Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.02.86 Council Packet AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR JUNE 2, 1986 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. May 19, 1986 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Consider Water Main Extension TH #50 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Resolution Relating to Metropolitan Council Investment and Development Framework b. Senior Center Advisory Council c. Ordinance Relating to Yard Maintenance d. Approve Plans and Specifications/Advertisement for Bids - Terra 2nd 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Compensation Study - Update 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Parkland at Hillview b. 1985 Financial Statement 10. MISCELLANEOUS 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Designate Administrator to Cast Ballot in ICMA Election b. Capital Outlay Request - Fire Department c. Approve Payment of the Bills 12. ADJOURN 13. ADD ON a. Discuss Massage License Fee b. Set Public Hearing to Consider Farmington Hills Preliminary Plat - June 16, 1986 at 7:15 P.M. c. Henderson Area Dewatering THE AGENDA IS CLOSED OUT AT NOON ON THE TUESDAY PRECEDING THE MEETING. MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEMS - JUNE 2, 1986 DATE: MAY 29, 1986 5a. Notice of the hearing has been published and copies sent to the affected landowners. 7a. Memo/Resolution enclosed. b. Memo/Ordinance enclosed. c. Memo enclosed. d. Tom Kaldunski and Glenn Cook will meet on Friday to discuss -the Plans and Specs. The developer has submitted an executed agreement with fees and proper surety. 8a. Memo enclosed. 9a. Memo enclosed. b. Report sent previously/Memo enclosed. lla. Memo enclosed. b. Request enclosed. c. Copy enclosed. 13a. Memo enclosed. b. Notice enclosed. c. Memo enclosed. diP °1:1414 Larry Thompson City Administrator LT/mh cc: file AGENDA REQUEST FORM /46,_ITEM N0. NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: May 27, 1986 MEETING DATE: June 2, 1986 CATEGORY: Ordinances and Resolutions SUBJECT: Relating to Metro Council Investment and Development Framework EXPLANATION: City's position relating to the framework to be presented at Public Hearing REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Resolution/Explanation - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Charles Tooker Planning SIGNAT • MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK DATE: MAY 30, 1986 Last December the City Council adopted a resolution expressing the following concerns relating to the proposed Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework: 1. placing development priorities on systems with excess capacity; 2. ambiguity of statement linking population growth to expanded employment opportunity; 3. method of increasing sewer allocation; 4. allowing park development only in urban service areas. Mayor Akin and -l_appeared at a subsequent_public hearing stating the City's concerns. The proposed Framework has since been revised, and a series of public hearings set for its consideration. While items #2 and #4 have been deleted from the Framework, I am still very concerned with its overall con- cept. The basic premise of the document is that as the baby boomers age, population and employment growth will slow down considerably. Therefore, it is imperative that the Metropolitan Area shift from expanding regional facilities, (e.g.; sewer, highways) and place a higher priority on utilizing and maintaining existing facilities. While in theory this seems very logical, in practice I see the following flaws. . 1. The major basis of priority setting and decision making will be population forecasts set by Metropolitan Council staff. As you know population forecasting is not an exact science, witnessed by pre- vious Metropolitan Council population forecast. While the Framework does provide for adjustments based on demonstrated needs, it places the burden on cities to prove amendments are justified. 2. The Framework appears to direct Metro growth into areas previously determined growth areas, which has not occurred. Previous plans for sewage plant underestimated population growth in the south and west and overestimated growth in the core cities and to the north. It now appears that the Framework is trying to push development into the areas with unused service capacity to justify their estimates. 3. The Framework assumes that highways and sewers are the only two factors that go into a developer's decision making process. While being im- portant, other factors such as land costs, schools, quality of life, siting costs, employment opportunities and official controls also play equally important roles. If a major developer is denied opportunity to locate in the southwest part of the metro area because of lack of facilities, it does not mean the developer will move the operation to the north. The major point I would like to stress is that the role of the metropolitan agencies should be to provide services when the need exists. The market, not the Metropolitan Council, should play the major role in dictating growth patterns in the Metro area. My major concerns regarding the policy are as follows: 1. First and foremost, is the effect the Framework may have on the future expansion to the Empire Waste Treatment Plant. The planned construction is for 1987/88, however, the following policy may try to resist this "investment": 1. THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WILL PLACE ITS HIGHEST INVESTMENT PRIORITY ON MAINTAINING AND UPGRADING EXISTING FACILITIES THAT SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION. 2. As mentioned above, the Metropolitan agencies play a role of providing services when required. Forecasting or investment mistakes should not place a burden on local units of government. 3. Urban Service Areas. The City presently has an adequate supply of acreage to accommodate growth in the immediate future if we can use the 1990-2000 allocation. While we have been verbally assured by staff that we can utilize the 1990-2000 allocation when the need arises (see attached letter), I am still uncomfortable that theolic does not P Y specifically state that we will absolutely receive the allocations when the City requests it. Based on the 1980-1990 allocation, the City would not have adequate acreage to accommodate industrial growth along T.H.50 or the proposed school site. 4. As previously mentioned, I am concerned with the use of Metropolitan regional population forecasts. You may have noted recently that a recent Department of Commerce population forecast exceeded Metropolitan estimates significantly. 5. The Framework states that as baby boomers age "job growth and demand will drop sharply" (emphasis added) . That may be true for the region as a whole, but I see no indication of a slow up in development in the south and west metro area. 6. The City could face a major legal headache if property is assessed for sewer tr.Ink or lateral benefits, and then not allowed at a later date to be included in the urban service area. I would be reluctant to recommend ordering any improvement project unless the City receives written assurance from the Met Council that all benefitted property will be allowed within the urban service district. 7. The report states that the Metropolitan Council prepare an annual report to the legislature outlining various evaluations. I feel strongly that this report should be prepared by the Legislative Auditor or State Auditor. 8. "The Council will consider local/regional cost sharing at the request of a local government.", if it would help to provide "regional systems in a period of limited financial resources." I trust that if the MWCC is willing to share the costs of upgrading a sewage treatment plant, they are also willing to share the SAC revenues. 9. Policy 15. . . . .THE COUNCIL WILL USE THE FOLLOWING RANKING PROCESS IN DECISIONS TO ACCOMMODATE FACILITIES SERVING URBAN RESIDENTS. 1. PRIMARY PROTECTION AREA - LAND COVENANTED IN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES WILL RECEIVE PRIMARY PROTECTION. URBAN FACILITIES SHOULD BE PRO- HIBITED IN THIS AREA UNLESS THERE IS STRONG DOCUMENTATION THAT NO OTHER LOCATIONS IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA CAN ADEQUATELY MEET THE SITING AND SELECTION CRITERIA. 2. SECONDARY PROTECTION AREA - LANDS CERTIFIED, BUT NOT PRESENTLY IN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES WILL RECEIVE A LEVEL OF PROTECTION SECONDARY TO AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES. . . . Since Sludge/Ash Site 10 is presently covenanted and site B is certified, it would seem that if the policy is adopted, these sites should be dropped. In summary, I feel that the Council should be deeply concerned, not with specific parts of the document, but with the thrust or direction of the Framework as a whole. A public hearing will be held on June 11, 1986 at the Apple Valley City Hall. I feel it is important that the City make a strong statement regarding its feelings at this time. °2"411gp---„. Larr ompson City Administrator LT/mh cc: Bob Williamson Charles Tooker file ._- . o � 325 OAK STREET • FARMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55024 • 463-7111 (Area Code 612) January 27, 1986 Paul Baltzerson Comprehensive Planning Division Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, MIS 55101 Dear Mr. Baltzerson, This letter will summarize the understanding Larry Thompson and I have of the meeting with you, Bob Davis and Vic Ward on December 17, 1985. The staff present indicated that the tabulation of urban land demand and supply for Farmington is not intended as the maximum allowable growth for the City through the year 2000. In addition, the City will be permitted to expand the limits of its urban service area within the current acreage specified through the year 2000, and that any surge in growth will be reflected in future household and land area calculations. A reflection of this became apparent with a minor con- cession by Mr. Ward which increased households by 125 and 100 units respectively in 1990 and 2000 based upon housing starts in the past three years. I will be calling you again within the next month to review another Comprehensive Plan Amendment to accommodate a substantial development proposed along County 31 . We will have an idea by then of the developers anticipated program. I believe that we should review in detail, the urban service area boundary at that time, as I am having difficulty reconciling the totals on the urban land supply and demand with those on the urban service map that you gave us. If you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, 1/ / , Charles Tooker Planner CT/ch AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. qiNC, NAME: Larry Thompson 'k"„./Jt ),t40 DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: May 27, 1986 MEETING DATE: June 2, 1986 CATEGORY: New Business SUBJECT: 1985 Financial Statement EXPLANATION: Review Auditor's report REFERENCE MATERIALS/RESPONSIBILITY: Summary - Wayne Henneke REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Wayne Henneke Finance Department Heads 7777,fr SIGNATURE MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: 1985 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATE: MAY 29, 1986 The 1985 Financial Statements have been completed. Ken Malloy, City Auditor and staff have analyzed the statements for validity, financial trends and potential problem areas. GENERAL FUND General Fund revenues came in under budget. Several accounts warrant comment: a. Property Taxes - Farmington experienced a 1.5% property tax delinquency rate amounting to $7,437.00. The percentage is not high in comparison to other communities but it can be controlled. The City could establish a policy that would not allow any license, permit, special exception, or development contract be granted to anyone with delinquent property taxes. b. Permits - The Finance Department was over zealous in estimating the increased building permit fees received in 1985. The projections did not materialize. c. Street Repair and Shade Tree Control - Both of these accounts depend on the expenditures for both activities. The City did not undertake a street improvement project, therefore no revenues or expenditures were incurred. The Shade Tree Control account records the monies received from the 75% property owner's share for the tree's removed from their property. d. Sale or Rent of Property - The City budgeted $10,999 for the amount received for the current value credit from MWCC. Staff did not realize by State Law that it had be recorded in the sewer fund. e. Miscellaneous Revenues - This account is made up of revenues from Penalties, Donations-Rescue Squad and Overhead Reimbursements. The account that created the large deficit is Engineering and Planning Reimbursement. The account was last used actively in 1984. A 1985 reversing entry debited the revenue account. General Fund expenditures over all were slightly over budget, approximately 1.7%. Several accounts to look at are as follows: a. General Government - Other Services and Charges: Insurance rate increases created the overage. b. Police - Personnel Services: The annual payment for holidays was not included in the budget. The 1986 Budget does include this payment. c. Police - Capital Outlay: The 1984 squad car was purchased in 1984 but not delivered until 1985. It was not recorded as a 1984 Payable. There- fore, the 1984 Squad Car and the 1985 Squad are recorded in 1985. } d. Fire- Personnel Services: The Fire Department responded to more fires than was estimated. The 1986 Budget increased the number of fire calls to be budgeted for. e. Fire Capital Outlay: Coding errors between the Fire Station Fund and Fire-General Fund. A transfer will be made to correct the mistake. f. Transfers in - Liquor: The transfer in from the liquor fund was budgeted at $37,000 but liquor profits turned out to be $17,544. The 1986 Budget takes a more realistic view of what we can expect liquor profits to be in today's liquor enterprise market. The General Fund still experiences an increase in Unreserved Fund Balance of $6,375. This was budgeted to be $30,000 but with the experiences explained above, the budget was not met. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS The Inflow/Infiltration fund shows a fund balance of ($31,790) . The City has just been notified by the MWCC that change orders totalling $10,472 have just been approved. The 1986 Budget allocates a $10,000 transfer from the Sewer Fund to I/I Fund and a similar transfer will be budgeted in the 1987 Budget to fully fund the deficit balance. The Senior Center Operating Fund shows a fund balance of ($21,565) . The transfer from General Fund to fund the Coordinator's salary and benefits was not made. The transfer will be made in 1986 and a budget adjustment made in the General Fund to fund the transfer. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS The Debt Service Funds are in good financial condition. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUNDS The Special Assessment Funds due to green acres and delinquent special assess- ments are very hard to analyze using just the financial statement. The funds seem to be in fairly good shape except for the 1973 Improvements Issue which has a lot of green acres. Staff will be analyzing all special assessment funds before the budget process to determine if supplemental levies are necessary. ENTERPRISE FUNDS The Solid Waste Fund made a profit of $15,495 if depreciation is not con- sidered. The reason depreciation is considered is to determine the actual cost of operation. The expenditures for depreciation is offset by a reduction in the value of an asset. It is not a cash expenditure. Staff is currently analyzing the City's total Solid Waste System and will be coming back to Council at a later date. The Sewer Fund increased its retained earnings by $42,771. If the MWCC approves the payback plan, the sewer fund will continue to strengthen at an accelerated pace. The Municipal Arena Operating Fund had a $1,757 profit and the Water Fund made a profit of $14,004. STATE LEGAL COMPLIANCE The City was written up for not complying with three areas of legal com- pliance. Each area will be discussed separately. a. M.S. 471.38 requires individuals claiming payments from the City to sign a declaration that "the claim is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid." This is accomplished by having the declaration printed on the back of all checks. When the payee endorses the check, they also sign the declaration. I did not realize this was a State requirement and in an attempt to save a substantial amount of money when new checks were ordered, I told the vendor to delete the declaration. After the City received notice from the Auditor that what we were doing was illegal, Finance used a stamp to print the endorsement and ordered the endorsement on the new batch of checks. The City is now in compliance with M.S. 471.38. b. M.S. 118.01 requires approval of collateral and collateral transactions by the governing body or its designee. At the time of the audit, the City was not in compliance with this statute. Since that time, the Council designated the Finance Director to approve collateral and collateral transactions. c. M.S. 471.616 requires the City to call for bids no less than once every 48 months for employee insurance packages. I knew of this requirement and purposely violated it. The City has good rapport with Blue Cross/ Blue Shield and our insurance premiums reflect it. Each year staff meets with the Blue Cross representatives to discuss premium increases/decreases, programs that provide better coverage for the employee at minimal cost, and programs that provide the same coverage with lower premiums due to cost containment programs. The City is rated individually instead of a group of cities. This alone reduces premiums because of the City's good experience ratio. Being rated individually would not be possible if the City started changing insurance companies every 48 months. With the present coverage, Farmington pays less for health insurance premiums than other Dakota County cities. Unless directed by Council, I will not comply with M.S. 471.616 The 1985 Financial Report fairly and accurately depicts the financial activity during 1985. The problems incurred in budget overages, unfunded projects and decreasing revenues will be addressed and corrective measures taken. Wayne Henneke Finance Director WH/mh