Loading...
1984-01-31 Council Workshop PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA ADJOURNED MEETING - COUNCIL WORKSHOP JANUARY 31, 1984 7:00 P.M. ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM 1. Roll Call. 2. Adopt Agenda. 3. Opening Remarks by City Administrators. 4. Review and Discussion of City Financial Status. 5. Review and Council Adoption of Target Issues for 1984. 6. Consideration of Potential Changes to Council Meeting Procedures. 7. Adjourn. -s CITY .OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS January 25, 1984 TO: Mayor and City Council 0 i 31- FROM: Kevin D. Frazel City Administrator SUBJECT: January 31st Workshop The purpose of the January 31st workshop is to take some time to reflect on the current status of the City, and to establish goals and objectives of what we want to accomplish in 1984. To that end, the agenda has three sections: 1. REVIEW OF FINANCIAL STATUS Any discussion of future issues, goals, and objectives must be placed in the context of the City's financial health. Attached is a memo from Treasurer Shaughnessy and I which provides a "snapshot" of our financial situation at the end of 1983, and looking forward to 1984. In summary, I think it fair to say that our financial health is very good. . In addition, Larry and Orvil have been working on some data that compares the local tax "burden" in Mendota Heights to several other metropolitan communities. If that research is completed by Tuesday, it will be presented. As the focus of:this workshop is on establishing goals and objectives, I would suggest that we not spend a lot of time discussing our financial state. A more complete analysis of resources and revenue sources is .suggested by the staff as a top level priority project to be completed in 1984, and would logically be done in conjunction with budget preparation'next summer. Again, the purpose of the attached memo is to provide a general context within which our other discussions can take place. 2. TARGET ISSUES The second attached memo provides staff thinking about important issues that need to be addressed, and our sense of priority as to which issues should be the subject of the most time and effort. Council review of and reaction to the staff -prepared issues list will be the heart of our workshop. The objective is to amend as needed, to reflect Council concerns and priorities. 3. POSSIBLE REVISION TO COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES The third memo details some possible changes to Council meeting procddures, which could "tighten up" and expedite the meetings. These suggestions are in response to concerns several of you have expressed to me about thq length and tenor of Council meetings. attachments J s CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 27, 1984 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazel , Administrator and -Larry Shaughnessy, City Treasurer SUBJECT: Update on City Financial Status As a prelude to our discussion about goals and objectives for the year, we felt it was important to provide the Council with a brief overview of the City's financial status. GENERAL FUND The General Fund balance as of'December 31, 1983; is expected to be about $600,000, an increase of.about $100,000 for fiscal year 1983. A continuation of strong building activity, along -with good interest returns (thanks in part to issuance of the Tax Anticipation Certificates last spring) combined with expeAditures of -about $40,000 under budget provide the favorable position. In addition, the extension of Revenue Sharing has eliminated the potential need for a $75,000 charge against the General Fund to cover the deficit on the Public Works Garage. Bond Counsel has advised us that the IRS ruling, which would severely limit our use of Tax Anticipation Certificates, has not, as yet become effective. We sholdld be able to justify approximately $500,000 in Tax Anticipation Certificates for 1984. It would be advisable to do so, since the current interest margin is about 3 3/47, while cost of issuing should be less than $2,000. If Council wishes to proceed with a TAC issue, staff will do a more extensive review of feasibility, and obtain offers for the purchase of Certificates I which can be considered by the Council at the February 21st meeting. SPECIAL PARK FUND The December 31st balance should be approximately.$187,775, with approx- imately another $123,000 anticipated in accounts receivable for 1984 and 1985. Council has recently authorized the expenditure of up to $15,000 in Engineer- ing costs for completion of the bike trail system along Marie Avenue and through Valley Park, and an additional $3,000 for a feasibility study for the bike trail along Lexington. INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND.FUND The City's fee on Industrial Revenue Bond issues has generated a fund of approximately $140,000. The only expense taken from that fund to date has been for the Highway 55/Mendota Heights Road Opticom system. - 2 - 01 UTILITY RESERVE FUND 'The Fund balance currently stands at approximately $22,000, and starting in 1985, we will begin to receive payment for the sewer purchased by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to serve Mendota. It is suggested that our net receipts (after deduction of our debt portion for MWCC charges) be retained in the reserve fund, with the interest earning used to liquidate unusual utility expenses, such as the Happy Hollow Bridge sewer line, and the General Obligation or unassessable portion of other improvement projects. STORM;DAMAGE FUND _ The remaining $10,413 deficit in this fund has been written off by a transfer from the General Fund during 1983. CABLE TV FUND Cable TV expenditures, including•those budgeted for 1984, are approximately $11,000. This deficit will be recouped from the successful bidder, upon award of a franchise, which hopefully will take place during 1984. WATER REVENUE FUND Income from water availability charges and sewer bill surcharges remains on schedule, with funds devoted to pay for the General Obligation share of the water tower construction. FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING Federal Revenue Sharing has been extended for an additional three years, through 1986. It is anticipated that the City of Mendota Heights will continue to receive approximately $29,000 in each of the three years. $27,946 of this years allocation will'be needed to liquidate the remaining deficit in the Public .Works Garage fund, leaving a balance of approximately $2,753 in the General Revenue Sharing fund. Since Revenue Sharing funds must be used within a certain time limit, or returned to the federal government, the Council should determine an appropriate use. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FUND Revenues and expenses are proceeding as planned, with funds available to complete the utility work on "the MAC property and the railroad crossing. Current increments, along with existing balance will fund the Public Safety relocation. The increment is expected to grow rapidly in 1985 and 1986, providing ample revenue for future debt service. EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES 1984 equipment purchases can be combined with those for 1985,-fonee a 1985 budget is adopted, and an issue sold in November or December of this year. Based on current estimates of need, a one mill tax levy should continue to be sufficient for retirement of the Equipment Certificates. i - 3 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT - SINKING FUNDS Cash flow projections on the Cons6lidated Sinking fund continue to suggest that a tax levy will not.be needed until the late 1980's or early 1990's. Payments from two improvement projects are a source of some concern, A complete review of the Sinking Fund will be done after completion of the annual financial audit, and any action necessary to address these concerns can be -considered at that time. MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET FUND Current allotments for construction are approximately $200,000 annually, with our MSA account having approximately $410,000 available.for construction in 1984. Available funds and expected allotments should provide sufficient funds for -all planned MSA projects, which at the current time include: 1984 - Mendota Heights Road east of TH 149, done in conjunction with service road construction by Mn/DOT. Cost - approx- imately $40,000 to $50,000. 1985 - Mendota Heights Road /Huber Drive connection and east to Delaware. Cost, approximately $250,000. If the Amesbury East project proceeds in 1984,it might be necessary to con- sider moving this project up to 1984. 1986 - Mendota Heights Road west from Dodd Road to Lexington Avenue and from Lexington Avenue to TH 55; committed to be upgraded after completion of I-494. Estimated cost $400,000. SUMMARY In summary, the City continues to be on a very sound, and in fact, enviable financial basis. Most.significantly, our General Fund balances are equivalent to approximately five months of expenditures, which is what our auditors consider to be ideal. The purpose of this memo is to provide a background of the City's financial resources, against which our discussion of goals and objectives for 1984 can take place. One of -,the target issues identified by the Council in the Lyle Sumek workshop last fall was a thorough analysis of the City's financial condition and future. That issue has been reiterated by the staff as a top level priority project for 1984. We would expect to complete that analysis in conjunction with the Annual Financial Statement and preparation of the 1985 recommended budget. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Orvil J. Johnson City Administrator January 26, 1984 SUBJECT: Real Estate Tax Information and Comparisons The 1984 real estate tax levies have been established by the County Auditor. Some facts and comparisons make interesting reading, hence this memo. The first Exhibit (A) is an update of the real estate tax levy history for Mendota Heights. You will note that: -- The 1984 total mill rate increased approximately 3.5 mills. -- The County mill rate increased approximately 1.0 mills. -- The City mill rate increased approximately 2.2 mills. -- The School rate reduced by .11 mills -- Special districts increased by .36 mills. The City's portion of your tax increased from 16.3 per tax dollar to 18.01 per tax dollar. The several increases can affect your total real estate bill in several ways: -- The 3.5 mill increase would increase your taxes. -- The Market Value of residential property was not increased for 1984. -- The formula for calculating Assessed Value has been changed and should tend to reduce the total taxes for homes under $120,000. -- The change in Homestead Tax Credit may or may not affect each individual net tax bill. In summary, a number of factors will affect your tax bill. However, they are all quite insignificant and do tend to counteract each other; hence the real estate tax bill is virtually impossible to predict. However, it may be up a fraction of one percent. WHY DID THE CITY RATE GO UP 2.2 MILLS? State Aid Loss $103,000 1.40 mills State aids were cut, local taxing increased. Debt Service $ 27,500 .37 mills Additional money for unfunded projects, planning loan, metro sewer. - 2 - Police Revenue Decrease $12,000 .16 mills Lilydale Regional Park policed by St. Paul and other decreases in Police Revenues. Assessed Value formula Loss Equates to .27 mills Legislature changed valuation formula, decreasing City valuation by $1,056,000. TOTAL: 2.20 mills The above figures explain the increased mill rate, while holding services at 1983 levels.. TAX COMPARISONS Exhibit B contains comparative information. It is restricted to Dakota County municipalities, both old established communities, and newer developing communities. An explanation of the three breakdowns is appropriate. The top third is designed to show: 1. The percentage of tax -dollars received by the seven municipalities. 2. The comparative mill rates for the years 1972, 1983 and 1984. You will note that Mendota Heights' 187 is very near the lowest of the com- parisons. Rosemount does take a somewhat smaller percentage than Mendota Heights. Eagan contains a small.area that has a percentage less than ours. However, the major portion of Eagan is at a higher percentage rate than our 18.03. You will please note that Inver Grove Heights, West St. Paul, Burns- ville, and South'St. Paul are well above Mendota Heights' percentage of tax take. A careful review of the 1983 and 1984 mill rates will reveal that our 2.2 mill increase was a median increase. Several communities are lower. However, most communities increased considerably more than our 2.2. The secodd breakdown allows one to compare a 12 year increase. You will note that only the two older, established communities of West St. Paul and South St. Paul have a lower increase over,the 12 year period than does.Mendota fights. Note the horrendous increases in the four other communities over the 12 year period of 1972 to 1984! The last breakdown enables one to compare operating/debt levies amongst municipalities for the past two years. Please note that Mendota Heights has the lowest operating levy! Please note also that only Eagan has a lower debt levy. You should note that the growing municipalities and South St. Paul have debt levies that apparently represent a determination to build or rebuild the necessary municipal infra -structures. These two exhibits contain only Dakota County taxing information. One can draw a number of conclusions from the comparisons. I continue to think - 3 - that Mendota Heights remains on the ragged edge of social community fabric, and should give more serious consideration to future municipal needs. (Only Coates, Lilydale, Meisville, Neer Trier, Randolph and Vermillion have lower rates). Favorable consideration of the target issues presented by Kevin will indicate a small step toward a more active community. attachments A & B MUNICIPAL TAX COMPARISONS MUNICIPAL MILL LEVIES COLLECTIBLE IN: 1984 1983 1972 % of Tax Mills Mills Mills MENDOTA HEIGHTS 18.03 16.730 14.527 13.53 ROSEMOUNT 16.92 to 17.35 17.328 16.186 4.26 EAGAN 16.32 to 19.11 17.824 17.149 7.90 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 20.29 to 22.52 21.815 18.256 10.88 WEST ST. PAUL 21.90 21.319 20.312 23.12 BURNSVILLE 22.39 to 24.28 25.986 22.034 12.23 SOUTH ST. PAUL 24.67 to 25.73 29.119 29.001 25.37 TWELVE YEAR INCREASE MILL INCREASE % INCREASE WEST ST. PAUL 21.319-23.12 - 1.80 - 7.79 SOUTH ST. PAUL 29.119-25.37 3.75 14.78 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 16.730-13.53 3.20 25.65 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 21.815-10.88 10.94 100.51 BURNSVILLE 25.986-12.23 13.76 112.48 EAGAN 17.824- 7.90 9.92 125.62 ROSEMOUNT 17.328- 4.26 13.07 306.76 OPERATING/DEBT LEVY 1984 3Y,. 1983 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 13.971 / 2.759 2,1r 11.858 / 2.669 ROSEMOUNT 14.317 / 3.011 9,1,9 12.440 / 3.746 EAGAN 15.990 11.834 g,4-6 15.182 / 1.967 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 17.455 / 4.360 2,10 14.215 / 4.041 WEST ST. PAUL 17.870 / 3.449 .r,,q 16.970 / 3.342 BURNSVILLE 17.289 / 8.697 T,A7 14.906 1 3.342 LAKEVILLE 16.200 / 5.887 �,�� 16.664 / 5.596 APPLE VALLEY 20.348 16.679 jr P3 17.888 / 6.514 SOUTH ST. PAUL 20.945 / 8.174 //,2'1 20.025 / 8.976 O.J.J. 4-� 1-26-84 G a ee, ��� MILL RATE Revenue Vs. Debt Service municipality Taxes Pd. 179 Taxes Pd. '78 Taxes Pd. '77 11.314 Rev. Debt. Rev. Debt Rev. Debt. 13.225 2.153 Apple Valley 14.303 5.835 14.073 5.713 12.536 3.528 Burnsville 13.217 5.359 12.977 5.823 13.482 4.633 Eagan 10.871 2.193 8.879 2.724 8.252 2.483 Farmington 15.116 3.779 10.924 16.395 15.322 13.767 Hastings 24.363 3.856 23.967 4.148 24.450 3.516 Inver Grove Hts. 13.513 1.886 12.794 2.007 11.759 2.400 .Lakeville 15.280 2.887 14.394 1.968 13.099 1.945 Mendota Heights 12.584 2.546 13.993 1.968 13.099 1.945 Rosemount 10.406 11.765 13.764 9.294 14.012 7.985 South St. Paul 18.071 11.463 15.777 10.936 11.870 11.265 •West St. Paul 14.838 5.114 14.716 5.398 14.029 5.352 3 Yr. Rev. Debt. 13.637 5.025 13.225 5.272 9.334 2.467 13.787 11.314 24.260 3.840 12.689 2.098 15.604 2.961 13.225 2.153 12.727 9.681 15.239 11.22_ 15.194 5.288 AVERAGES: 14.447 HIGH DEBT SERVICE: (3 Yr. Average): Farmington @ 3 YEAR AVERAGE DEBT: LOW DEBT SERVICE (3 Yr. Average): Inver Grove Heights@ 5.575 11.314 5.575 2.098 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 3 Year Average: 2.153 p 08, 97 voo ovo ........... (b 000 —,Ole do ADA CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 25, 1984 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazell, City Administrator SUBJECT: 1984 Target Issues As a part of the Lyle Sumek workshop last fall, the Council and staff established and prioritized target issues to be dealt with in 198.4 and 1985. A copy of that original list is attached. At a meeting on January 23rd, the staff updated this list... We.deleted items that had either been completed or were seen as not really having much importance, combined items that related into one broader issue, and added items that had come up since last fall. In all, we devised a list of 21 potential target issues. We then divided our list into three levels of priority -- top, middle, and low. Prioritization does not mean that all of the issues are not impor- tant. What it does mean is that we will concentrate our time and efforts to the higher priority issues. The lower priority issues are either those that we expect to take less time and effort, or if time becomes a problem they could be put off for a year. The list of target issues, as prioritized, is attached for Council review. Under several of the headings, we have indicated sub -issues to be dealt with. We will be prepared to more fully discuss each issue at the Council workshop on the 31st. ACTION REQUIRED Council should review and discuss the staff derived list, making changes as it deems appropriate in the issues to be addressed in 1984, and their level of priority. STAFF FOLLOW-UP After Council has adopted a list of issue priorities at the January 31st workshop,•I will use that list to: a. Develop a 1984 staff work program, including timelines and individual responsibilities. b. Enter a memorandum of agreement with each department head for what their department will accomplish in 1984. Respectful submitted, Qv Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator attachments STAFF IDENTIFIED TARGET ISSUES AND PRIORITIES FOR 1984 TOP PRIORITY 1. Comprehensive review of City's financial status and revenue sources. Annual financial report. -- Review of user fees and permits. -- State aid lobbying with other cities. -- Local tax base growth, 2. Develop a workload measurement/service level budget. -- Workload measures included in budget. -- Potential new or expanded services - implications of community growth. -- Development of long-range capital improvement budget. 3. Development of downtown Mendota Heights plan. -- Dodd Road upgrading. -- Commercial/residential development in Dodd Road/TH 110 area. 4. Fire department review. -- Construction of new station. -- Disposition of old site, -- Selection of new officers. -- Comprehensive,review of future of the fire service. 5. Comprehensive Plan Review and Amendments. -- Housing policy (elderly, middle income). -- Review of R-1 zoning of land abutting I-494, -- Develop policy on economic development. -- Consider noise and safety impacts of transportation, air and land. 6. MAC site redevelopment. -- Continue to lead. -- Define type of development we want. -- Define City participation. 7. Review water agreement with St. Paul Water. -- Consider option of wholesale agreement. 8. Tax Increment District. -- Identify City goals. -- Consider possible land acquisition and clearance - Mulvihill and Rogers Road. MIDDLE PRIORITY 1. Continue with Council - Staff teambuilding. -- Lyle Sumek program. 2. Develop and adopt liquor licensing ordinance. -- Determine on -sale? Off -sale? -- Determine license restrictions. 3. Develop street maintenance policy. -- Schedule. -- Financing. 4. Recreation programming. -- Review adequacy of.current program. -- Consider alternative delivery methods. 5. Study City personnel policies and fringe benefits. -- Cafeteria plan. -- Flex -time. 6. Develop and adopt policy on employee/staff development. -- Continuing education. -- Conference attendance. -- In-house training program. 7. City Information. -- Newsletter. LOW PRIORITY 1. Develop policy/program on community leadership/volunteers. -- Identify needs. -- Identify potential uses. -- Develop program. 2. Park acquisition and development. -- Priorities. -- Long-range program, including financing. 3. Traffic conditions. -- Monitoring and lobbying for implementation of existing Mn/DOT plans. 4. Street lighting. -- Develop policy or future of program. -- Develop criteria for installation. 5. City Clean-up Day. 6. Surface Water Management. -- Consideration of membership in regional Watershed Management Organization. -- Define and address other needs/problems. M TABLE I TARGET ISSUES: 1985 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS JUNE 1983 TOP PRIORITIES 1. Revenue Plan (Intergovernmental) Decline in state aid, federal aid Future direction Explore alternative revenue services 2. Downtown Upgrade Determination of direction - decision Resolution of key issue Plan for future Resolution of legal issue Initiation of plan implementation 3. Fire Station New fire station or stations Site location Decision on site 4. City Administrator Selection Establish criteria and profile Recruitment Selection Training program/internship Plan for new City Administrator 5. Budget Program/service priorities Program/service level Explore contracting of services Consolidation of services 7 Page 2 Target Issues HIGH PRIORITIES 1. Council -Staff Relations Understanding Communications Trust Common direction Confidence 2, Zoning Changes Due to Airport Effect and Freeway Re-routing Study noise/safety impact Coordinate with other agencies Type of development for city Future direction Keep Comprehensive Plan intact 3. Pressure from Outside Agency Anticipate potential issues/pressures Plan for handling pressures Proactive stand Consider consequences and impacts Lobbying other agencies 4. Consolidation with Other Community Explore possibilities Impact of Mendota Potential financial collapse If not consolidation, work with other communities Impact of inspection 5. Water Management - Joint Powers Agreement Development of agreement County pressure 6. Fire Service Study Explore possibilities of Chief Study concept of volunteer department Future direction Manpower j?age 3 Target Issues MODERATE PRIORITIES 1. Liquor License Establish when and where Future direction 2. Street Maintenance Policy Development of policy Future direction Replacement 3. Service to Expanding Industrial District Police, Fire, and Public Works services and staffing Study costs and impacts Anticipate problems Future direction 4. Elderly Housing and Services Explore alternative housing Future direction 5. 494 - 35E Completion Study impact Mendota Heights roads completion 6. City Facility Future direction LOW PRIORITIES 1. Leadership Development in Community Volunteers/future elected officials Initiate activities Continue development leadership with staff 2. Middle Income Housing Proactive program for city Future direction Siting 9 Page 4 Target ISSUes LOW PRIORITIES (Continued) 3. Mac Site Redevelopment Return to tax rolls Tax increment Finance District Work with other agencies in resolving issues 4. Community Park Need Financing Acquisition Development Impact loss of tax revenues 5. Traffic Conditions Significant problems Impacts service delivery Lobby with other agencies LOWEST PRIORITIES 1. Citizen Apathy Likely to increase as city matures Develop activities 2. WasteDisposal Burn shrub and tree trimming Alternatives to land fills 3. Towers Policy (Radio, television, etc.) Development of policy/ordinance 4. Street Lighting Development of plan Direction 5. Code Changes and Enforcement Code changes Fee schedule Staffing • CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin Frazell City Administrator January 25, 1984 SUBJECT: Potential Changes for Council Meetings During my lunch visits, several of you expressed some concern with the procedures and length of Council meetings, hoping that we might be able to expedite things. Following are five suggestions, which are based on my experiences in other cities, and.my observations over the last three months as to how we operate in Mendota Heights. Since the Tuesday night meeting is the Council's "show", I think it is important that staff facilitate and support a style with which you feel comfortable.. Therefore, some of the following suggestions may have little appeal. However, I offer them as possibilities for further discussion. 1. Agenda Format and Structure Ordinance No. 102 stipulates the following order of business at Council meetings: 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Minutes. 4. Consent Calendar. 5. Hearings, Bid Openings 6. Unfinished Business. 7. Communications. 8. Commission Reports. 9. New Business. 10. Meeting Open to Public. 11. General Business (i.e., 12. Adjournment. and Awards. reports from elected and administrative officials). It is my feeling that this is a terribly rigid structure, which inhibits planning a meeting that "flows" according to a logical pattern. For example, a particularly difficult issue may get placed late in the agenda, because it rightfully falls under General Business under the City Administrator. It may be preferable to allow some flexibility for moving such an item up earlier on the agenda, where it gets attention while the Council is "fresh" and interested citizens may still -be in the audience. As an alternative, I propose that we go to an order of business similar to the following: - 2 - 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Adopt Agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes. 5. Consent Calendar (including informational items). 6. Public Comments. 7. Hearings, Bid Openings and Awards. 8. Unfinished and New Business. 9. Council Comments and Requests. 10. Adjournment. While setting forth a general format for Council business, this kind of a structure would give the City Administrator and City Clerk more latitude to plan a logical sequence of agenda items, according to their perceived importance and length of discussion. Item No. 8 enhances this flexibility by folding unfinished and new business into one category. Proposed items No. 3,46, g, and 41}, are somewhat new, and are the subject of further discussion in the additional four proposals. 2. Add-on or "Puppy" Agenda The materials for the Council meeting are prepared by staff on Thursday and Friday morning, with duplicating and distribution on Friday afternoon. Almost without exception, additional issues come up between Friday and Tuesday, which require placement on Tuesday evenings agenda. I am proposing that rather than simply handout the informational items, that the staff actually prepare ai"add-on" agenda late Tuesday afternoon, which will be placed on the Council table for your review at the beginning of the meeting. The add-on agenda would have a cover memo requesting that in adopting the agenda (Item #3), that the add-on items be specifically placed.and enumerated within the agenda for the evening. There would also be a very brief (i.e., one paragraph) synopsis on the staff cover memo of each issue and the action requested from the Council. Any back-up information would then be attached to the cover memo. 3. Response to Issues Raised by the Public and the Council Mendota Heights, as most cities, allows for members of the public or Council to raise issues at the Council meeting which were not previously listed on the agenda. I am proposing that we establish two definite times on the agenda for this activity. Public Comments would be Item No. 6, immediately following completion of the routine administrative items. This would mean that a number of the public could conduct his or her business early in the meeting, without having to wait while lengthier items were discussed. Council comments and requests would be Number, the last item on the agenda prior to adjournment, so that Councilmembers could raise issues which come to mind during the course of the meeting. - 3 - As a general rule, I do not think it is a good idea to try to consider and act on items raised at the Council meeting, either by the public or by individual Council members, without prior staff research and the provision of some common information from which everyone can vote. Therefore, it would be my further suggestion that we not attempt to respond to items raised by the public and individual Council members on the night on which they are brought forth. Rather, they would be scheduled for consideration on the agenda at the next Council meeting, and staff would prepare an appropriate report. Members of the public raising issues would receive a copy of the staff report at the same time it is distributed to Council. A good example of this approach was Councilman Hartmann's request for information about. the snowmobile ordinance enforcement at the first meeting in January. Rather than digging out code books and trying to answer at the meeting, I requested the Police Chief to prepare a more complete staff report for Council receipt at the January 17th meeting. Council could then consider the information provided, and take whatever action they deemed appropriate. There should of course, be reasonable exceptions to this rule, for example when a citizen or Council member asks for a very simple routine piece of information; that does not require any further consideration. 4. Oral Staff Reports In general, I think it would be advisable to avoid oral reports on substantive issues at the Council meeting. I see at least three weaknesses with oral reports. First, they frequently come at the end of a Council meeting when everyone's attention span is getting short, and so often times they are not treated very seriously. Second, individual Council members have no time to think over the information provided, and raise questions and concerns prior to being requested to take action. Third, there is no written record of the report as given. I have asked staff members to have their Council materials into the City Administrator's office by Thursday morning. If an issue comes up which can not meet the production schedule for Council materials, it would either be held off for the subsequent Council meeting, or if more urgent, it would be scheduled on the "add-on" agenda which would be handed out Tuesday evening. There will, of course, be necessary exceptions to this general practice. First, would be issues of an emergency nature which come up at the last minute, when there simply is not sufficient time to prepare a written report. Second, would be those items which are very brief and purely informational. 5. Staff Work (Memo Format) _As the staff report is normally the basis of information on which Council must make decisions, I think it is important that we have some consistency of format. Further, I think a structured sequence of information can facilitate Council consideration and discussion of business items, and specify the precise action that Council should take if it wishes to implement the staff recommendation. - 4 - To that end, I have requested that the staff begin using a consistent format in their cover memos to the Council. Attached is my memorandum to the staff, outlining that format. You have probably noticed that I have used this format in my own memos over the last three months. Please read the attached for a further description of this issue. Action Required Council should consider these, as well as any other thoughts it has for amending Council procedures, and determine if we wish to implement any changes. Respectfully submitted, Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator attachment CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 26, 1984 T0: Staff FROM: Kevin D. Frazell JJ City Administrator SUBJECT: Format for Council Memorandums As discussed at our meeting on Monday, January 23rd, I would like for all of us to begin to use a consistent format in the memos that we prepare for the Council agenda. There are at least six sections which could potentially be included in a memo. Each section should be entitled as indicated below. Those sections are: Introduction -- This is a very brief three to four sentence summary of the content of the issue and the staff recommendation being made. History -and Background -- This section would set forth any relevant history on the project or issue being addressed, as well as background information which may be useful to the reader in considering that issue. Discussion -- This section should be a narrative of the current state of affairs, and a general treatment of what needs to be done. Alternatives -- This section should specifically enumerate the reasonable alternative actions which could be taken by Council to address this issue. Each alternative presented is usually a brief two to three sentence synopsis of that alternative. Recommendation -- This should be a brief (i.e., one paragraph) section setting forth your recommend- ation as staff member, and the reasons therefore. Action Required -- This is a very brief and very specific statement of the action Council should take if it wishes to implement the staff recommendation. For example, the action required section might read, "if Council.wishes.to implement the staff recommendation to , it should pass a motion adopting Resolution 84- 39." - 2 - In applying this suggested memo format, a good deal of common sense should, of course, be used. Many issues will be so brief that it would be ludicrous to set it forth in six sections. Sections can be deleted or combined as you think it appropriate for the subject matter. In the Alternatives section, only set forth those alternatives which you think the Council might reasonably want to consider. The most important sections are Recommendation and Action Required. These two brief sections should be a very concise and clear summary of the action you are recommending and why, as well as the specific action Council is required to take if it wishes to adopt your recommendation. This entire cover memo should normally be no longer than two, or at the most, three pages, and will usually be one page. More detailed backup information can be attached and referenced in the body of the memo. I would also like to have memos addressed to: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator. If I am satisfied with the contents of the memo, and concur with the recommend- ation, I will put my initials over "City Administrator", before placing it in the Council agenda materials. The Council will then know that I concur in the recommendation.- CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA ADJOURNED MEETING - COUNCIL WORKSHOP JANUARY 31, 1984 7:00 P.M. ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM 1. Roll Call. 2. Adopt Agenda. 3. Opening Remarks by City Administrators. 4. Review and Discussion of City Financial Status. 5. Review acid Council Adoption of Target Issues for 1984. 6. Consideration of Potential Changes to Council Meeting Procedures. 7. Adjourn. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazel City Administrator SUBJECT: January 31st Workshop January 25, 1984 The purpose of the January 31st workshop is to take some time to reflect on the current status of the City, and to establish goals and objectives of what we want to accomplish in 1984. To that end, the agenda has three sections: 1. REVIEW OF FINANCIAL STATUS Any discussion of future issues, goals, and objectives must be.placed in the context of the City's financial health. Attached is a memo from Treasurer Shaughnessy and I which provides a "snapshot" of our financial situation at the end of 1983, and looking forward to 1984. In summary, I think it fair to say that our financial health is very good. . In addition, Larry and Orvil have been working on some data that compares the local tax "burden" in Mendota Heights to several other metropolitan communities. If that research is completed by Tuesday, it will be presented. As the focus of this workshop `is on establishing goals and objectives, I would suggest that we not spend a lot of time discussing our financial state. A more complete analysis of resources and revenue sources is .suggested by the staff as a top level priority project to be completed in 1984, and would logically be done in conjunction with budget preparation next summer. Again, the purpose of the attached memo is to provide a general context within which our other discussions can take place. 2. TARGET ISSUES The second attached.memo provides staff thinking about important issues that need to be addressed, and our sense of priority as to which issues should be the subject of the most time and effort. Council review of and reaction to the staff -prepared issues list will be the heart of our workshop. The objective is to amend as needed, to reflect Council concerns and priorities. 3. POSSIBLE REVISION TO COUNCIL MEETING'PROCEDURES The third memo details some possible changes to Council meeting procedures, which could "tighten up" and expedite the meetings. These suggestions are in response to concerns several of you have expressed to me about the length and tenor of Council meetings. attachments CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 27, 1984 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazel , � Administrator and Larry Shaughnessy, City Treasurer SUBJECT: Update on City Financial Status As a prelude to our discussion about goals and objectives for the year, we felt it was important to provide the Council with a brief overview of the City's financial status. GENERAL FUND The General Fund balance as of December 31, 1983, is expected to be about $600,000, an increase of.about $100,000 for fiscal year 1983. A continuation of strong building activity, along with good interest returns (thanks in part to issuance of the Tax Anticipation Certificates last spring) combined with expenditures of --about $40,000 under budget provide the favorable position. In addition, the extension of Revenue Sharing has eliminated the potential need for a $75,000 charge against the General Fund to cover the deficit on the Public Works Garage. Bond Counsel has advised us that the IRS ruling, which would severely limit our use of Tax Anticipation Certificates, has not, as yet become 6n( effective. We should be able to justify approximately $500,000 in Tax Anticipation Certificates for 1984. It would be advisable to do so, since the current interest margin is about 3 3/47, while cost of issuing should be less than $2,000. If Council wishes to proceed with a TAC issue, staff will do a more extensive review of feasibility, and obtain offers for the purchase of Certificates I which can be considered by the Council at the February 21st meeting. SPECIAL PARK FUND The December 31st balance should be approximately $187,775., with approx- imately another $123,000 anticipated in accounts receivable for 1984 and 1985. Council has recently authorized the expenditure of up to $15,000 in Engineer- ing costs for completion of the bike trail system along Marie Avenue and through Valley Park, and an additional $3,000 for a feasibility study for the bike trail along Lexington. INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND FUND The City's fee on Industrial Revenue Bond issues has generated a fund of approximately $140,000. The only expense taken from that fund to date has been for the Highway 55/Mendota Heights Road Opticom system. - 2 - UTILITY RESERVE FUND The Fund balance currently stands at approximately,$22,000, and starting in 1985, we -will begin to receive payment'•for the sewer purchased by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to serve Mendota. It is suggested that our net receipts (after deduction of our debt portion for MWCC charges) be retained in the reserve fund, with the interest earning used to liquidate unusual utility expenses, such as the Happy Hollow Bridge sewer line, and the General Obligation or unassessable portion of other improvement projects. STORM DAMAGE FUND The remaining $10,413 deficit in this fund has been written off by a transfer from the General Fund during 1983. CABLE TV FUND Cable TV expenditures, including those budgeted for 1984, are approximately $11,000. This deficit will be recouped from the successful bidder, upon award of a franchise, which hopefully will take place during 1984. WATER REVENUE FUND Income from water availability charges and sewer bill surcharges remains on schedule, with funds devoted to pay for the General Obligation share of the water tower construction. FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING Federal Revenue Sharing has been extended for an additional three years, through 1986. It is anticipated that the City of Mendota Heights will continue to receive approximately $29,000 in each of the three years. $27,946 of this years allocation will -be needed to liquidate the remaining deficit in the Public Works Garage fund, leaving a balance of approximately $2,753 in the General Revenue Sharing fund. Since Revenue Sharing funds must be used within a certain time limit, or returned to the federal government, the Council should determine an appropriate use. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT FUND Revenues and expenses are proceeding as planned, with funds available to complete the utility work on the MAC property and the railroad crossing. Current increments, along with existing balance will fund the Public Safety relocation. The increment is expected to grow rapidly in 1985 and 1986, providing ample revenue for future debt service. EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES 1984 equipment purchases can be combined with those for 1985, once a 1985 budget is adopted, and an issue sold in November or December of this year. Based on current estimates of need, a one mill tax levy should continue to be sufficient for retirement of the Equipment Certificates. - 3 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT - SINKING FUNDS Cash flow projections on the Cons6lidated Sinking fund continue to suggest that a tax levy will not be needed until the late 1980's or early 1990's. Payments from two improvement projects are a source of some concern. A complete review of the Sinking Fund will be done after completion of the annual financial audit, and any action necessary to address these concerns can be considered at that time. MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET FUND Current allotments for construction are approximately $200,000 annually, with our MSA account having approximately $410,000 available.for construction in 1984. Available funds and expected allotments should provide sufficient funds for all planned MSA projects, which at the current time include: 1984 - Mendota Heights Road east of TH 149, done in conjunction with service road construction by Mn/DOT. Cost - approx- imately $40,000 to $50,000. 1985 - Mendota Heights Road /Huber Drive connection and east to Delaware. Cost, approximately $250,000.• If the Amesbury East project proceeds in 1984,it might be necessary to con- sider moving this project up to 1984. 1986 - Mendota Heights Road west from Dodd Road to Lexington Avenue and from Lexington Avenue to TH 55; committed to be upgraded after completion of I-494. Estimated cost $400,000. �0 In summary, the City continues to be on a very sound, and in fact, enviable financial basis. Most significantly, our General Fund balances are equivalent to approximately five months of expenditures, which is what our auditors consider to be ideal. The purpose of this memo is to provide a background of the City's financial resources, against which our discussion of goals and objectives for 1984 can take place. One of the target issues identified by the Council in the Lyle Sumek workshop last fall was a thorough analysis of the City's financial condition and future. That issue has been reiterated by the staff as a top level priority project for 1984. We would expect to complete that analysis in conjunction with the Annual Financial Statement and preparation of the 1985 recommended budget. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: City Council FROM: Orvil J. Johnson City Administrator January 26, 1984 SUBJECT: Real Estate Tax Information and Comparisons The 1984 real estate tax levies have been established by the County Auditor. Some facts and comparisons make interesting reading, hence this memo. The first Exhibit (A) is an update of the real estate tax levy history for Mendota Heights. You will note that: -- The 1984 total mill rate increased approximately 3.5 mills. -- The County mill rate increased approximately 1.0 mills. -- The City mill rate increased approximately 2.2 mills. -- The School rate reduced by .11 mills -- Special districts increased by .36 mills. The City's portion of your tax increased from 16.3G per tax dollar to 18.0 per tax dollar. The several increases can affect your total real estate bill in sever&l-ways: -- The 3.5 mill increase would increase your taxes. -- The Market Value of residential property was not increased for 1984. -- The formula for calculating Assessed Value has been changed and should tend to reduce the total taxes for homes under $120,000. -- The change,in Homestead Tax Credit may or may not affect each individual net tax bill. In summary, a number of factors will affect your tax bill. However, they are all quite insignificant and do tend to counteract each other; hence the real estate tax bill is virtually impossible to predict. However, it may be up a fraction of one percent. WHY DID THE CITY RATE GO UP 2.2 MILLS? Q State Aid Loss $103,000 _ G..� C '/` t-- 1.40 mills State aids were cut, local taxing increased. Debt Service $ 27,500 .37 mills Additional money for unfunded projects, planning loan, metro sewer. - 2 - Police Revenue Decrease $12,000 Lilydale Regional Park policed by St. Paul and other decreases in Police Revenues. Assessed Value Formula Loss .16 mills Equates to .27 mills Legislature changed valuation formula, decreasing City valuation by $1,056,000. TOTAL: 2.20 mills The above figures explain the increased mill rate, while holding services at 1983 levels. TAX COMPARISONS Exhibit B contains comparative information. It is restricted to Dakota County municipalities, both old established communities, and newer developing communities. An explanation of the three breakdowns is appropriate. The top third is designed to show: 1. The percentage of tax -dollars received by the seven municipalities. 2. The comparative mill rates for the years 1972, 1983 and 1984. You will note that Mendota Heights' 187 is very near the lowest of the com- parisons. Rosemount does take a somewhat smaller percentage than Mendota Heights. Eagan contains a small area that has a percentage less than ours. However, the major portion of Eagan is at a higher percentage rate than our 18.03. You will please note that Inver Grove Heights, West St. Paul, Burns- ville, and South St. Paul are wellabove Mendota Heights' percentage of tax take. A careful review of the 1983 and 1984 mill rates will reveal that our 2.2 mill increase was a median increase. Several communities are lower. However, most communities increased considerably more than our 2.2. The secodd breakdown allows one to compare a 12 year increase. You will note that only the two older, established communities of West St. Paul and South St. Paul have a lower increase over the 12 year period than does Mendota Heights. Note the horrendous increases in the four other communities over the 12 year period of 1972 to 1984! The last breakdown enables one to compare operating/debt levies amongst municipalities for the past two years. Please note that Mendota Heights has the lowest operating levy! Please note also that only Eagan has a lower debt levy. You should note that the growing municipalities and South St. Paul have debt levies that apparently represent a determination to build or rebuild the necessary municipal infra -structures. These two exhibits contain only Dakota County taxing information. One can draw a number of conclusions from the comparisons. I continue to think - 3 - that Mendota Heights remains on the ragged edge of social community fabric, and should give more serious consideration to future municipal needs. (Only Coates, Lilydale, Meisville, New Trier, Randolph and Vermillion have lower rates). Favorable consideration of the target issues presented by Kevin will indicate a small step toward a more active community. attachments A & B r CITY OF MENDO NON -A TAX LEV. EAR AYABLE TOTAL MILL LEVY STATE COUNTY MILLS % MILLS $ 960 226.60 8.10 3.57 40.04 17.62 61 233.39 6.84 2.92 41.57 17.83 62 241.78 6.39 2.64 44.03 18.20 963 241.81 8.31 3.44 44.39 18.33 64 243.59 8.22 3.37 42.35 17.41 65 233.23 6.84 2.93 44.58 19.12 966 249.10 18.32 7.35 45.54 18.30 67 238.19 17.14 7.19 50.71 21.32 68 244.65 ----- ---- 57.25 23.42 969 258.10 ----- ---- 55.68 21.61 70 297.04 ----- ---- 55.31' 18.60 71 318.56 ----- ---- 52.77 16.52 972 291.28 ----- ---- 58.67 20.15 97.09 1972 con erted 19.56 20.15 973 95.42 New Ba is 19.67 20.58 74 93.19 19.25 20.64 75 96.75 19.42 20.07 976 89.27 19.44 21.80 77 89.854 17.400 19.36 78 91.070 19.242 21.17 .979 90.119 19.80 21.97 80 88.552 19.873 22.44 81 82.332 20.182 24.51 982 91.852 19.951 21.72 83 89.260 19.594 21.95 84 92.779 20.656 22.26 12 .. I MUNICIPAL TAX COMPARISONS MUNICIPAL MILL LEVIES COLLECTIBLE IN: O.J.J. 1-26-84 1984 LEVY 1983 1972 of Tax Mills Mills Mills MENDOTA HEIGHTS 18.03 16.730 14.527 13.53 ROSEMOUNT 16.92 to 17.35 17.328 16.186 4.26 EAGAN 16.32 to 19.11 17.824 17.149 7.90 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 20.29 to 22.52 21.815 18.256 10.88 WEST ST. PAUL 21.90 21.319 20.312 23.12 BURNSVILLE 22.39 to 24.28 25.986 22.034 12.23 SOUTH ST. PAUL 24.67 to 25.73 29.119 29.001 25.37 % TWELVE YEAR INCREASE J 3.342 LAKEVILLE 16.200 MILL INCREASE 7. INCREASE 16.664 WEST ST. PAUL 21.319-23.12 - 1.80 - 7.79 / SOUTH ST. PAUL 29.119-25.37 3.75 14.78 SOUTH ST. PAUL MENDOTA HEIGHTS 16.730-13.53 3.20 25.65 / INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 21.815-10.88 10.94 100.51 BURNSVILLE 25.986-12.23 13.76 112.48 EAGAN 17.824- 7.90 9.92 125.62 ROSEMOUNT 17.328- 4.26 13.07 306.76 O.J.J. 1-26-84 OPERATING/DEBT LEVY 1984 1983 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 13.971 / 2.759 11.858 / 2.669 ROSEMOUNT 14.317 / 3.011 12.440 / 3.746 EAGAN 15.990 11.834 15.182 j 1.967 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 17.455 j 4.360 14.215 % 4.041 WEST ST. PAUL 17.870 / 3.449 16.970 / 3.342 BURNSVILLE 17.289 % 8.697 14.906 J 3.342 LAKEVILLE 16.200 j 5.887 16.664 / 5.596 APPLE VALLEY 20.348 / 6.679 17.888 / 6.514 SOUTH ST. PAUL 20.945 / 8.174 20.025 / 8.976 O.J.J. 1-26-84 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 25, 1984 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazell, City Administrator SUBJECT: 1984 Target Issues As a part of the Lyle Sumek workshop last fall, the Council and staff established and prioritized target issues to be dealt with in 198.4 and 1985. A copy of that original list is attached. At a meeting on January 23rd, the staff updated this list... We.deleted items that had either been completed or were seen as not really having much importance, combined items that related into one broader issue, and added items that,had come up since last fall. In all, we devised a list of 21 potential target issues. We then divided our list into three levels of priority -- top, middle, and low. Prioritization does not mean that all of the issues are not impor- tant. What it does mean is that we will concentrate our time and efforts to the higher priority issues. The lower priority issues are either those that we expect to take less time and effort, or if time becomes a problem they could be put off for a year. The list of target issues, as prioritized, is attached for Council review. Under several of the headings, we have indicated sub -issues to be dealt with. We will be prepared to more fully discuss each issue at the Council workshop on the 31st. ACTION REQUIRED Council should review and discuss as it deems appropriate in the issues of priority. STAFF FOLLOW-UP the staff derived list, making changes to be addressed in 1984, and their level After Council has adopted a list of issue priorities at the January 31st workshop, I will use that list to: a. Develop a 1984 staff work program, including timelines and individual responsibilities. b. Enter a memorandum of agreement with each department head for what their department will accomplish in 1984. Respectful submitted, QQ Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator attachments STAFF IDENTIFIED TARGET ISSUES AND PRIORITIES FOR 1984 TOP PRIORITY 1. Comprehensive review of City's financial status and revenue sources. Annual financial report. -- Review of user fees and permits. -- State aid lobbying with other cities. -- Local tax base growth. 2. Develop a workload measurement/service level budget. -- Workload measures included in budget. -- Potential new or expanded services - implications of community growth. -- Development of long-range capital improvement budget. 3. Development of downtown Mendota Heights plan. -- Dodd Road upgrading. -- Commercial/residential development in Dodd Road/TH 110 area. 4. Fire department review. -- Construction of new station. -- Disposition of old site. -- Selection of new officers. -- Comprehensive review of future of the fire service. 5. Comprehensive Plan Review and Amendments. -- Housing policy (elderly, middle income). -- Review of R-1 zoning of land abutting I-494. -- Develop policy on economic development. -- Consider noise and safety impacts of transportation, air and land. 6. MAC site redevelopment. -- Continue to lead. -- Define type of development we want. -- Define City participation. 7. Review water agreement with St. Paul Water. -- Consider option of wholesale agreement. 8. Tax Increment District. -- Identify City goals. -- Consider possible land acquisition and clearance - Mulvihill and Rogers Road. MIDDLE PRIORITY 1. Continue with Council - Staff teambuilding. -- Lyle Sumek program. 2. Develop and adopt liquor licensing ordinance. -- Determine on -sale? Off -sale? -- Determine license restrictions. 3. Develop street maintenance policy. -- Schedule. -- Financing. 4. Recreation programming. -- Review adequacy of.current program. -- Consider alternative delivery methods. 5. Study City personnel policies and fringe benefits. -- Cafeteria plan. — L'� - -- Flex -time. 6. Develop and adopt policy on employee/staff development. -- Continuingleducation. -- Conference attendance. -- In-house training program. 7. City Information. -- Newsletter. C 0 LOW PRIORITY 1. Develop policy/program on community leadership/volunteers. -- Identify needs. -- Identify potential uses. -- Develop program. 2. Park acquisition and development. -- Priorities. -- Long-range program, including financing. 3. Traffic conditions. -- Monitoring and lobbying for implementation of existing Mn/DOT plans. 4. Street lighting. Develop policy or future of program. -- Develop criteria for installation. 7`9J 5. City Clean-up Day. .g 6. Surface Water Management. _ 7 -- Consideration of membership in regional Watershed Management Organization. -- Define and address other needs/problems. wot-ksAop 6 TABLE I TARGET ISSUES: 1985 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS JUNE 1983 TOP PRIORITIES 1. Revenue Plan (Intergovernmental) Decline in state aid, federal aid Future direction Explore alternative revenue services 2. Downtown Upgrade Determination of direction - decision Resolution of key issue Plan for future Resolution of legal issue Initiation of plan implementation 3. Fire Station New fire station or stations Site location Decision on site 4. City Administrator Selection Establish criteria and profile Recruitment Selection Training program/internship Plan for new City Administrator 5. Budget Program/service priorities Program/service level Explore contracting of services Consolidation of services 7 Page 2 Target Issues HIGH PRIORITIES 1. Council -Staff Relations Understanding Communications o Trust Common direction Confidence 2. Zoning Changes Due to Airport Effect and Freeway Re-routing Study noise/safety impact Coordinate with other agencies Type of development for city Future direction Keep Comprehensive Plan intact 3. Pressure from Outside Agency Anticipate potential issues/pressures Plan for handling pressures Proactive stand Consider consequences and impacts Lobbying other agencies 4. Consolidation with,Other Community Explore possibilities Impact of Mendota Potential financial collapse If not consolidation, work with other communities OnjiImpact of inspection 5. " Water Management - Joint.Powers Agreement Development of agreement County pressure 6. Fire Service Study Explore possibilities of Chief Study concept of volunteer department Future direction Manpower j),ige 3 Target Issues 9C. MODERATE PRIORITIES 1. Liquor License Establish when and where Future direction 2. Street Maintenance Policy Development of policy Future direction Replacement 3. Service to Expanding Industrial District Police, Fire, and Public Works services and staffing Study costs and impacts Anticipate problems Future direction 4. Elderly Housing and Services Explore alternative housing Future direction 5.. 494 - 35E Completion Study impact Mendota Heights roads completion 6. City Facility Future direction LOW PRIORITIES 1. Leadership Development in Community Volunteers/future elected officials Initiate activities Continue development leadership with staff 2. Middle Income Housing Proactive program for city Future direction Siting 9 Page 4 Target Issues LOW PRIORITIES (Continued) 3. Mae Site Redevelopment Return to tax rolls Tax increment Finance District Work with other agencies in resolving issues 4. Community Park Need Financing Acquisition Development Impact loss of tax revenues 5. Traffic Conditions Significant problems Impacts service delivery Lobby with other agencies LOWEST PRIORITIES 1. Citizen Apathy Likely to increase as city matures Develop activities 2. Waste Disposal Burn shrub and tree trimming Alternatives to land fills 3. Towers Policy (Radio, television, etc.) Development of policy/ordinance 4. Street Lighting Development of plan Direction 5. Code Changes and Enforcement Code changes Fee schedule Staffing 11 J CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin Frazell City Administrator January 25, 1984 SUBJECT: Potential Changes for Council Meetings During my lunch visits, several of you expressed some concern with the procedures and length of Council meetings, hoping that we might be able to expedite things. Following are five suggestions, which are based on my experiences in other cities, and my observations over the last three months as to how we operate in Mendota Heights. Since the Tuesday night meeting is the Council's "show", I think it is important that staff facilitate and support a style with which you feel comfortable. Therefore, some of the following suggestions may have little appeal. However, I offer them as possibilities for further discussion. 1. Agenda Format and Structure Ordinance No. 102 stipulates the following order of business at Council meetings: 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Minutes. 4. Consent Calendar. 5. Hearings, Bid Openings and Awards. 6. Unfinished Business. 7. Communications. 8. Commission Reports. 9. New Business. 10. Meeting Open to Public. 11. General Business (i.e., reports from elected and administrative officials). 12. Adjournment. It is my feeling that this is a terribly rigid structure, which inhibits planning a meeting that "flows" according to a logical pattern. For example, a particularly difficult issue may get placed late in the agenda, because it rightfully falls under General Business under the City Administrator. It may be preferable to allow some flexibility for moving such an item up earlier on the agenda, where it gets attention while the Council is "fresh" and interested citizens may still be in the audience. As an alternative, I propose that we go to an order of business similar to the following: - 2 - 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Adopt Agenda. ' 4. Approval of Minutes. S. Consent Calendar (including informational items). 6. Public Comments. 7. Hearings, Bid Openings and Awards. 8. Unfinished and New Business. 9. Council Comments and Requests. 10. Adjournment. While setting forth a general format for Council business, this kind of a structure would give the City Administrator and City Clerk more latitude to plan a logical sequence of agenda items, at cording to their perceived importance and length of discussion. Item No. 8 enhances this flexibility by folding -unfinished and new business into one category. 8` Proposed items -No. 3,� and IT, are somewhat new, and are the subject of further discussion in the additional four proposals. 2. Add-on or "Puppy" Agenda The materials for the Council meeting are prepared by staff on Thursday and Friday morning, with duplicating and distribution on Friday afternoon. Almost without exception, additional issues come up between Friday and Tuesday, which require placement on Tuesday evenings agenda. I am proposing that rather than simply handout the informational items, that the staff actually prepare ax "add-on" agenda late Tuesday afternoon, which will be placed on the Council table for your review at the beginning of the meeting. The add-on agenda would have a cover memo requesting that in adopting the agenda (Item #3), that the add-on items be specifically placed.and enumerated within the agenda for the evening. There would also be a very brief (i.e., one paragraph) synopsis on the staff cover memo of each issue and the action requested from the Council. Any back-up information would then be attached to the cover memo. 3. Response to Issues Raised by the Public and the Council Mendota.Heights, as most cities, allows for members of the public or Council to raise issues at the Council meeting which were not previously listed on the agenda. I am proposing that we establish two definite times on the agenda for this activity. Public Comments would be Item No. 6, immediately following completion of the routine administrative items. This would mean that a number of the public could conduct his or her business early in the meeting, without having to wait while lengthier %items were discussed. Council comments and requests would be Number 18; the last item on�the agenda prior to adjournment, so that Councilmembers could raise issues which come to mind during the course of the meeting. - 3 - As a general rule, I do not think it is a good idea to try to consider and act on items raised at the Council meeting, either by the public or by individual Council members, without prior staff research and the provision of some common information from which everyone can vote. Therefore, it would be my further suggestion that we'not attempt to respond to items raised by the public and individual Council members on the night on which they are brought forth. Rather, they would be scheduled for consideration on the agenda at the next Council meeting, and staff would prepare an appropriate report. Members of the public raising issues would receive a copy of the staff report at the same time it is distributed to Council. A good example of this approach was Councilman Hartmann's request for information about. the snowmobile ordinance enforcement at the first meeting in January. Rather than digging out code books and trying to answer at the meeting, I requested the Police Chief to prepare a more complete staff report for Council receipt at the January 17th meeting. Council could then consider the information provided, and take whatever action they deemed appropriate. There should of course, be reasonable exceptions to this rule, for example when a citizen or Council member asks for a very simple routine piece of information; that does not require any further consideration. 4. Oral Staff Reports In general, I think it would be advisable to avoid oral reports on substantive issues at the Council meeting. I see at least three weaknesses with oral reports. First, they frequently come at the end of a Council meeting when everyone's attention span is getting short, and so often times they are not treated very seriously. ;Second, individual Council members have no time to think over the information provided,,and raise questions and concerns prior to being requested to take action. Third, there is no written record of the report as given. I have asked staff members to have their Council materials into the City Administrator's office by Thursday morning. If an issue comes up which can not meet the production schedule for Council materials, it would either be held off for the subsequent Council meeting, or if more urgent, it would be scheduled on the "add-on" agenda which would be handed out Tuesday evening. There will, of course, be necessary exceptions to this general practice. First, would be issues of an emergency nature which come up at the last minute, when there simply is not sufficient time to prepare a written report. Second, would be those items which are very brief and purely informational. 5. Staff Work (Memo Format) As the staff report is normally the basis of information on which Council must make decisions, I think it is important that we have some consistency of format. Further, I think a structured sequence of information can facilitate Council consideration and discussion of business items, and specify the precise action that Council should take if it wishes to implement the staff recommendation. - 4 - To that end, I -have requested that -the staff begin using a consistent format in their cover memos to the Council. Attached is my memorandum to the staff, outlining that format. You have probably noticed that I have used this format in my own memos over the last three months. Please read the attached for a further description of this issue. Action Required Council should consider these, as well as any other thoughts it has for amending Council procedures, and determine if we wish to implement any changes. Respectfully submitted, Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator attachments W 4 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 26, 1984 T0: Staff �jn FROM: Kevin D. Frazell`,JJ City Administrator SUBJECT: Format for Council Memorandums As discussed at our meeting on Monday, January 23rd, I would like for all of us to begin to use a consistent format in the memos that we prepare for the Council agenda. There are at least six sections which could potentially be included in a memo. Each section should be entitled as indicated below. Those sections are: Introduction -- This is a very brief three to four sentence summary of the content of the issue and the staff recommendation being made. History and Background -- This section would set forth any relevant history on the project or issue being addressed, as well as background information which may be useful to the reader in considering that issue. Discussion -- This section should be a narrative of the current state of affairs, and a general treatment of what needs to be done. Alternatives -- This section should specifically enumerate the reasonable Alternative actions which could be taken by Council to address this issue. Each alternative presented is usually a brief two to three sentence synopsis of that alternative. Recommendation -- This should be a brief (i.e., one paragraph) section setting forth your recommend- ation as staff member, and the reasons therefore. Action Required -- This is a very brief and very specific statement of the action Council should take if it wishes to implement the staff recommendation. For example, the action required section might read, "if Council wishes.to implement the staff recommendation to , it should pass a motion adopting Resolution 84- 39." - 2 - In applying this suggested memo format, a good deal of common sense should, of course, be used. Many issues will be so brief that it would be ludicrous to set it forth in six sections. Sections can be deleted or combined as you think it appropriate for the subject matter. In the Alternatives section, only set forth those alternatives which you think the Council might reasonably want to consider. The most important sections are Recommendation and Action Required. These two brief sections should be a very concise and clear summary of the action you are recommending and why, as well as the specific action Council is required to take if it wishes to adopt your recommendation. This entire cover memo should normally be no longer than two,or at the most, three pages, and will usually be one page. More detailed backup information can be attached and referenced in the body of the memo. I would also like to have memos addressed to: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator. If I am satisfied with the contents of the memo, and concur with the recommend- ation, I will put my initials over "City Administrator", before placing it in the Council agenda materials. The Council will then know that I concur in the recommendation. w. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NON -AG TAX LEVIES EAR AYABLE TOTAL MILL LEVY STATE COUNTY CITY SCHOOLS METRO & MISC. MILLS % MILLS $ MILLS % MILLS $ MILLS % 960 226.60 8.10 3.57 40.04 17.62 22.19 9.79 156.27 69.02 61 233.39 6.84 2.92 41.57 17.83 18.32 7.84 166.66 71.41 62 241.78 6.39 2.64 44.03 18.20 19.77 8.17 171.59 70.99 963 241.81 8.31 3.44 44.39 18.33 20.77 8.58 168.34 69.65 64 243.59 8.22 3.37 42.35 17.41 20.96 8.62 171.96 70.60 65 233.23 6.84 2.93 44.58 19.12 20.98 9.01 160.83 68.94 966 249.10 18.32 7.35 45.54 18.30 24.38 9.78 160.86 64.57 67 238.19 17.14 7.19 50.71 21.32 24.58 10.35 145.76 61.14 68 244.65 ----- • ---- 57.25 23.42 26.12-,. 10.66 161.28 65.92 .969 258.10 ----- ---- 55.68 21.61 35.70 13.84 166.72 64.55 70 297.04 ----- ---- 55.31 18.60 39.74 13.38 201.99 68.02 71 318.56 ----- ---- 52.77 16.52 43.79 13.79 220.79 69.31 1.21 .38 .972 291.28 ----- ---- 58.67 20.15 40.60 13.94 187.17 64.25 4.84 1.66 97.09 1972 can erted 19.56 20.15 13.53 13.94 62.39 64.25 1.61 1.66 :973 95.42 New Basis 19.67 20.58 12.64 13.27 61.44 64.40 1.67 1.75 74 93.19 19.25 20.64 12.47 13.37 59.00 63.34 2.47 2.65 75 96.75 19.42 20.07 12.36 12.78 60.60 62.64 4.37 4.51 L976 89.27 19.44 21.80 13.02 14.60 54.14 60.60 2.67 3.00 77 89.854 17.400 19.36 15.044 16.74 54.47 60.63 2.94 3.27 78 91.070 19.242 21.17 15.961 17.51 52.928 58.08 2.939 3.24 1979 90.119 19.80 21.97 15.13 16.79 52.227 57.95 2.962 3.29 80 88.552 19.873 22.44 17.672 19.96 47.792 53.97 3.215 3.63 81 82.332 20.182 24.51 14.679 17.83 43.221 52.50 4.250 5.16 1982 91.852 19.951 21.72 15.207 16.56 52.645 57.31 4.049 4.41 83 89.260 19.594 21.95 14.527 16.28 51.015 57.15 4.124 4.62 84 92.779 20.656 22.26 16.730 18.03 50.905 54.87 4.488 4.84