HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/07/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session
July 24, 2006
8:00 PM
Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. Box Lunch with Hopkins City Council
6:30 p.m. Joint Meeting St. Louis Park & Hopkins City Councils
(see attached agenda)
Discussion Items
Approximate
Times
1. 8:00 p.m. Crime Free Rental Licensing
2. 8:30 p.m. Problem Properties
3. 9:00 p.m. Budget Discussion
4. 9:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda
Written Items
5. R-1 Zoning District Study – Scope of Work
6. June 2006 Interim Financial Statements
9:35 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD
(952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 072406 - 1 - Crime Free Rental Licensing
Page 1
1. Crime Free Rental Licensing Inspections
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to provide information to the City Council for the possible
development of a new ordinance to address, thru the City’s Rental Licensing program,
unacceptable tenant behavior.
SYNOPSIS:
Inspections recently met with the Police Department to discuss the growing number of tenant
behavior complaints they respond to. Cities like Burnsville and Moundsview have experienced
similar complaints on tenant behavior and have adopted licensing programs to assist in
controlling these problems.
BACKGROUND:
An owner who is licensed to rent a multi-family apartment or a 1 and 2 family single family
home is viewed essentially as a business. On this premise, the city expects the owner to be
responsible for all activities of the business, including but not limited to licensing, property
maintenance, etc. Staff feels this should also include the behavior of the tenants.
The licensing program has provisions that require the owner to comply with the property
maintenance codes through regular inspections. They must also renew their annual license by a
deadline in order to operate their business. Unfortunately, there is nothing currently in any of the
housing or licensing code provisions to address tenant behavior, except in Article II. Criminal
History Background Investigation which allows for an owner or manager of a rental property to
request the police department to conduct a background check on a manager or tenant (Section
16-31). This is optional and not mandatory.
PROPOSAL:
It is the consensus between Inspections and the Police Department that the City could address
tenant behavior issues through the use of a carrot and stick approach. Through the Crime Free
program, and through our existing licensing ordinance, owners would be required (no option) to
conduct a background check of the applicant in their rental license application. This would help
landlords screen out potentially problem tenants right from the beginning and hopefully reduce
the number of tenant behavior problems. Furthermore, if a tenant passed the background check
but failed to abide by the management rules and/or City ordinances, the lease agreement would
allow for the eviction of the tenant after two to three complaint investigations.
Many owners may object to this proposed program, but might be more agreeable a second
component of the carrot & stick approach: A new incentive program! Owners who do maintain
their premises and tenants in good standing could be offered a reduction in their annual license
fee. The savings would be realized by the City in a reduction of police and inspection complaint
calls. Each year, an annual review of the past year’s activities would determine if the owner
qualified for the fee reduction or not. Further analysis of budget impacts would need to be
undertaken if the Council was interested in this approach.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 072406 - 1 - Crime Free Rental Licensing
Page 2
As another option, if the Police are called to respond to tenants repeatedly, the City could
implement and enforce a service fee, similar to the fee used in the City’s current false alarm
program. Collection of these service fees would be billed to the owners and collected. If not
paid, they would then be held until the end of the regular licensing year and added to the
following year’s license. If the owner continued to refuse to pay the service fee, then the license
would be denied for the upcoming year, and operation of the business without a license would be
referred to the court system for prosecution. Another option would be to special assess the
service fee cost if the owner refused to pay.
DISCUSSION:
Owners always have the right to appeal. A new housing review board, possibly made up of
members from Police, Licensing and Inspections, would have to be in place to handle these
situations. Similar to other appeal structures in the code, the City Manager or Council would
have the final decision.
The carrot and stick approach has been used successfully in several other unique programs used
in the City, resulting in overall success. This added tool will help the City protect and preserve
the City’s neighborhoods and protect the overall public health, safety, welfare and morale of City
residents.
NEXT STEPS:
If Council is interested in creating such a new ordinance, staff will undertake a process of
communicating and gaining feedback from the rental property owners in the community and
return to the Council at a later day for action.
Prepared by: Manny Camilon, Environmental Health Official
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 072406 - 2 - Problem Properties
Page 1
2. Problem Properties Inspections
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To define the characteristics and symptoms of owner-occupied problem property and discuss
current tools and resources employed by staff to deal with these properties.
BACKGROUND:
In any one year, the Inspections staff may respond to 300 to 400 complaints relating to junk cars,
graffiti, litter, food and pool complaints, trash containers left on public right of way, commercial
vehicles in a residential district, trash homes, and unsafe/dilapidated structures
(Housing/Property Maintenance).
Staff resources for this no-fee program are limited to a ½ FTE position (20 hours a week). A
seasonal staff position in the spring and fall helps on special property maintenance projects. The
remaining Inspections staff conducts all of the other fee-for-service inspections, plan reviews,
licensing and permitting.
Rental and non-owner occupied properties are included in a fairly comprehensive property
maintenance inspection program for all multi-housing and 1 and 2 family units. The success of
the program has reduced the rental complaints. But a large portion of the property maintenance
complaints still are generated from the remaining 12,000 owner-occupied homes.
OWNER-OCCUPIED PROBLEM PROPERTIES:
Trying to clearly define owner-occupied problem properties is difficult. It is far easier to
describe the characteristics of the people who live in these types of properties:
Minor Offenders
These complaints are registered commonly, and consist of minor nuisances to the neighbors:
garbage cans left at the curb, toys left all over the property, lack of tree trimming, torn screens,
broken garage doors left open and volunteer trees sprouting up against buildings.
Chronic or repeat offenders
These constitute a large number of the complaints we receive. These residents don’t care much
about what the City or neighbor’s think about their properties, and once cleaned up, in time,
neighbors will call again complaining. Staff spends an inordinate amount of time and money
building up these cases for court. Meanwhile, frustration builds in the neighborhood.
Procrastinators
These are homeowners who are very adept at evading the issues and/or coming up with excuses.
The procrastinators will wait until the last possible moment and then request an extension. Like
the chronic offenders, once cleaned, they will allow the property to slide back into unsanitary
conditions or lack of property maintenance.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 072406 - 2 - Problem Properties
Page 2
Collectors and Hoarders
Hoarders believe “One day I’ll need those items!” Some collectors can’t let go of things because
“they remind them of a specific event or point in time.” Some believe what they have is of great
value when they’re really junk. Some people feel they are saving the world by “recycling” every
McDonald’s Styrofoam sandwich container, every grocery bag and/or pizza box.
In many of these cases the residents have mental health issues and require special care in dealing
with them. Resolution can be both lengthy and complicated.
Financial Status
Many times, residents admit they have financial difficulties and cannot afford to maintain their
properties. This concept was best exemplified in the first Pilot Rehab Project where a number of
past repeat violators finally brought their homes into compliance after years of being
procrastinators because now, they qualified for low-interest financial assistance.
Handicapped Residents
Some homeowners must deal with mental or physical handicap issues daily and many cannot
even afford the low-cost services of traveling or eating and resort to making their homes their
total world…until they are discovered and referred to the health department
Elderly and Widowed
There are also the aged or they have lost a spouse and no longer can maintain a household. Many
couples split their household duties, and did not take care of the other spouse’s duties, i.e., yard
work and painting versus household cleaning and cooking.
CURRENT CITY PROGRAMS OR APPROACHES:
There are successful city wide programs addressing some of the problem properties, many of
which were put in place since 2000 when a new housing philosophy was adopted and
implemented. Some examples include:
• In 2002, the city conducted its first Pilot Rehab Program with many participants taking
advantage of the low interest loans. Today we are repeating that successful program.
• Citywide low interest loans
• Emergency Repair Grant Program
• Volunteer Groups – The main goal of working with residents is to try and help keep the
resident in their house and, depending on their needs, provide the assistance through
agencies like Adult Protection or volunteer groups like Catholic Heart WorkCamp or the
Paint-a-Thon project, Rotary Club assistance, etc
• In some instances, the City purchases homes thru the Home Renewal program and the
home is remodeled or torn down so as to provide new/upgraded move up housing.
• Unfortunately, in some extreme cases, staff has to rely on going to court to gain
compliance. Going to court action is not always the most productive action because it
takes a tremendous amount of time for the City staff and the City Attorney to work on the
matter; resolution can be lengthy and complicated; most violations are misdemeanors
which cap the maximum fine and does not adequately reimburse the City for time
invested, and a negative public perception of City overusing its regulatory power can
occur.
• Assistance from NORC
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 072406 - 2 - Problem Properties
Page 3
The Police Department receives many calls relating to loud noise, minor vandalism and graffiti
which can disturb the quality of life for a neighborhood. A concern of staff is that residents may
no longer feel the neighborhood is safe or that anyone cares about the appearance of the
neighborhood. Excessive quality of life complaints can also result in a tremendous amount of
time and resources focused in one area of the City, and take away from other important police
matters.
Staff looks forward to discussing this matter with the Council.
Prepared by: Manny Camilon, Environmental Health Official
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Dan Meyer, Police Department
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 072406 - 3 - Preliminary Budget Discussion
Page 1
3. Preliminary Budget Discussion Finance
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
This discussion will assist the City Council and City Staff in setting expectations for the
preliminary budget work session on August 14. We will talk about the levy process, initial
figures for taxable valuation growth, and the acceptable range of tax levy increase. Our review
will focus on tax-supported areas such as the General fund, Park & Recreation funds, Pavement
Management fund, and Debt Service funds.
BACKGROUND:
Levy Process
The tax levy process has a very long cycle in Minnesota. The City starts preparing budget
documents for the next fiscal year in May - before the audit from the prior fiscal year is
complete. Departments work on those budgets into July before they are sent to the Finance
Department. The City Manager and Finance Director then review the requests and bring a
proposed budget to the Council for review in August.
A preliminary tax levy must be adopted by September 15 and transmitted to the home county.
This sets the maximum amount of property taxes for the next year. The Council can adopt a
final property tax levy lower than the preliminary levy – but not higher That information is
combined with the levies from other overlapping jurisdictions by the County for inclusion in the
Truth-in-Taxation (T-n-T) notices that are mailed to property owners in November. Between
September and November the Council reviews the proposed budget and may make any changes
that it feels are necessary.
In December, a T-n-T hearing is held to receive public input regarding the budget and tax levy
prior to adoption by the Council. No action is allowed to be taken at that meeting. A week later
the Council may adopt the final budget and tax levy, which must be transmitted to the County by
December 27 this year. An entity may avoid having a T-n-T hearing any year in which their levy
increases less than a benchmark set by the Department of Revenue – 5.0776% for 2006.
Taxable Valuation Growth
A big part of the preliminary budget process is determining the impact of the proposed levy on
taxpayers. That requires getting an estimate of taxable tax capacity for the entire city. We have
some of that information available in our Assessing department.
For assessable 2006 taxes, payable in 2007, our property values have increased over
$508,000,000 with $78,370,000 being improvements (new construction, additions &
remodeling). Unfortunately, that value increase doesn’t fall straight to our bottom line for
general property tax purposes. Most of the new construction has occurred in Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) Districts. The city only receives the base value taxes of the property (calculated
from the value prior to redevelopment) and the increment (difference between the base value
taxes and the current taxes) is deposited to special accounts to pay off the qualified expenditures
incurred in developing the project.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 072406 - 3 - Preliminary Budget Discussion
Page 2
We do not have the information on TIF available in-house. Hennepin County usually provides
the computer runs in mid to late August. We should be able to provide approximate tax impacts
on a range of property values after we know the amount of captured value in the TIF districts.
Range of Tax Levy Increase
The city budget has limited revenue sources other than property taxes. Unless we were to create
new revenue streams (e.g. street light utility fee), those other revenues are estimated to be
essentially unchanged in total compared to the 2006 budget. While we will review our fees this
year, any increases will have a very modest impact on total revenues. That leaves the burden of
covering any spending increases to the property tax.
The budget for the general fund is driven primarily by wage and benefit costs. We have a 3%
wage increase budgeted for 2007 (also included in our contracts with our bargaining units).
There are a number of recently hired employees who are receiving step increases. This increases
our costs somewhat higher for that portion of the budget.
A lot of our other costs are energy related such as heating, electrical, gasoline, diesel, and
blacktop. That means our average costs are going up faster than inflation while our revenue
sources are essentially flat except for property taxes. Just doing the math on a roughly 4%
increase on a $22,000,000 budget ($880,000) and dividing by this year’s taxes ($18,515,000)
leaves us with about a 4.75% increase in property taxes for providing the same baseline services.
On top of this, we need to review the debt service on general obligation (GO) bonds. The tax
levy required for the 2005A bonds has increased $224,000 because the financing plan was
designed to phase in the full levy over two years. This increase adds another 1.2% to the
property taxes.
The Park & Recreation funds have experienced similar expenditure growth. They will also need
some additional tax levy to provide the same level of service.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Is the City Council comfortable with a tax levy percentage increase greater than Consumer
Price Inflation (CPI) – currently at 4.3%.
2. Some departments are proposing additional services or enhanced service levels. Is the City
Council open to changing baseline services?
3. Is the Council interested in or open to reducing baseline services?
4. Are there other new programs or services that the City Council would like included in the
preliminary budget and tax levy?
5. Is Council interested in staff exploring other revenue enhancements e.g. street light utility
fee, increase utility franchise fees, etc.
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 072406 - 4 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 1
4. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next Study Session agenda.
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes is set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the study session on August 14, 2006.
Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Prepared By: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 072406 - 4 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Monday, August 14, 2006
(Board & Commission interviews 6:30 p.m.)
7:00 p.m. Study Session starts
Discussion Items
A. Budget Discussion – Finance (60 minutes).
Finance Department to lead Council in a discussion about the 2007 budget.
B. VIP II Assistance – Community Development (30 minutes)
Discussion of Rottlund’s request for assistance for Phase II of Village in the Park Project.
C. 36th Street Streetscape & Art Visioning – Comm. Dev. /Park & Rec (45 minutes)
Update on the planning process for landscaping and incorporating art in the 36th Street
Corridor between Wooddale Ave. and Beltline Blvd.
D. Duke Concept Plan – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will discuss the status of preliminary site plan for Duke’s proposed “West End”
project (I-394 & Hwy 100)
E. Future Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Reports
Historic Preservation Study – Community Development
Flood Mitigation – Public Works
9:50 p.m. End of Meeting
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 072406 - 5 - R-1 Zoning District Study
Page 1
5. R-1 Zoning District Study Community Development
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To provide information on the proposed process for reviewing the R-1 zoning district standards and
subdivision regulations for environmental protection and neighborhood character.
BACKGROUND:
As discussed at the July 10th Study Session, at the City Council’s request the Planning Staff is
undertaking a study of the R-1 zoning district and subdivision standards. To move the study
forward as quickly and efficiently as possible, the process has been streamlined. Interested residents
will be invited to attend and participate with the planning commission in a series of planning
commission study sessions. The goal is to complete the study and put in place any resulting
ordinance changes as soon as possible. The proposed process is outlined below. Assuming the City
Council is comfortable with the proposed process, staff will inform the neighborhoods of the study
process and schedule during the week of July 24th and begin preparing for the August 2nd Planning
Commission study session:
R-1 Zoning District
1. Collect and study data:
a. Review lot data in the R-1 zoning district related to lot size, lot width, floor area ratio,
etc.
b. Identify specific areas to study more closely based on distinguishing characteristics (i.e.
larger lot sizes). Clearly the Lake Forest and parts of Fern Hill will be key areas. Other
areas may be identified as well.
c. Analyze specific lot information within the specific areas - such as floodplain; location
of house on lot; value of building to land; ability to subdivide, etc.
d. Evaluate the potential impact of changes to city ordinances on move-up housing
opportunities.
2. Determine and present options related to creating a new, larger lot zoning district.
Environmental/Neighborhood
1. Evaluate environmental protection and neighborhood character:
a. Review existing regulations, identify areas of the code to improve or change, and
conduct research on potential code changes.
2. Determine and present options for Subdivision Ordinance additions/changes.
The following tentative schedule is proposed:
Aug. 2 Review process for study – Planning Commission and interested residents
Aug. 16 Discuss data findings at Planning Commission meeting (including interested residents)
Sept. 20 Present findings and options to Planning Commission and interested residents
Oct. 9 City Council Study Session
Future Set any necessary public hearings for ordinance changes
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 072406 - 5 - R-1 Zoning District Study
Page 2
PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS:
The study process and schedule will be shared with the effected Neighborhoods prior to the August
2nd Planning Commission meeting. Interested residents will be invited to attend and participate in
the Planning Commission study sessions. The first Planning Commission Study session (8/2) is
intended as an opportunity for staff to explain the study process and get both Planning Commission
members and residents input on key issues that should be addressed during the study. At the
August 16th Planning Commission study session staff will report the results of their analysis and
research on the identified issues. The September 20th Planning Commission meeting will be
dedicated to sharing and discussing with the Planning Commission and interested residents, the
study’s findings and potential options for how to proceed. Through out the process staff will
encourage resident input and keep them informed. If the City Council concludes that changes to
City Ordinances are needed at the September 25th City Council Study Session, the appropriate City
Council actions and public hearings will be scheduled depending on exactly what actions the City
Council chooses to pursue.
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 072406 - 6 - June 2006 Interim Financial Statements
Page 1
6. June 2006 Financial Statements Finance
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Attached are the June 2006 financial statements for the General Fund and the Park and Recreation
fund. The list below summarizes what is included in this packet.
1. Monthly financial statements for the overall general fund and park and recreation fund by
account summary level comparing the annual budget figures to the sixth month of 2006
actual figures.
2. Monthly financial statements for expenditures of the general fund by each department and
for expenditures of the park and recreation fund by each division that compares the annual
budget figures to the sixth month of 2006 actual figures.
Please note that a negative sign in front of a revenue figure indicates a positive number or rather
actual revenue received. In addition, when comparing the “Monthly Financial Report” to the
“Departmental Expenditure report”, the “Departmental Expenditure Report” does not include
budgeted or actual transfers nor miscellaneous expenses that are included as “other expense”.
In reviewing the June financial statements, it is important to note a couple of key factors that had an
impact this month to the monthly statements provided:
GENERAL FUND:
In comparison from May’s to June’s monthly financial report, there were significant increases in
June within Licenses and Permits, Intergovernmental and Charges for Services revenues, while
Personal Services, Supplies, Services and Other Charges and Miscellaneous expenditures
experienced significant decreases.
• An adjustment from a prior year impacted the statements in both general property taxes and
intergovernmental revenue pertaining to a reclassification of the Market Value Homestead
Credit. The reclassification was for $987,894, but the net impact to the statements is $0.
• Licenses and Permits increased by approximately $72,000 which is attributed to increased
revenues for Building and Electrical permits for Excelsior and Grand for $38,000 and
$19,000 respectively. In addition, additional Certificates of Compliance and Food and
Beverage permits were issued totaling $9,000 and $6,000 respectively.
• Intergovernmental revenue increased by approximately $20,000 which was for two quarters
of liaison services.
• Personal Services Expenditures decreased by approximately $48,000 due to one less day of
payroll in the month.
• Supplies decreased by approximately $29,000 which is entirely attributable to decreased
purchases of asphalt for Public Works - Operations.
• Services and Other Charges Expenditures decreased by approximately $50,000 which is
attributable to the following items: Public Works – Operations –one month of electrical
service payments instead of two for approximately $12,000 and electrical work on street
lights for about $8,000; Police – reduced subsistence payments for about $12,000; Human
Resources – Project Management Consultant for approximately $8,000; Numerous
Departments – small payment to many entities in contractual services for about $10,000.
• Miscellaneous Expenditures decreased by approximately $14,000 which pertains to the
rerouting of water and gas lines at Fire Stations 1 and 2.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 072406 - 6 - June 2006 Interim Financial Statements
Page 2
PARKS AND RECREATION:
In reviewing the Park and Recreation fund, the monthly financial report shows increases in Charges
for Services revenue, Personal Services, Supplies, Services and Other Charges and Capital Outlay
expenditures. While Miscellaneous revenue experienced a decrease.
• Charges for Services revenue increased by approximately $94,000 which is attributable to
increased pool and concession revenue of about $86,000 and summer program registration
for about $8,000.
• Personal Services expenditures increased by approximately $50,000 which is for the
increase in summer employees.
• Supplies expenditures increased by approximately $33,000 because of increased pool
chemicals and concession supplies for $16,000 and $17,000 respectively.
• Services and Other Charges Expenditures increased by approximately $79,000 which is
attributed to the following items: increased electrical services for about $40,000; increased
sanitation services for about $11,000; contractor payments for fireworks and entertainment
for approximately $13,000 and $5,000 respectively; equipment maintenance services for
$10,000.
• Capital Outlay increased by $8,021 which was for a compressor rebuild at the Recreation
Center.
• Miscellaneous Revenue decreased by approximately $45,000 which is attributable to
decreased ice rental.
Additional reminders from previous reports:
• Since the City budgets on an annual basis, the budget numbers that appear on the monthly
financial reports are annual figures. However, the actual revenues and expenditures are
monthly figures. Therefore, you will see much fluctuation in the month to month
comparison.
• The interest revenue allocation is not yet reflected in the Year-to date actual numbers.
Therefore, interest revenue is showing as a negative number. This number will be offset
with the interest earnings once the allocation is completed.
• Due to the fact that overall revenues are low during the beginning months of each year, the
city keeps a reserve of approximately four months of expenditures for cash flow purposes.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Statements
Prepared By: Brian Swanson, Accounting Manager
Reviewed By: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager