Loading...
CHA 05/01/2017 TO: Charter Commission Members FROM: Deb Skogen, City Clerk and Staff Liaison Date: April 28, 2017 Re: Charter Commission Meeting of May 1, 2017 Monday This is a reminder to you that the next Charter Commission meeting will be held on , st May 1 at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room A on the Upper Level. In order to ensure a quorum, please remember, the Charter Commission policy requires a member to call or e-mail before 10:00 a.m. Monday, May 1st, as to whether or not you plan on attending the meeting. Please contact me by phone at (763)572-3523 or e-mail at deb.skogen@fridleymn.gov, or Jake by phone at (763)572-3508 or e-mail at jake.foster@fridleymn.gov as to your attendance. If we do not have a quorum by 10:00 am, we will send out an e-mail to see if additional members will attend. If by Noon there will not be a quorum, we will send out an e-mail to all members and post a notice on the door announcing the cancellation of the meeting for those Commissioners who did not contact me, but came to the meeting. The Commission will continue its discussion of Chapter 7 pertaining to the levy restrictions. Per the request of several commissioners, staff has worked to provide further information to support the continued discussion. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Jake. CITY OF FRIDLEY CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 1, 2017 7:00 P.M. LOCATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM A UPPER LEVEL 1.CALL TO ORDER: 2.ROLL CALL: 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion approving the May 1, 2017 meeting agenda 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion approving the April 3, 2017 meeting minutes 5. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Continued Discussion of Chapter 7 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS/COMMUNICATIONS A. 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting Next Regular Commission Meeting Date: TUESDAY, September 5, 2017 CITY OF FRIDLEY CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ostwald called the Charter Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Commissioners Gary Braam, Zach Crandall, Don Findell, Manuel Granroos, Richard Johnston, Ted Kranz, Rick Nelson, David Ostwald, and Pam Reynolds Members Absent: Commissioners Bruce Nelson, Barb Reiland, Cindy Soule, Avonna Starck, and Richard Walch Others Present: Bob Barnett, Councilmember at Large Ann Bolkcom, Councilmember Ward 3 Wally Wysopal, City Manager Deb Skogen, City Clerk Jake Foster, Management Analyst APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Nelson MOVED and Commissioner Reynolds seconded a motion to approve the agenda. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON OSTWALD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Granroos MOVED and Commissioner Kranz seconded a motion approving the Charter Commission meeting minutes of March 6, 2016. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON OSTWALD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A.Oath of Office for Appointments Ms. Skogen said Chairperson Ostwald and Commissioner Johnston had read and signed their oaths of office. She said Commissioner were expiring in May, and Draft CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 2 Commissioners Johnston and Walch in September. They will all need to be re-appointed along with the new appointees Bruce Nelson and Valerie Rolstad. Commissioner Nelson MOVED and Commissioner Kranz seconded a motion recommending the re-appointments of Valerie Rolstad, Don Findell and Cindy Soule in May, and Commissioners Johnston and Walch in September. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON OSTWALD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. B.Update on Chapter 2 Amendment Ms. Skogen stated the Chapter 2 Amendment had its second reading and was published. It now has a 90 day period before becoming effective in June. OLD BUSINESS A.Discussion of Chapter 7 Chairperson Ostwald asked if the Commissioners had reviewed the materials staff sent and how they would like to proceed with the discussion. Ms. Skogen asked if Mr. Foster had any other information and he responded there were no additional materials. Commissioner Crandall asked if there were any specific state statutes that might have an impact on Chapter 7. Mr. Foster said the state statutes were referenced in the summary of recommendations document and the comparison of statutory cities with charter cities document, but he did not have copies of the statutes themselves. Commissioner Findell asked if city staff had prepared a redlined copy of Chapter 7. Mr. Foster said no as there were some Commissioners concerned with a first draft coming from staff. Commissioner Findell asked if references made to specific documentation in the minutes from agenda packets and were available on the web through Laserfiche. Commissioner Reynolds said the charter commission often looked to other cities for examples, but Commission to amend the charter. She added the charter should not be amended based on what staff perceived She added that other cities often use the League of Minnesota he appreciates the fact . Ms. Skogen replied a model charter from created by the City. Draft CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 3 Commissioner Reynolds said she was concerned that amending the charter would remove the power from the citizens and give all of the control to the City. She also felt this chapter was being reviewed ney. Mr. Foster felt her assertion was speculation. T the chapter to reflect todays accounting practices such as the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)redundant or unnecessary language. He did not want to paint the charter as being antiquated, but wanted to avoid making a direct recommendation regarding the language in Chapter 7. He said the recommendations using the Chairperson Ostwald asked the Commissioners move forward on their discussion before getting too caught up in specific words or details. Commissioner Kranz said he would be hesitant to completely decimate all of the existing language, but times we Commissioner Findell thought much of the language in the other charter examples remained quite vague, but many do reference state statute and do defer to the State in setting specific levy standards. Commissioner Crandall referenced the notes provided by staff in Section 7.09 stating the County statute language. Mr. Foster said that recommendation came from the Finance Department, but he would double check with them regarding whether or not there still is an auditor on the county level. Commissioner Findell said he would be in favor for leaving the 5% cap intact, but that the index used could be adjusted. He asked for the thoughts of the other Commissioners. General discussion took place regarding the CPI and other indexes. Chairperson Ostwald asked what was at the root of the distrust removing these limitations. Commissioner Reynolds described the example about water rates have risen since they were removed from the levy limitation. Mr. Wysopal summarized the discussion of the past several meetings citing how the reserves have diminished, how was diminished, how debt service has been extended, and maintenance, such as paint for fire hydrants, has been forgone due to the levy limitation. He said the water and sewer rates in the City remain near the median of rates in other cities within the metro. Draft CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 4 Councilmember Bolkcom added that water maintenance costs have also been deferred to reduce the burden of potential cost being passed on to residents. Commissioner Nelson asked if it would be possible, recommended, or even legal for the City to carve out exceptions from their general fund levy to lessen the burden of the restrictions in Chapter 7. He wondered if things like infrastructure or capital equipment could be placed in separate levies that would not be subject to the restrictions. Mr. Wysopal said it is something staff could look into, but the levies that are certified to the county are for operations or debt services. He said through levies, but rather fees paid. Further discussion took place as to how the City might be able to approach this notion, and evaluate its feasibility. Commissioner Crandall asked what the difference would be regarding the special levies that are permitted in the state statute. Mr. Wysopal said to keep in mind that personnel costs make up the Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the difference between the proposal and the current process as budgetary line items are listed in the budget and can be debated and shifted. Commissioner Nelson said this proposal would give the City the ability to levy additional dollars Commissioner Reynolds said Mounds View levied a specific dollar amount per household to create a dedicated fund for the purpose of their streets. She added the charter provides a procedure in which there are means of creating an additional levy during an election year. Mr. Wysopal said this provision is ineffective as the funds would go into effect in the following year, and this scenario would need to be a situation where immediate funds are required. General discussion took place regarding this provision in the charter. Commissioner Kranz expressed his concern especially regarding the continue to provide avenues to foster trust. Commissioner Crandall asked if it would be feasible or acceptable to remove the index language, but leave a percentage cap in the restriction. Chairperson Ostwald asked if there were any other cities that use a restriction using only a percentage. Mr. Wysopal said only Fridley and Mounds View had any limits in their charters. Commissioner Crandall reiterated his question regarding potential concerns with leaving a hard percentage limit in the charter, but removing the index limitation. amounts in some years after their restriction was removed. Councilmember Bolkcom said she was hesitant to speculate as to the reason why there were such increases without having additional information. The Commissioners discussed percentage caps and contributing expenses to annual levies. Chairperson Ostwald stated all options should be presented and discussed. Draft CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 5 Commissioner Reynolds said she was concerned that if the levy restrictions were removed the City would increase their levy to pay for expanded services, such as recycling, and that she Mr. Wysopal said recycling services should be left to the Council. He felt this type of debate and and it is unfair for the Charter Commission to seek to inhibit the ability for council members to debate and makes such decisions. Commissioner Granroos asked what the balances of operational reserves funds. Mr. Wysopal said the City needed a fund balance to cash flow for at least six months as the City is paid twice a year from the State and/or County. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why there was so much distrust within this body. Commissioner Findell felt a lot of the distrust stemmed from the original petition members who put the restrictions in place. He felt that depreciation and additional funds should be set aside to pay for future costs without fund balance being grown to exorbitant amounts. Mr. Wysopal agreed and said this is great insight. Fund balances should be kept in check, so long as cities have the ability to keep them at acceptable levels. Further general discussion took place regarding fund balance. Councilmember Barnett asked the commissioners, as citizens of Fridley, how they viewed their taxes in regards to how they compare to other cities. Commissioner Findell said portion of the taxes is low compared to the portions taken by the school districts and the County. Councilmember Barnett said surrounding cities. regards to removing the index in the restriction, but keeping a percentage limit. Mr. Wysopal responded saying it would make things easier, but he had some concerns that it may not be the proper rationale for dealing with the chapter considering all of the work and time that has been put into the discussion. Commissioner Granroos said he agreed provide direction on policy thought removing the index but keeping the percentage makes sense. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how the Commissioners would arrive at a number for the potential percentage cap, and how would that number be explained to other citizens. Mr. Crandall said that he was just offering the idea for discussion, but a 5% cap is already in the charter. He also thought removing the index, but keeping the cap, would make things more workable for City staff. Commissioner Crandall was concerned the current restriction was put in place by very few people. He said he also had concern that even fewer people would have input if the restriction was process-driven. Draft CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 6 Commissioner Kranz said the commercial industrial makeup of the City helps to ease some of the tax burden. Councilmember Barnett agreed. Commissioner Reynolds asked if the Commissioners knew that the group in 2000 was not the one that added the language using the CPI. She said that it was changed from the mill rate to the CPI before then. She said the language around fees was changed with the petition language. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Wysopal what it generally means when cities are referencing there is nothing currently restricting city tax levies in State Statute. Mr. Foster added the State does impose restrictions from time-to-time, but they are passed by the legislature. Mr. Wysopal said staff would be willing to explore any areas or solutions they might be interested in. He acknowledged they are aware of the deep seeded roots of the restriction within the community and would certainly take that into consideration. Commissioner Nelson suggested there could be an additional parameter than might be able to extend the levy amount of CPI, or any other index chosen to be used, increased beyond a certain percentage from the prior year without limiting the levy increase to an index itself. He would still like to see a separate levy for infrastructure or other essential expenditures so the City could generate additional revenue for these projects so citizens could better understand where there taxes were being spent. Mr. Wysopal said this is a concept they could certainly explore with the Finance Department. Commissioner Nelson asked if City staff could provide amounts of what additional levy amounts might be needed to support essential projects and whether they could remain exempt from State- imposed levy restrictions. Commissioner Crandall asked if Local Government Aid was earmarked for any specific uses. Mr. Wysopal said it was not, but Council would like to use it for capital expenditures as it can be a volatile funding source. Commissioner Nelson asked what a percent change would equate to in levy dollars or what the 2018 increase would equate to in dollars. Mr. Wysopal offered to take further direction from the Commission as to what type of information they would like or solutions to be explored for feasibility. He thanked the Commission for their continued time and support. Chairperson Ostwald asked if there were any specific items the commissioners would like to have analyzed by City staff. removing the index but keeping a percentage limit. He thought it might be a good starting point Draft CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 3, 2017 PAGE 7 for essential projects and asked more analysis of that idea. Commissioner Crandall asked for clarification on special assessments. Mr. Wysopal said these were assessments tied to specific properties that could be levied in the following year. Commissioner Nelson asked if the City could identify what the enterprise fund covers. Commissioner Crandall said he would like to know if a 5% cap would be workable and asked staff to speak to its feasibility. Commissioner Nelson MOVED and Commissioner Kranz seconded a motion for staff to provide the Commission with the information and analyses that were discussed as being desired by commissioners. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON OSTWALD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS A.There was no new business. FUTURE TOPCIS Administrative Matters Swearing in of remaining new members Old Business Continued Discussion of Chapter 7 ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kranz MOVED and Commissioner Granroos seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON OSTWALD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jake Foster Management Analyst/Staff Liaison Commissioner Manuel Granroos, Secretary Draft Skogen, Deb From:Foster, Jake Sent:Friday, April 28, 2017 2:29 PM To:Foster, Jake; Braam, Gary; Crandall, Zach; Findell, Don; Granroos, Manuel; Johnston, Richard; Kranz, Ted; Nelson, Bruce; Nelson, Rick; Ostwald, David; Reiland, Barb; Reynolds, Pam; Rolstad, Valerie; Soule, Cindy; Stark, Avonna; Walch, Richard Cc:Skogen, Deb; Wysopal, Wally; Peterson, Shelly Subject:05-01-17 Agenda CHA 05-01-17.pdf; 5-1-17_CharterAnalysisMaterials.pdf; 20172018_budget_items.pdf Attachments: Commissioners, TheagendaforaƚƓķğǤ͸ƭmeetingisattachedalongwithamemoandanalysis/answerstothequestionsand informationthatwasrequestedofCityStaffduringthelastmeeting.Ihavealsoattachedthebudgetdeferments handoutthatwasprovidedwithlastƒƚƓƷŷ͸ƭpacket.Asthishandoutwaspreviouslyprovided,Ididnotincludeitinthe hardcopyagendapacketthatwillfollowbyUSPS. Pleaseletmeknowifyouhaveanyquestions,concerns,orifǤƚǒ͸ķlikemetoprintanyofthehandoutsIhaveprovided electronically. Thanks! JakeFoster ManagementAnalyst CityofFridley 6431UniversityAve.NE Fridley,MN55432 Phone:7635723508 Email:jake.foster@fridleymn.gov 1 2017 mandatory budget increases *2017 CIP items 2017 deferments Network Core Switching Health insurance 4 police fleet vehicles Step increases Non-lethal force options Sidewalk plow 2% COLA Squad camera DVR rplcmt Front-mount tractor Operational Budget + 2% 800 MHz radio rplcmt Sweeper Court resurfacing Topdressor Park furnishings Tanker truck Parking lot resurfacing Trailer mounted genset SNC boardwalk replacement Playground equip replacement Security cameras Community Center furnishings Fire Station 2 & 3 repairs 800 MHz radio replacement Rescue truck replacement Fire vehicle replacement- chief Digital fire attack simulator Desktops/Laptops Printers/Copiers Servers & Storage Networking Preapproved software - TBD Pickup truck Cabinets/fixtures/storage * all items in included the CIP were determined by a matter of public policy deemed necessary for essential city services 2018 mandatory budget increases *2018 CIP items 2018 deferments Health insurance 4 police fleet vehicles TBD ~ $1 million Worker's comp insurance Rescue truck rplcmt PERA increase Aerial Ladder rehab Step increases Personal protective Equip 2% COLA + Union agreements 800 MHz radio rplcmt Natural Gas & Electric Floor Strubber Operating Budget + 2% Mowers Pickup Trucks Dump Trucks with plows Utility vehicles - Parks Paving equipment Utility vehicles - Streets Desktops/Laptops Agenda Management Mobile Device Management Mobile Assessing Technology Applicant Tracking Image System Enhancements Furniture & Fixtures Court Resurfacing Park Furnishings SNC Boardwalk Rplcmt Playground Equipment Replacement * all items in included the CIP were determined by a matter of public policy deemed necessary for essential city services Hello Charter Commission, As per the request of several commissioners, City staff has worked to provide further information to support your continued discussion of Chapter 7 of the City Charter. Included is a brief analysis of the materials and information requested by commissioners. I have also attached the previously provided the 2017-2018 CIP and miscellaneous budget items list to supplement the new materials. Additionally, an electronic copy and links to the applicable state statutes referenced in the summary document will be provided as they are quite lengthy. As always, if there are any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thanks! Jake Foster Management Analyst City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. NE Fridley, MN 55432 Phone: 763-572-3508 Email: jake.foster@fridleymn.gov City Staff Responses to Commissioner Questions and Requests from 4/3/17 Meeting 1.7.09 –Statute says “county auditor” – Does Anoka not have one? Some counties do not have auditors. Anoka County, instead, has a Property Records and Taxation Division. The Finance Department also added that the counties have their own rules, laws, and regulations to go by, often imposed by the state. As they are held to account by these measures, they will follow them in regards to when their disbursement is given to the City. What the City’s charter indicates really has no bearing on how the County operates, so this section can be removed. If the commission still feels this section needs to remain intact, the “county auditor” language should be updated to reflect the County’s “Property Records and Taxation Division.” 2.Levy exemptions and special/separate levies analysis: In order to best understand how exceptions, or how “special levies” can be created, it is important to understand how the City’s levies get certified by the County. How are levies submitted to the County? Typically levies are split between General and Bonded Indebtedness when submitted to the County. We could split out Operations and identify Capital separately but the County does not treat it as separate levies (they combine for a total General Levy). When the State has imposed levy limits, they have typically allowed cities without a charter restriction to levy for obligations outside of that general levy limit. For example, the State has allowed increases beyond the limit if a City had a pre-existing contract obligation (e.g., labor contracts) or mandatory PERA increase. The State form lists 2 pages of “cut outs.” If 7.02 of the Charter included the ability to exclude non-routine type expenditures and special levies as authorized by State Statute from the General City Purpose CPI restriction, it should be done as a calculation prior to submitting the final levy to the County. The County does not require a breakdown, they would prefer we keep is simple. Below is an example of the one other City in the State with a Levy Restriction. The breakdown below allows for “cut-outs.” Please note that Mound View (below) has a CPI +2% in their restriction. 20162017% change Property tax base levy$ 3,706,549.00 $ 3,833,967.00 3.44% Special levy - Police Referendum$ 194,000.00$ 205,000.005.67% Special levy - PERA rate increase$ 39,145.00 $ 39,145.00 0.00% Debt service levy - Fire bonds$ 154,119.00$ 90,835.00 -41.06% Capital Project Street Imp.$ 300,000.00$ 300,000.000.00% EDA/HRA levy$ 100,000.00 Total Levy$ 4,395,829.00 $ 4,568,947.00 3.94% 3.Estimation of what might be needed year-over-year to address general operations needs? Below is a forecast of what is needed for General Operations net of anticipated revenues for 2018-2020. 2018 20192020 General Fund Operating865,430.00 687,051.00 707,662.53 Capital Funds56,500.00 144,640.00 82,000.00 Increasedexpenses net of anticipated revenue sources978,430.00 976,331.00 871,662.53 Equates to a levy % increase of 9.29% 8.48% 6.98% Note: City is NOT proposing or requesting these increases, but they are representative of a fully funded operations budget. It is the responsibility of the City’s elected officials to deliberate and strike a balance between requested items, mandated items, and what is funded. It’s important to note that the percentage a levy increases by does not equate to the same increase for the taxpayer. New development or an expiring TIF district will offset this impact. In addition, cities who receive more fiscal disparities than they contribute into the pool see a reduction in their taxes. Also note that these are operations costs, and can be used to discuss the feasibility of a 5% cap (or other chosen percentage). Costs outside of the general fund also fluctuate greatly. The CIP report that was provided previously, and also is attached may help to identify some of those outside costs. 4.What is included in the enterprise fund? The enterprise fund(s) function completely “stand-alone” and outside of the City’s levy. These funds are as follows: Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water, and Municipal Liquor. The fees that are collected by each of these funds are used to capture the current and future costs of providing these services. They are not subject to funding via the City’s levy. Outside of the Liquor Store fund, which revenues are transferred to support general operations, each of these funds are used to support the delivery of the corresponding service. 5.What does a 1% levy increase equate to in 2018? A 1% levy increase on the 2017 Levy equates to $105,378 Statelaws/statutes that impact these chapters of our charter, and what other charters are likely referring to they say “applicable to state law.” Statutes 429, 412, 475, 275, 471 Note: Each of these statutes will has been provided electronically in a .pdf, and with their corresponding links. 6.Requested Recycling average cost increases a. CPI restriction is applicable to recycling fees (billed with quarterly utility bills). Recycling is mandatory, per State Statute. i. CPI increased average 1.4% /year for the past 8 years. ii. Recycling hauler services contractually increasing average of 4% /year. iii. Contract expires on May 1, 2019 and rates will likely go up. Contract changes such shifting from carts to recycling dumpsters at larger apartments are needed. CPI restrictions prevent needed service shifts. b. Due to the CPI limit, in 2017, the City will be reviewing the fund, potentially cutting programming in the following areas: i. Curbside service frequency (example, from bi-weekly to once per month). ii. Eliminating/reducing the number of drop-off recycling events. These generate 200 tons – nearly 10% of the City’s required annual recycling goal. iii. Programming reduction & service translates into a reduction in grant dollars that reimburse programming.