' •n.
2.Exterior Building Structure
(a) General: The exterior of a building structure shall be maintained in good repair,
structurally sound and sanitary so as not to pose a threat to e public health, safety or
welfare. -
AAP
(b) Protective<C4 s ..;, ent > terior building surfaces,including,but not limited to,doors,
door and' . ..w frames" !rnices,porches and trim, shall be maintained in a good
condition o• ;f " .ces,other than decay resistant woods,shall be protected from
the elements a " ,•, t° f •th :protective covering or treatment. Peeling,
hipp 1 t shall •= tF ted and surfaces repainted. All siding and
• on » . we ose between the building envelope and the perimeter of
windows,d• f._. d sk k.,-ni . shall be maintained weather resistant and watertight.
(c -nor Walls a xterior "alls shall be free from holes,breaks, loose or rotting
ls,and ma a ,'ned weatherproof and properly surface coated where required to
pre 2,-teriora ,
(d) Completi.' erior Building Structure Projects: All exterior building structure projects
requiring a .. .•ing permit(including,but not limited to,siding)must be completed and
pass inspection by the City's Building Official within six(6)months of building permit
issuance.
3.Duties and Powers of the Building Official or designee.
(a) General. The Building Official or designee shall enforce the provisions of this section
(b) Right of Entry. The Building Official or designee is authorized to enter the premises or
structure at reasonable times to inspect subject to constitutional restrictions on unreasonable
2
search and seizures. If entry is refused or not obtained,the Building Official or designee is
authorized to pursue recourse as provided by law.
(c) Identification. The Building Official or designee shall carry proper identification when
inspecting structures in the performance of duties under this section.
(d) Notices and Orders. The Building Official or designee shall issue all necessary notices or
orders to ensure compliance with this section.
(e) Modifications. Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the
provisions of this section,the Building Official or designee shall have the authority to grant
modifications for individual cases. The Building Official or .«,;''_- ee shall first find that
strict compliance with this section imposes an undue hards the owner,and that the
modification does not lessen the health,aesthetic, life a °.3f'''°safety requirements.
Modifications shall only relate to an extension of ti -'i, the violation;no
modification from specific code requirements shay ant =.; '
4. Notice and Orders.
�SSS `a
(a) Notice to Owner or to Person or Perso r«a ' onsible. Whenever the B .4i�:�: Official or
designee determines that there has been: ¢,.tion . 'is . section or has g ds to believe
that a violation has occurred,notice shall b..-° •e owner or the person or persons
responsible therefore in the manner prescribe .sections(b)and(c)of this subsection.
(b) Form. Such notice prescribed in subsection (a)of t Lion shall:
1. Be in writing;
2. Include �� qf the real estate sufficient for identification;
3. Inclu•: statement( e violation or violations and why the notice is being issued;
and
6" cot rection order allokirig:a reasonable time to make the repairs and
tmpr. o--its required to bring the structure into compliance with the provisions of
this sect
t: od of Service. Such notice shall be deemed to be properly served if a copy thereof is;
1. •,:* vet ed petsoially;or
2. Sent .• „ d or first-class mail addressed to the owner at the last known address;or
3. If the notice is returned showing that the letter was not delivered, a copy threreof shall
be posted in a conspicuous place in or about the structure affected by such notice.
(d) Transfer of Ownership. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any structure who has
received a compliance order or upon whom a notice of violation has been served to sell,
transfer,mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of to another unit until the provisions of the
compliance order or notice of violation have been complied with,or until such owner shall
first furnish the grantee,transferee,mortgagee or lessee a true copy of any compliance
order or notice of violation issued by the Building Official or designee and shall furnish to
the Building Official or designee a signed and notarized statement from the grantee,
3
transferee,mortgagee or lessee, acknowledging the receipt of such compliance order or
notice of violation and fully accepting the responsibility without condition for making the
corrections or repairs required by such compliance order or notice of violation.
5. Violation.
(a) It shall be unlawful for a person,firm or corporation to be in conflict with or in violation of
any of the provisions of this section.
(b) Notice of Violation. The Building Official or designee shall serve a notice of violation or
order in accordance with Section 4-5-5 (D)4 of this section or as required by State Statute.
(c) Prosecution of Violation. If the notice of violation is not comp1 Fd with,the Building
Official or designee shall institute the appropriate proceedings at law or in equity to
restrain,correct or abate such violation of the provisions of the section or of the order or
direction made pursuant thereto.
(d) Violation Penalties. Any person who shall v, a provision of this section,or fail to
comply therewith,or with any of the req 0.f is thereof is guilty of a i ' demeanor. Each
day that a violation continues after du- - has been served shall be a separate
Vse
offense. '• ' ' %''
(e) Abatement of Violation. The imposition of t''. , :ties herein prescribed shall not
preclude the City Attorney fry °,fix' tituting appre' .••'-- action to restrain,correct or abate a
violation.
,
kk
4
tyc�, City of Farmington
Afik a' 430 Third Street
P .< Farmington,Minnesota
o
`0, �1a/ 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
www.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Administrator
FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: Cable Franchise Renewal Fee Discussion
DATE: June 10, 2013
INTRODUCTION
The Cities of Apple Valley, Farmington, and Rosemount are jointly in the process of renewing their
cable television franchise ordinances. One of the significant points of negotiation in this process is the
funding source for cable operations. This memo outlines the issues for consideration.
DISCUSSION
Background:
There are two revenue sources from the cable franchise—franchise fees and Public, Education and
Government Access (PEG) fees. Franchise fees were created essentially in lieu of rent for use of city
right-of-way and are five percent of the company's gross revenues from the TV-related portion of the
system. As service costs have increased, so have franchise revenues, increasing by more than 100
percent between 1999 and 2012. There are no restrictions on how cities use the franchise fee revenues
but some (including Farmington) choose to dedicate some or all of the revenues to support cable
operations.
PEG fees were created to specifically fund PEG cable activity, and if not specified as extending to
operations in the ordinance, would only apply to cable TV capital purchases. The PEG fee is $.50 per
subscriber, per month. As more subscribers have taken satellite based services, PEG revenues have
been relatively flat even in a growth community, with 2012 revenues nearly equal to those in 2006.
This funding source has very strict legal limitations on its use.
Description of Current Services,Budget, and Future Funding Needs:
The current joint powers operating budget is approximately $177,000 per year. Farmington is
responsible for one quarter of that cost.
Services in the basic operations include: live regular Council and Planning Commission meeting
coverage and recording throughout the year for each city, management of government program
playbacks for two channels, management of both the government and the public access bulletin boards,
production of the State of the City address for each city, candidate forums during election years,
customer complaint resolution, franchise administration, and system equipment design, maintenance,
and repair.
Apple Valley currently pays a premium for the production of two public safety shows, each produced
every other month. This production allows the joint powers operation to employ two full-time staff
members. If either Farmington or Rosemount wishes to also engage in program production, additional
staffing will be required at a cost of around one half-time position per city, or about$20,000.
The City's projected future capital needs for its equipment, including both initial upgrade and periodic
replacements, are approximately $250,000 over ten years. The City's share of shared joint powers
capital equipment is estimated to be approximately $125,000 over ten years. Therefore, Farmington
can expect to see approximately $375,000 in capital costs over the course of a ten year franchise.
Policy Question:
The cities have used the PEG fee to fund cable operations during the previous franchise. As PEG fees
have fallen and are likely to continue on that trend, the cities have needed to subsidize the operations
from other funds. Funding for other cable-related needs such as additional programming or capital
replacement has also had to come from other sources. The negotiating group would like direction on
how the city would prefer to set the initial PEG fee and its maximum for the next franchise.
Options:
The PEG fee for the current franchise was capped starting at $1.25 in 1999 and increased annually by
the CPI or three percent, whichever was less. Applying the maximum annual increase, the fee cap for
2014 is projected to be approximately $1.90. Staff recommends this amount as the initial cap with
similar annual inflationary increases for the renewed franchise.
The current PEG fee of$.50 per subscriber nets approximately$25,000 per year and requires a subsidy
of approximately $19,000 per year for basic operations and an average subsidy of$37,500 for capital
equipment.
If the PEG fee was increased to $.75 per subscriber, it would net approximately $38,000 per year and
would require a subsidy for basic operations of approximately $6,000 annually and would require an
average subsidy of$37,500 for capital equipment.
If the PEG fee was increased to $1.25 per subscriber, it would net approximately $63,000 and would
likely cover current operations, but would likely fall about $18,750 short in anticipated annual capital
replacement.
These rough calculations assume that there is no inflationary increase to the cable operations over the
next ten years. Furthermore, none of these PEG amounts would be adequate to address costs for
potential additional programming.
The negotiating committee would like City Council input on the initial PEG fee amount and its annual
cap.
ACTION REQUESTED
The negotiating committee would like City Council input on the initial PEG fee amount and its annual
cap.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR
Human Resources Director
�o�Fiy��, City of Farmington
0 430 Third Street
.
Farmington,Minnesota
�GGO�
• • >
651.280.6800 Fax 651.280.6899
A PRONE\t
www.cilarmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
FROM: Robin Hanson
Finance Director
SUBJECT: Online Bill Presentment and Electronic Payment Options—Utility Accounts
DATE: June 10, 2013
INTRODUCTION
In response to numerous customer requests and direction provided by Council, staff has
researched providing online access to account information, electronic bill presentment and
expanded bill payment options for the City's utility accounts (i.e. sewer, solid waste, storm
water,water and street lights).
There are a variety of bill payment options. The City currently provides customers the
opportunity to utilize ACH to pay their bills (i.e. automatic withdrawal from a customer's
checking or savings account). Approximately, 980 or 16%of the City's customers currently
utilize ACH to pay their utility bills. Staff is interested in expanding the bill payment options
provided to include both one-time and recurring debit/credit card transactions and e-checks.
DISCUSSION
Online Account Information and Bill Presentment-Infinity.Link
The City currently uses Advanced Utility System's (Advanced) CIS Utility Billing software to
account for and manage its utility accounts. Advanced has an additional module,Tnfinity.Link,
which provides online access to account balances and electronic bill presentment.
The City does not have to"purchase"this module; it is available as part of its ongoing LOGIS
fee. Though the City would not have to purchase the module,we would still incur other costs to
implement this process, such as, legal costs to review the various agreements (e.g.terms of use,
privacy statement, etc.) and staff time for review and testing of the expanded site.
✓ Finance staff participated in an extensive demonstration of this system earlier this year
and recommends adding this module.
Bill Payment Choices
Electronic payment processing involves three key questions:
1. Should the City charge the user a convenience fee?
2. Which vendor should the City use for electronic payments?
3. Should the City accept electronic payments internally,be it from walk-in customers or by
phone?
Electronic Payment Fees- User Convenience Charge Model
Under this model the user would pay a convenience fee. The fee charged would depend on the
vendor used,would have a maximum transaction amount, for example$600, and would likely
cost customers $4-$5/transaction.
The advantages to this method are that it pays for itself, only those who utilize this option are
charged, and the staff time involved is minimal. A third party vendor handles all of the payment
processing. They provide the City with an electronic listing of those who have paid which is
uploaded into the City's utility accounting system and they remit the net fees (fees collected less
their processing fees)to the City. It is possible delinquent accounts,while they would likely still
complain about the fee being charged,may take advantage of this option as the fee being charged
is less than the delinquent fees that would be assessed if they do not make timely payment.
The disadvantage is customers complaining about the fee being charged resulting in low
participation, especially for those customers whose accounts are current.
Electronic Payment Fees-Absorption Model
Under this model the City would not charge an up-front user convenience fee. Rather,the City
would pass on the increased costs through future rate increases. This would in fact be similar to
customers experiences at their local retailer or gas station where the cost of the convenience
charges are built into the prices charged for groceries, clothes,fuel, etc.
The transaction costs for this model are significantly less than the user fee model described
above. The specific fees would depend on the vendors)the City used for payment processing
and the type of payment used.Assuming a$600/transaction maximum,the transaction fee would
likely range from$1.75-$2.50/transaction. Note: these fees are lower than the City would incur
for other areas interested in offering electronic payment options, such as the pool,hockey arena,
permits and/or licenses,because the vendors factor in a lower processing fee for `utility'
accounts.
The City invoices approximately 2,000 accounts each month. If 20% (industry standard is 15-
20%of accounts) of these accounts paid their bills electronically, assuming a$2.50/transaction
fee,this would cost the City approximately$12,000/year(2,000 accounts x 20%participation x
$2.50/transaction). Spread amongst the four utility funds (i.e. sewer, solid waste, storm water and
water), this would cost each fund approximately $3,000/year to provide customers with the
option to pay their bills electronically. If participation were as high as 30%,the total cost would
be$18,000/year or$4,500/year for each utility fund.
The advantages to this method are customer convenience and much higher participation rates.
The primary disadvantage is customers who do not take advantage of this payment option would
pay for the convenience of having these options available through higher utility charges. This
same situation applies to the purchaser who shops at their local grocery store,retailer or gas
station.
✓ To achieve the highest rate of customer satisfaction and participation staff recommends
the City choose to absorb the fees related to electronic payment processing and consider
these costs as future utility rates are set.
Which vendor?
City staff reviewed a listing of vendors used by other cities in the LOGIS group,has talked with
the payment processor the City's primary bank works with and has participated in a couple
different webinars from other vendors. All of these vendors provide the option to pay
electronically through the web. However, only one of these vendors, Paymentus, offers the
option for customers to make payment by phone. Given that not all of our customers have
internet access or are not comfortable entering their payment information online, City staff feels
the phone payment option is a significant feature.
In addition,unlike the other vendor choices where the City must negotiate and establish a
separate merchant and payment processing arrangement, for a single fee Paymentus provides
both the merchant and payment processing services.
Furthermore,with Paymentus the City would be able to accept all types of debit/credit cards
(American Express,Discover,MasterCard and VISA). Some other cities do not accept American
Express and/or Discover,because of their higher card fees.
Paymentus would charge the City$2.50/transaction increment for debit/credit card transactions
and would charge$1.50/transaction increment for e-check payments. The increment would most
likely be$600. This means for individual transactions up to and including$600 the cost would
be $2.50 for a debit or credit card payment. A transaction in the amount of$1,150 would cost
the City$5.00 (i.e. a flat fee of$2.50 for each$600 increment). Paymentus does not require a
minimum number of transactions. They do,however,require a three-year commitment to help
offset their initial investment to establish the City' account.
The Finance staff has participated in a webinar with Paymentus and staff has completed
reference checks with three of Paymentus current Minnesota customers. All three references
shared they have been very pleased with Paymentus. One additional note, Hutchinson Utilities
Commission(also a LOGIS member)recently completed a search for a new electronic payment
processing vendor. They concluded Paymentus best met their needs which included reasonable
pricing,the ability to pay by phone and excellent customer service. They are in the process of
working with LOGIS to integrate Paymentus with the Infinity.Link site and have targeted an
August 1, 2013 implementation date.
✓ Based on the above information, staff recommends the City select Paymentus as their
vendor for electronic utility payments.
Should the City accept electronic payments internally for utility accounts?
Accepting payments in person or over the phone for utility accounts will require the City to be
PCI compliant. This involves dedicating one or possibly two computers to the processing of
electronic payments;these computers would not be used for anything else. They would be
dedicated, stand-alone computers available solely for processing electronic utility payments.
The reason for this is security;the City would be required to ensure the credit card information is
protected. Staff does not have any additional information on PCI compliancy at this time. We
are continuing to research and anticipate talking with LOGIS more about this later this week.
✓ Assuming it is not cost-prohibitive and from a customer service point-of-view, staff
recommends the City internally accept electronic payments.
Are there potential benefits to the City?
Providing online bill presentment and additional payment options may result in a reduction in
delinquent accounts,reduced costs associated with the preparation and distribution of utility
statements and a reduction in staff time for the processing of utility payments.Actual results will
depend on the level of customer participation.
BUDGET IMPACT
User Convenience Charge Model
If the Council chooses to charge a convenience fee,then the only costs to the City would be legal
costs related to the initial set-up of the Infinity.Link site and the related staff time to review,test
and maintain the site.
Absorption Model
If the Council chooses to absorb the electronic payment processing fees,those costs would be
allocated amongst four of the five utility funds (i.e. sewer, solid waste,storm water and water).
The Street Light Utility Fund,which represents less than 5% of the charges for utility services,
would not be charged. For the first year the fund balance for each of these funds would absorb
the related transactions costs. After the first year,the costs involved would be considered as part
of the fee setting process for future years.
ACTION REQUESTED .,
Discuss and provide direction to staff on whether Council is comfortable moving forward with
staffs recommendation that the City use the Absorption Model and process payments using
Paymentus.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin Hanson
Finance Director