Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-02_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA REGULAR MEETINGS EDINA CITY COUNCIL EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AUGUST 2, 1982 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ROLLCALL MINUTES of July 12, 1982, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of , seconded by EDINA CITY COUNCIL ROLLCALL I. EDINA HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION AWARD II. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON ZONING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Read- ing of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Flood Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Administrative or Board of Appeals and Adjustments decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. Second Reading 1. Ordinance No. 811-A167- Providing for Uses in Public Buildings.in the R -1 District (CC- 7/12/82) B. Final Plat Approval - 1. Zamansky Addition - S.W. Quadrant of W. 66th and T.H. 100 (CC- 7/19/82) III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS IV. RECOMMEINDATIONS AND REPORTS i A. Storefront /Youth Action Audit B. Community Center Parking Lot - 100% Petition C. CDBG Year VIII Rehabilitation Grant Procedural Guidelines D. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council E. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items V. RESOLUTIONS A. Connection Charges - Sanitary Sewer Connections /HC -SS -1 and 2 iVI. FINANCE A. 1981 Audit { B. Assignment of Securities - 1st Bank Minneapolis . C. Claims Paid: Motion of , seconded by , for payment of the following claims as per Pre -List: General Fund, $558,350.08; Revenue Sharing Fund, $225,000.00; Park Fund, $94,658.25; Art Fund,. i $12,176.11; Park Construction, $2,719.01; Swimming Pool, $3,870.69; Golf Course, $33,228.75; Recreation Center,' $51,577.37; Cun Range, $20.00; Water Fund, $19,152.91; Sewer Fund, $4,840.94; Liquor Fund, $486,769.68; Construction Fund, $162,712.22, PIR Fund, $5,566.00; IBR Fund, $685,505.18; IBR Fund #2, $11,507.40; Total, i $2,357.40 i t iz _)'�) EOINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 273 5555 WEST 70TH STREET - EOINA, MINNESOTA_ 55435 . S,12-944-3S13 July 27, 1982 Mr. Fran Hoffman, Director Public Works & Engineering City of Edina 4801 West 50 Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Fran: Enclosed is a resolution adopted by our Board at its July 26 meeting. I have-signed it in their behalf and look forward to working with you and commencing the project as soon as possible. Please et me know if their are any problems or concerns. i nce re rintendent of Schools Usl p.s. Shall I attend the August 2 hearing of the City Council? Enc. 2 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER /- I Corrected Copy 55a INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 273 Regular Meeting, July 26, 1982 Volume 54, Report 31a SUBJECT: COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING LOT Be it Resolved, That The Board of Education Petition the Edina City Council to construct a parking lot at the Edina Community Center for the purpose of servicing these premises; and Assess 100% of the cost not borne by the city against the school district's property. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The administration of the City of Edina and the Edina Public School District have been working jointly to increase parking facilities adjacent to the Community Center. The cost of the planned 140 space parking lot will be paid for primarily by the Community Center through the Edina Board of Education. The City will absorb the cost of curb and gutter removal, fence and post removal, clearing.and removing necessary shrub and a tree, and painting parking lines in addition to assuming all engineering and clerical costs for an approximately share of $15,000. The City will also provide project supervision working with a school liaison contact. Estimated cost of the project, including the City's share plus 10.5% carrying charges or capitalized interest, would be *$122,963.30. Bonds will be sold by the City with the interest on the bonds being added to the project's cost. The school district will commence paying for the project over a ten year assessment period with first payments due in 1984. O -" Actual cost unknown intil - bids received. References: Attached letter, estimated project cost, and petition. ,r PETITION TO THE HONORABLE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA: GENTLEMEN: The undersigned are the elected officials responsible for all the property and hereby petition the Council to construct a Parking Lot at the Edina Community Center to service their properties and to assess 100% of the cost thereof against their properties. We also waive our rights to appeal the assessment of this project Dated o2 L Depyty Clerk Signature Dr. James Hamann Dr. Ralph Lieber Address 5701 Normandale Rd., Edina, MN 55424 Description of Property E I 5 11 [JI league of minnesota cities July 29, 1982 Dear Local Official: 1983 will be a crucial year for Minnesota Cities. The new Governor and Legislature are sure to face more difficult state budget decisions. Will cities continue to lose revenues as a result of reduced state aid and credit payments? If there are further state cuts, will they be made fairly and timed so cities can make responsible budget and service changes? Will the levy limit and other laws be changed to allow cities more local authority and flexibility to deal with decreasing state and federal revenues? Will the state continue to enact mandates which require additional expenditures? Will the state further restrict the ability of cities to negotiate fair labor contracts? You as a city official can play an important part in assuring that the answers to the above questions meet the need of cities and the people they serve. The enclosed LMC "Issue Papers" explain five major problems facing Minnesota Cities and offer solutions. These problems will be solved in a manner satisfactory to cities only if city officials become more actively involved in influencing state government. It is our hope that these "Issue Papers" will be an effective tool for informing legislative candidates of key city issues and ultimately obtaining commitments from them to support LMC positions on these issues. The League is also sending the "Issue Papers" to all candidates so they will not be caught unaware by your questions and concerns. We ask you to do several things in the next two months: 1) Discuss these issues personally with legislative and even gubernatorial candidates. 2) Sponsor a special public meeting in your city where these issues can be raised. 3) Make an effort to educate citizens and the media in your city about these problems so they also can express their concern to candidates. (If "average citizens" as well as city officials are concerned about levy limits or state aid cuts, the cities' position will be much stronger.) We encourage cities in the same districts to jointly sponsor candidates' meetings. Contact the League with time and place and we'll make every effort to have a staff person there to help provide information. In mid - September, we will follow up on these efforts, and ask you to survey your candidates as to their stands on these issues. ; Thank you for your efforts on behalf of this project. Active participation by city offi- cials can help guarantee a more successful legislative effort to cities in 1983. S/i-nccerel l �� Josephine Nunn Mayor, City of Champlin President, League of Minnesota Cities 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612)227-5600 uu P fill I U league of minnesota cities THE STATE -LOCAL FISCAL RELATIONSHIP ISSUE PAPER PROBLEM The future of the state -local fiscal relationship in Minnesota is in doubt. The combined program of school aids, local government aids, welfare transfer payments, property tax credits and other payments has become too complex, unpredictable and unstable. There is no articulated state policy to guide decisions concerning the appropriate balance between the property, sales, and income tax or the extent to which each local government should rely on local versus state -paid revenue sources. Direct property tax relief programs are confused with general aid programs and the net impact of all these programs on tax burdens is not well understood. RACKrROUNII Since the summer of 1980, cities have undergone a series of state actions which have made it more difficult to operate city government: Three separate cutbacks in local government aid, imposition of new and more restrictive levy limits, cut -backs in the homestead credit reimbursement payments, a shift in the payment schedule for aids and credits, and long delays in the payment of some aids and credits. The timing of many of these actions has made it even more difficult to adjust budgets or take other actions to respond to the problems. There is no end in sight, with cities concerned about whether they will actually receive from the state their full 1982 or-1983 local government aid and homestead credit payments. Cities are now planning their 1983 budgets in this atmosphere of uncertainty. SOLUTION The Legislature and the Governor should place top priority on comprehensively re- working the state -local fiscal system in Minnesota and clarifying the policy objectives of such a system. The system needs to be simplified and made more understandable so that there will be greater accountability at all levels of government. State policymakers, in consultation with local officials, must agree on the proper balance between income, sales, and property taxes, and the types of government functions that should be supported by those taxes. Cities must be allowed more autonomy over local revenues, including the property tax. Cities must be able to count on total revenues adequate to maintain the level of services required by their citizens. The portion of those revenues received as state -paid aids or credits must be reliable as well as equitable. If the state -local fiscal problems are not comprehensively addressed the crisis -to- crisis conditions which have existed for the past two years will continue to plague the state and local governments. 7/29/82 (OVER) 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (61 2) 227 -5600 MANDATES ISSUE PAPER PROBLEM Each session; the legislature enacts new laws which require cities -to perform specific functions, without providing any financial assistance or permitting any flexibility in the tax levy to pay for those new responsibilities.. BACKGROUND New Mandates. The legislature continues to enact each session new laws which require cities to perform certain new functions.. Each new mandate, taken individually, may cost.relatively little in comparison with'the entire city budget, but the cumulative effect is to force cities to expend substantial funds to pay for these mandates before allocating the remainder of the city's funds to pay for traditional services (such as police and fire - protection, sewer and water service, parks and recreation, regulatory efforts, etc.) This trend to enact new mandates, often without input from cities or even over their objections, will continue unless the legislature itself becomes concerned with cumulative effects of these mandated costs. Examples of new recent mandates enacte& in 1982 include: requiring cities to establish by ordinance fees for land use administrative procedures; permitting manufactured homes in all cities unless regulated by enacting .ordinance; forcing city attorneys to prosecute gross misdemeanors in DWI violations; requiring cities give disabled police officers and fire fighters less hazardous city jobs yet continue full police /fire pay for these persons; and requiring the recording of all variances and conditional use permits. Old Mandates. A variety of out -of -date mandates remain in state law. These continue to be costly even though their need is questionable., SOLUTIONS 1. The.Legislature should show restraint in enacting new mandates, and should adopt a process requiring the preparation and consideration of the fiscal impact on local government of every proposed new mandate. 2. The efforts of.the Governor's Task Force to Reduce State Government Mandates on Local Governments should be supported and any resulting legislation should be enacted. 7/29/82 i mi U league of minnesota cities PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT LABOR RELATIONS PROBLEM The balance between public employees and public employers in labor negotiations is very delicate. Proposed legislation would swing this balance too far in favor of the public employees. RAMCROUNn About seventy percent of city general fund expenditures go to pay employees. Compensation and other employment issues can best be resolved when the labor relations laws encourage negotiation and compromise rather than solutions imposed by arbitrators. In order for the negotiation process to work, there must be a balance between the employer and employees so that neither side has an undue advantage. Two recent proposals of public employee representatives would seriously disrupt the existing balance. The first proposal would permit non - essential (non - police or fire personnel) employees to refuse to cross picket lines of other public employees. Thus, if the employees of one union went on strike, the employees in other unions could (and undoubtedly would) refuse to cross picket lines and cause severe disruption in the provision of city services. The second proposal would limit the definition of supervisors. Persons who could effectively recommend but who lacked the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, promote, discharge, assign, reward, and discipline other employees, would no longer be considered supervisory employees. Supervisory employees are often used to maintain the basic services of a city when a strike occurs. Under this proposal, in a great majority of cities (over 700) there would be no supervisory employees since only the city council has the powers listed above. In the remainder of cities, the city manager and perhaps a few others would be the only supervisory employees. The enactment of either or both of these policies would give employees more bargaining power than necessary and disrupt the existing employer /employee negotiation balance. SOLUTION No major changes should be made in the existing public employment labor relations laws, and the two proposals outlined above should not be enacted. 7/29/82 1 63 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (61 2) 227 -5600 [LHI U league of minnesota cities LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES ISSUE PAPER PROBLEM The ability of cities to raise revenues locally -- either through the property tax or other means -- is too severely limited. The current levy limit law has created a system that is often arbitrary, unfair, overly complicated, and actually may encourage higher property tax levies than necessary. Statutory restrictions on license fees and against any type of local sales taxes also contribute to a lack of flexibility to raise revenue at the local level. This is especially troublesome at a time when demand for local services is in- creasing and state and federal assistance is dwindling. RACKGROUND Levy Limits. The current law restricts cities to an 8% increase in their general levy each year. It also allows for various special levies for purposes such as payment of bonded debt. Thus the actual amount levied by a city may increase by more than 8% in a given year.* Why is this law viewed as unreasonable by so many cities? The subject is quite complex, but a few major points can be made: 1. The "levy limit base" -- the amount to which the allowable 8% is applied -- has largely been set arbitrarily and may bear no relation to a city's current needs -- either in terms of the non - property tax revenues available to the city or the service needs of its citizens. There must be flexibility in the property tax especially as other revenue sources grow less reliable. 2. In 1982, new bases were set based on the actual levy for taxes payable in 1981 and many cities were "caught with their levies down." Their bases were lowered -- they were in effect penalized for having kept property taxes lower than they could have been. 3. Levy limits may encourage a city to borrow to finance a capital project or purchase that might better be paid by a one -time levy. 4. Since each year's increase is now determined by the prior year's actual levy, the incentive is to use the maximum 8% levy authority whether you need it that year or not. Otherwise the city loses future revenue - raising ability. *This does not mean that the city's budget may increase by 8% or greater, since property tax revenues are usually much less than half of a city's operating budget. This also does not mean that the city mill rate will increase. Growth in assessed valuation often results in a lower or level mill rate. (OVER) 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (61 2) 227 -5600 -2- FACT: The impact of cities on the overall property tax burden is relatively small. For every property tax dollar levied the average distribution has been: FACT: The large increases in total 1982 property taxes are due primarily to shifts in school financing from state to local sources. For taxes payable in 1982, the net school levy (i.e. the portion actually payable by local taxpayers after deduction of state -paid property tax credits) is approxi- mately 38% higher than the 1982 net levy. At the same time, the amount of state - paid education aids for the 1982 -83 school year decreased by almost 17% from the prior year. Schools are obtaining about 36.7% of their total revenues from the locally paid (i.e.-not including state -paid credits) property tax for 1982 -83, compared to 26.9% for 1981 -82. This is the highest share paid by the locally paid property tax since 1971 -72. (Note "total revenues" refers to all revenues from state aids and credits and property taxes - about 85% of all school revenues.) Local Sales Tax. Cities are prohibited from enacting any local sales taxes. Duluth has a general sales tax enacted prior to the prohibition, and about six other cities have obtained special authority for limited sales taxes on hotels, motels, amusements, etc. License fees. Cities may exercise a great deal of discretion in setting almost all types of license fees, including those for on -sale liquor, subject to many court decisions limiting cities' power in this area. However, the state has determined statutory maximum license fees for off -sale liquor, on -sale wine, bottle clubs, and Sunday sales. The statutory fees are unrealistically low. SOLUTIONS 1. The 8% levy limit law applied to cities should be repealed. 2. The Governor and Legislature should approve new legislation which: A. Allows all cities to tax at local option, hotels, motels, admissions or amusements. B. Remove the few existing statutory maximum license fees for off -sale liquor, on -sale wine, bottle clubs, and Sunday liquor. 7/29/82 1982 1981 Cities 17.1% 18.5% Schools 49.5% 45.7% Counties 27.4% 29.5% Towns 1.9% 2.1% Special Districts 2.4% 2.7% Tax Increment Districts 1.4% 1.1% FACT: The large increases in total 1982 property taxes are due primarily to shifts in school financing from state to local sources. For taxes payable in 1982, the net school levy (i.e. the portion actually payable by local taxpayers after deduction of state -paid property tax credits) is approxi- mately 38% higher than the 1982 net levy. At the same time, the amount of state - paid education aids for the 1982 -83 school year decreased by almost 17% from the prior year. Schools are obtaining about 36.7% of their total revenues from the locally paid (i.e.-not including state -paid credits) property tax for 1982 -83, compared to 26.9% for 1981 -82. This is the highest share paid by the locally paid property tax since 1971 -72. (Note "total revenues" refers to all revenues from state aids and credits and property taxes - about 85% of all school revenues.) Local Sales Tax. Cities are prohibited from enacting any local sales taxes. Duluth has a general sales tax enacted prior to the prohibition, and about six other cities have obtained special authority for limited sales taxes on hotels, motels, amusements, etc. License fees. Cities may exercise a great deal of discretion in setting almost all types of license fees, including those for on -sale liquor, subject to many court decisions limiting cities' power in this area. However, the state has determined statutory maximum license fees for off -sale liquor, on -sale wine, bottle clubs, and Sunday sales. The statutory fees are unrealistically low. SOLUTIONS 1. The 8% levy limit law applied to cities should be repealed. 2. The Governor and Legislature should approve new legislation which: A. Allows all cities to tax at local option, hotels, motels, admissions or amusements. B. Remove the few existing statutory maximum license fees for off -sale liquor, on -sale wine, bottle clubs, and Sunday liquor. 7/29/82 Y � [LHI U league of minnesota cities LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID ISSUE PAPER PROBLEM The level of funding for the Local Government Aid (LGA) program has been steadily decreasing, thereby eroding a major source of revenue to cities. RACKGRnTTNn LGA is paid to all 855 Minnesota cities to be used for general government purposes. It is distributed on the basis of a formula. Cities rely on LGA to varying degrees, depending on such factors as the historical formula distribution changes and other sources of revenue available to the city. Until 1981, LGA worked in conjunction with the levy limit law to ensure that LGA dollars spent by the state would replace dollars that might otherwise be raised through the property tax. The levy and aids used to equal the "levy limit base ", which was allowed to increase by 8% overall. In 1981, the two systems were divorced, so that levy limits no longer reflect changes in LGA funding. Since only the previous year's levy is allowed to increase by 8 %, the increase in overall revenues may be much less than 8 %, especially since LGA has been cut significantly. One result is that losses in LGA cannot be recouped from the property tax -- the revenues have simply "disappeared ". Another result is that "high LGA" cities -- hardest hit by cuts -- have relatively lower levy limits and so are caught in a double bind of limited revenues. FACT: LGA payments to cities have been decreasing. (Note: The most conservative analysis shows that overall state spending for the 1981 -83 biennium increased 6.3% over the 1979 -1981 biennium.) (OVER) 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612)227-5600 Real Increase Calendar Amount Paid Percent Increase (Decrease) Year To Cities (Decrease) (corrected for CPI) 1978 $162,612,298 -- -- 1979 189,824,764 16.7% 5.3% 1980 208,274,623 9.7% (2.7%) 1981 213,255,187 2.4% (6.5%) 1982 205,420,204 (3.7%) (17.2 %) (Note: The most conservative analysis shows that overall state spending for the 1981 -83 biennium increased 6.3% over the 1979 -1981 biennium.) (OVER) 1 83 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612)227-5600 -2- FACT: LGA is a key revenue source for many cities. LGA comprises about 16% of the state -wide total of city governmental revenues. However, many cities actually rely on LGA to a greater extent than that figure indicates. In November, 1981, 142 cities responding to a League survey stated that LGA comprised at least 30% of their 1982 operating budget. 61 of those cities stated that LGA comprised 40% of their operating budget. A separate study by the Minnesota Project in 1981 found that LGA comprises from 25 -60% of expenditures for about half of cities with a population 2,500 to 10,000 and for three - fourths of cities under 2,500. SOLUTION The Governor and Legislature should take the necessary budget, tax and appropriate actions to ensure that the amount already appropriated for 1983 LGA is not cut. Assuming the current state -local finance system is still in place in 1984, the 1984 LGA appropriations should increase at least at the same rate as state revenues. 7/29/82 T. S t a t o f r :iiPlf;�SJi3 Certificate of Commendation ED I NA tiL?,A'4 RIGHTS COMM I SS I O.r IN RECOGNITION OF YOUR CO" „wIT,YE`4T AND YOUR EFFORTS TO FURTHER THE PUBLIC POLICY OF MINNESOTA TO SECURE FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION FOR ALL PERSONS IN THE STATE. AND IN APPRECIATION FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE NO FAULT GRIEVANCE PROCESS.AND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE KIP414ESOTA DEPARTMENT OF Howi RIGNTS.- In witness -,.hereof. I ha a hereunto set my t'a!�. ,l an,c caused t” sc-3j o me 0 fl, i c 41 GJ'rE'•no? tO te a e x,tne ':h'.c �.�„ :f ' 3" /00'0� A it � *-' t July 20, 1982 Mr. Kenneth Rosland City Manager Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Rosland: STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION Administrative Offices 5701 Normandale Road, Edina, MN 55424 (612) 926 -1851 Our 1981 certified public audit has recently been completed by Delaitte,, Haskins and Sells, and I am pleased to submit the enclosed copy for your review. We are very appreciative of the support that the City of Edina has pro- vided. It has been an important contribution toward providing services to youth and their families in the South Hennepin Area. Should you have any questions concerning our audit report, feel free to call me or Mr. Steve Lepinski at 926 -1851. Sincerely, 4 QR/+GC Marlen tergaard Administrative Director encl. MO /se Adolescent victim C01111:-;eling Program, 7145, I larriet Avenue South, Richfield, MN (612) 861 -1678 Edina Project CI larlie, 57,01 Nunn,uxlctir lload. Edina. MN 55424 (612) 925 -9706 ./ V C. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ken Rosland, City Manager FROM: Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner SUBJECT: Procedural guides for Rehabilitation Grants DATE: July 28, 1982 As you are aware, Hennepin County now sets standards and procedures for Rehabilitation Grants using Community Development Block Grant Funds. In order to comply with County procedures the City Council must adopt the procedural guides which govern the administration of the Grants. Only minor changes have been made to the Procedural Guides approval by the City Council last year. The only substantial change is that the income limit has been raised to $12,500 and the maximum grant has been set at $8,250. Staff believes that these limits are appropriate for the City and would recommend that the City Council adopt the Procedural Guides by resolution. This resolution should also authorize the City Manager to sign repayment agreements that are used to secure grant funds for five years. RF.SOT.TTT TON BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby adopt "procedural Guides, Urban Hennepin County Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program 682" for providing housing rehabilitation grants to eligible homeowners within the City of Edina as funded by the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of Edina be auth- orized and directed to sign Repayment Agreements for the City of Edina for Housing Rehabilitation Grants funded by the Urban Hennepin County Com- munity Development Block Grant Program. ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 1982. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 2, 1982, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 3rd day of August, 1982. City Clerk i� I� , it Ij �I �i VI=A � s r RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR ZAMANSKY ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that that certain plat entitled Zamansky Addition, platted by Agnes T. Strand, a widow, and presented at the Edina City Council Meeting of August 2, 1982, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 1982. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meering of August 2, 1982, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meering. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 2nd day of September, 1982. City Clerk