Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/08/08 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session JIf St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA AUGUST 8, 2011 The meeting convened at 6:35 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager(Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Hughes). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning—August 22, 2011 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for August 22'1 Councilmember Mavity requested that staff provide Council with a brief assessment of the costs associated with running the primary election after the August 9th primary. She also stated that Council has had discussions in the past regarding safety issues at the Wooddale and Beltline crossings and requested that Council revisit those issues and discuss how the City can make these crossings safer sooner rather than later. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that staff provide a written report to Council summanzing the previous discussions regarding Wooddale and Beltline, together with an estimate of cost. Councilmember Sanger reiterated her concerns regarding the inconsistency of who has the right of way when bike trails cross roadways in the City and neighboring communities which contributes to safety issues. She also stated that Council has had discussions in the past regarding safety issues at the Wooddale and Beltline trail crossings and requested that Council revisit those issues and discuss how the City can make these crossings safer sooner rather than later. 2. 2012 Budget Discussion Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and reviewed the policy questions for Council consideration, most notably the question regarding whether there are other service delivery changes Council would like to consider in preparing the 2012 budget. He noted that Council direction at its June 20`h meeting was to develop the 2012 budget based on the City's current service delivery level, so the preliminary budget and levy is based on that principle and includes a levy increase of approximately 4%. He advised that the preliminary 2012 budget contains a current gap between revenues and expenditures for the General and Park and Recreation Funds of approximately $65,000. He then introduced the Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Fire Chief(Mr. Stemmer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), and Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh). He pointed out that the agenda packet contains a comprehensive summary of all services that the City provides broken down by department, as well as organizational charts for each department. Study Session Minutes -2- August 8, 2011 Councilmember Santa requested clarification regarding park maintenance roles noted on page 54 with respect to maintaining trails and mowing of entrance signs. She asked what the statements "need to provide for safety reasons unless they are removed" and "need to provide if signs continue. Signs could be removed" mean and whether the statements reflect what the City is currently doing. Mr. Swanson reviewed the General Fund and Park and Recreation Fund Summary of Revenues and noted that these preliminary budgets represent a 1.19% increase over 2011. He discussed the revenues included in each of the General Fund and Park and Recreation budgets and stated that transfers have changed due to a change in the way funds are allocated in the various budgets, with salaries being allocated to the various departments. He reviewed the General Fund and Park and Recreation Fund Summary of Expenditures and stated that assumptions include an adjustment for wages of 2%, an increase in the City's employee benefit contribution and wellness benefit, which has been included in personnel costs all across the City, representing an approximate $600,000 increase. Councilmember Ross asked if there was any way for the City to recoup some of the Police Department expenditures from the businesses at West End. She suggested that a volunteer presence in the West End might be beneficial, similar to the ambassador program in Minneapolis, which could give visitors a feeling of secunty that there is another set of eyes and ears that know what is going on. Mr. Harmening replied that that would be difficult to do on anything other than a voluntary basis. He stated to the extent that the City hires off duty police officers, e.g., for Cavalia, the City pays the off duty police officers and is then reimbursed by Cavalia. He added that Council will have an opportunity to discuss staffing needs in the Police Department with Chief Luse at its next budget discussion. Councilmember Finkelstein asked how much the City expects to receive from permitting fees from new construction. Mr. Harmening agreed to provide this information to Council. Councilmember Ross asked if there was any way to increase the funding for STEP because of the increased need in the community. Council discussed the funding provided to STEP, Friends of the Arts, etc. Ms. Deno agreed to provide Council with a listing of these expenditures and the various funding sources. Councilmember Sanger asked if money should be allocated in the budget to assist the City in answering the question about whether to build a commumty center and felt that the City should plan in advance for this type of expenditure in preparing the 2012 budget. Mr. Harmemng advised that Council will have further discussions in September regarding the Decision Resources survey information, in particular the community center question and next steps in the process. He stated that there is currently nothing in the budget related to a possible community center. He indicated that Council may wish to set the preliminary levy higher, which would provide additional time to figure out whether to set aside money in the budget for a civic planning exercise. Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he did not want to tax or levy any more than Council deems appropriate. Study Session Minutes -3- August 8, 2011 Mr. Harmening agreed to include funds for planning and feasibility expenses in the preliminary budget related to a possible community center. Ms. Deno stated that this could be listed as an option for Council consideration when setting the preliminary levy. Ms. Walsh responded to Councilmember Santa's question related to mowing of entrance signs and stated that the City currently mows and maintains all entrance signs in the City. Councilmember Santa stated that the policy decision of Council is that trails and sidewalks are important in the City and therefore maintenance and upkeep are equally important. She added that to suggest removal of signs would cause a great deal of consternation throughout the City. Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that City-owned trees are not being watered and asked if money could be added to the budget for tree watering so that the City does not waste its investment in trees. Mr. Harmening agreed to provide Council with further information regarding having the City take a more proactive role in watering City-owned trees and what that might cost. Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding Wi-Fi technology. Mr. Pires stated that staff is in the midst of identifying and making a recommendation regarding what the City can do to leverage fiber in the community and has engaged a consultant to answer those questions. He added that staff is also asking the consultant to look at an ordinance requiring the installation of fiber facilities in any new or remodeled building. He indicated that a task force of the Telecommunications Advisory Commission is currently reviewing the future of cable TV, not only in terms of franchise fees but the technology as well, and hopes to provide something to Council in the fall. Councilmember Sanger asked if the City has any knowledge about CDBG funding for next year and whether the City needs to do some planning for likely funding reductions. Mr. Harmening agreed to provide further information to Council regarding how the City might make up for reductions in CDBG funding. Councilmember Mavity requested that staff provide a listing of all fees and taxes that go to the taxpayer. Councilmember Finkelstein requested further information regarding whether the City may have to levy for more borrowing costs in light of the recent credit rating decline of the U.S. Government. He also asked whether Council needs to revisit its investment philosophy due to the increased volatility in the market. Mr. Swanson explained that the City issues debt for capital purposes and felt that the City's philosophy did not need to change. He stated that the City's Long Range Financial Management Plan worksheet contains the City's comprehensive approach to money issues to make sure the City has sustainability for the long term. He then reviewed the 2011 levy and 2012 preliminary general property tax levy and HRA levy, which projects a 4.05% levy for 2012. He reminded Council that the 2012 preliminary property tax levy adopted by Council on September 6, 2011, can be decreased at the time of final adoption but cannot be increased. Study Session Minutes -4- August 8, 2011 Councilmember Sanger requested that staff again provide Council with further background information that contains hypothetical scenarios for various property tax levies. Council discussed market value homestead credit and fiscal disparities. Mr. Heintz reviewed the proposed 2012 HRA levy, which cannot exceed 0.0185% of the taxable market value of the City. He stated that the maximum HRA levy based on data from the County for 2012 is $983,574, a decrease of$45,314 from 2011. He indicated that the City has always levied the maximum amount, with proceeds going being used for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Councilmember Finkelstein requested that staff provide Council with information regarding the impact to the City of potential reductions in State funding. Mayor Jacobs recessed the study session at 7:55 p.m. Mayor Jacobs reconvened the study session at 8:05 p.m. 3. Freight Rail—Letter from Hennepin County Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and letter from Hennepin County Commissioners Peter McLaughlin and Gail Dorfman dated July 15`h. He advised that Commissioner Dorfman contacted him in early July and asked to meet with the Mayor and him to talk about the MNS issue. At that meeting Commissioner Dorfman inquired as to whether the City would be willing to sit down and talk to the County about mitigation as part of the EAW. He indicated that he informed Commissioner Dorfman that given the policy position of the City, he did not think City staff could meet with the County. Mr. Harmemng further indicated he would be willing to bnng this question to the City Council and suggested she write a letter to the City to that effect. That suggestion resulted in the July 15 letter from the County. He added that staff has heard nothing from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regarding Preliminary Engineering (PE) despite being told an announcement was imminent. Mr. Jim Brimeyer, Met Council Board member, appeared before the City Council and advised that the FTA asked for some additional ridership clarification and a response is expected in another week. He indicated that it is fairly certain that the PE will be approved. He stated that the Met Council Transportation Committee has approved a $16 million grant for their share of the SWLRT PE. He noted that the estimate for the PE work is $100 million and will take two years. Mr. Harmening indicated that the Council resolutions previously adopted state that the City does not support the MNS route unless it can be shown that no viable alternative route exists and, if that is proven, that certain mitigation measures must be employed. He suggested that one approach to consider in responding to the July 15th letter, in the context of where things stand today and what is in the best interest of the City would be to maintain the City's position on Kenilworth and MNS consistent with Council's earlier resolutions. He further stated that the City could then, consistent with Council's earlier resolutions, continue to examine with the County the mitigation identified by the City in the EAW and learn more from the County about its reaction to those mitigation measures. Mr. Harmemng indicated he felt this could provide helpful information for the City in understanding the County's position on these important questions. Study Session Minutes -5- August 8, 2011 Councilmember Sanger stated that she was surpnsed to read in the staff report that the County may decide on August 16th where freight rail should go. She requested further information from staff about the County's intentions for next week and asked if staff has talked to any County officials regarding the City's analysis of the feasibility of co-location in the Kenilworth corridor. Mr. Harmening stated that staff was advised by Phil Eckhert and Commissioner Dorfman at the Southwest Management Corridor meeting last week that they believed County staff were putting together information for the County Board about routing options relative to light rail and freight rail and that this information was going to be presented to the County Board on August 16th and that the County Board was going to take some kind of action or position regarding which route was the best route for TCW trains. Councilmember Sanger asked if it should be assumed that the County has decision-making authority on this. Mr. Locke stated that it is still unclear how a decision gets made and indicated that the County owns the right-of-way in Kenilworth and is a major player in the decision-making process. He stated that since funding has not yet been identified, it is not entirely clear who will make decisions. Councilmember Santa felt that the City should meet with the County as requested in the July 15th letter. She expressed continued concern regarding mitigation and stated that she did not believe whistle quiet zones could be used when there are so many blind curves creating safety concerns. She felt that the City needs to discuss straightening the curves between Library Lane and the High School and requested that the City make sure that that is part of the conversation with the County. Councilmember Mavity felt that the City should meet with the County. She requested that the meeting include a discussion regarding funding sources. She stated that the City will then need to have further discussion regarding the City's priorities from a mitigation perspective. She also requested that Council reach consensus regarding what would have to happen for Council to state its position that the proposed reroute is not viable. Councilmember Finkelstein agreed that the City should meet with the County and to have a frank discussion regarding funding and what is realistic. He added that the meeting with the County will go a long way for him in determining whether the County has met the burden of what is viable and what is not viable. Councilmember Ross agreed that the City should meet with the County and stated that Mn/DOT and the railroads should also be at the table. Councilmember Sanger agreed that the City should meet with the County but felt that mitigation should not be the first item on the agenda. She stated that the County should be informed that the City desires to discuss co-location and the City's analytical studies regarding Kenilworth, and that the City would like to get the County's reaction to those studies. She requested that the County be asked what, if anything, the County or Mn/DOT proposes to pay the railroads for their increased operating costs if required,to move to St. Louis Park. She also asked if the School District's mitigation requests will be included in any conversation with the County. Study Session Minutes -6- August 8, 2011 Councilmember Omodt agreed that the City should meet with the County and felt it was important for the County to fully understand the City's position. He requested that all matters related to this issue be done in writing with minutes taken at meetings. Mayor Jacobs agreed that the City should meet with the County. He stated it will be important to have a preset agenda with formal minutes taken. Councilmember Sanger suggested that staff try to meet with the County before the County Board's August 16th meeting, at least on the question of the City's analysis of co-location and getting the County's reactions to it. Mr. Harmemng stated that staff will not commit or agree to anything in its meeting with the County and added that the meeting with the County is seen as an exploratory meeting intended to help the City better understand the County's position on mitigation. Mr. Harmening indicated a letter to the County would be prepared for the Mayors signature indicating the City staff would be willing to meet with County staff consistent with the direction provided during this evening's discussion. 4. St. Louis Park Citizen Award/Recognition Program Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs stated that he and Councilmember Mavity thought that an award or some type of recognition program to recognize people for their contributions to the community was important. Councilmember Mavity stated that she envisioned a program that recognizes people who have done a lot for the community in any number of areas. She indicated that the program could be broad and not limited to a specific category and there could be more than one award presented in a year. Councilmember Omodt stated that he preferred to keep this type of program out of the hands of politicians and to have an advisory board do this. Councilmember Sanger stated that she did not feel strongly one way or another regarding this type of program. She indicated that the City previously developed a policy for naming City places in honor of people and suggested that this policy be consolidated with any award/recognition program in order to maintain consistency in the criteria. She agreed that an advisory board should be asked to administer the award/recognition program. She suggested that the human rights award be merged into this program so that one overall award is presented. She also requested that the criteria provide clarity around what it means to serve the City well. Mayor Jacobs stated that this program could be similar to the 11 Who Care awards presented by KARE 11. He suggested that members of the City's various boards and commissions be asked to form a blue ribbon committee to come up with the criteria and be responsible for selecting award recipients. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that the various advisory commissions be asked to form a blue ribbon committee of three individuals and to charge them with responsibility for coming up with the suggested criteria and to report back to Council in a written report. Study Session Minutes -7- August 8, 2011 Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to develop draft criteria for an award program to recognize citizens in the community for Council to review. 5. Mayor, City Council and Economic Development Authority Compensation Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated that Council briefly discussed this at its last study session but requested that it be included on the agenda when all Councilmembers were in attendance. Councilmember Omodt stated that he wanted this item on the record as having been discussed by Council. He felt that Council should decrease its compensation again by 5% because of current economic conditions and to demonstrate leadership of budget discipline. Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he did not feel comfortable making a decision on this issue now because two new members will be joining the Council in January 2012 and he preferred to give them a chance to weigh in on the matter. It was the consensus of the City Council to make no change in the current compensation of Mayor, Council, or EDA members. 6. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Mr. Harmening discussed the note recently sent to Council regarding an inquiry received from Cavalia about a VIP list and stated that since Council sets regulations on these types of events, it is recommended that they not accept show tickets or reduced price show tickets. He noted that there is a process whereby Council could accept, on behalf of the City, tickets as a gift from Cavalia, similar to the gifts received from other agencies, e.g., the AED defibrillator from Target. Councilmembers were in consensus that they should not receive tickets and suggested that Cavalia be asked to provide ticket opportunities to Meadowbrook or other places or agencies. The meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 7. Project Update—Hwy 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange 8. Project Update—Highway 100 Reconstruction Project 9. Semi-Annual Housing Programs Report 10. June 2011 Monthly Financial Report 11. Second Quarter Investment Report (April—June, )011) ")'1G1i, o' Nancy Stroth, @Ay Clerk Jeff Jacobs I .,or