City Council Agenda Packet 08-23-2010 SpecialAGENDA
SPECIALMEETING&BUDGETWORKSHOP
Monday,August23,2010–5p.m.
Mayor:ClintHerbst
CouncilMembers:TomPerrault,GlenPosusta,BrianStumpf,SusieWojchouski
1.Calltoorder
2.5p.m.-ReviewMasters5th Avenuesketchplan
3.5:30p.m.-Discuss2011budgetandpropertytaxlevy
4.Adjourn
SpecialCouncilAgenda:08/23/10
1
2.ReviewofsketchplanforaMulti-FamilyResidentialProjectintheCCD;
Applicant:Masters5th Avenue/Fluth,Barry (AS)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
OnMay24th,2010,theCityCounciladoptedtheCCD-RZoningOverlayDistrict,an
overlaydistricttotheCCDwhichallowsadensityintensificationofresidentialuseson
thegroundfloor.
Currently,thebaseCCDallowsgroundfloorresidentialusesunderaconditionaluse
permit.TheCCD-Rincreasedtheallowabledensityforgroundfloorresidentialuses
underaconditionalusepermitandsetofperformancestandards.Inshort,themaximum
densitythatcanbeachievedonaCCD-Rzonedsiteisgovernedbytheabilitytomeetthe
otherprovisionsoftheCCD-RandthebaseCCD.Theseincludeprovisionsrelatingto
parking,squarefootagerequirementsperbedroomunitandheight.TheCCD-Rallows
theCitytoapplyamuchmorefocusedzoningallowancetopropertythattheCity
believeshasthecharacteristicsofaresidentialparcel,therebyexpandingthepossibility
fortheseusesinthedowntownarea,butonlyonthosesitesthatavoidinterferingwiththe
City’sbroadercommercialpurposes.
OnJune28th,2010,theCityCouncildeniedtheapplicant’srequestforrezoningfrom
CCDtoCCD-R.Atthetimeofdenial,someoftheCouncilindicatedthathavingmore
detailontheuseanddesignofsuchasitewouldbebeneficialtotherezoningrequest.
Atthistime,theapplicanthaspreparedasetofsketchplandrawingsfortheCounciland
PlanningCommissiontoreviewandprovidecomment.Theapplicant’sgoalisto
determinewhetherare-applicationforzoning,concurrentwithapplicationfor
conditionalusepermit,iswarranted.
StaffhaspreparedasimplechartillustratingthestandardsapplicabletotheCCDand
CCD-R,aswellasacomparisontotheapplicant’ssketchplanproposal.Duringthe
workshop,thesestandardsandtheconceptdrawingscanbediscussedingreaterdetail.
SpecialCouncilAgenda:08/23/10
2
CCD CCD-R ApplicantSketch
Proposal
ConditionalUsePermit
–GroundFloor
Residential
RequiredRequiredRequired
Rezoning Required
SiteSquareFootage 32,000sq.ft.
GroundFloorUnit
Density
1/9,000square
feet
None–requires
conformanceto
performance
standards
5units
Thisdensityexceeds
baseCCD.Under
theCCD-Rdensityis
permissibleifsketch
meetsother
CCD/CCD-R
standards
UpperFloorUnit
Density
1/3,000square
feet
1/3,000square
feet
14units
Thisdensitymeets
boththeCCDand
CCD-Rrequirement
ParkingRequirement 50%ofrequired
parkingmustbe
covered
Flexibilityunder
publicparking
options
1.5spacesper
unitwith50%of
requiredparking
mustbecovered
32spaces
16covered
(BasedonaCCD-R
zoning,theapplicant
wouldberequiredto
provide29spaces
with15covered)
BuildingHeight 3stories,no
CUP
3stories,noCUP 3stories
Setback WalnutDistrict
0setback
BuildingMaterials Seedowntown
plan
Seedowntown
plan
Seesketches
GreenSpaceorUsable
OpenSpace
Requirement
1tree/unit1tree/unit7overstory
6ornamental–tobe
verified
Doesnotmeet
requirementofCCD,
CCD-R
SpecialCouncilAgenda:08/23/10
3
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
Councilisaskedonlytoprovidetheapplicantwithcommentsonthisplanasitrelatesto
apotentialformalapplication.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
Notapplicable.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
A.CCDRegulations
B.CCD-ROverlayRegulations
C.StaffReport,CityCouncil5/24/10
D.StaffReport,CityCouncil6/28/10
E.ApplicantProposalPackage,including:
a.Narrative
b.SitePlan
c.ElevationConcepts(4)
d.FloorPlanLayouts(1st –3rd Floors)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE TITLE X, CHAP 14C, PAGE 1
CHAPTER 14C
“CCD-R” CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT – RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY
SECTION:
14C-1: Purpose
14C-2: Permitted Uses
14C-3: Accessory Uses
14C-4: Conditional Uses
14C-5: Interim Uses
14C-6: Lot and Building Requirements
14C-7: Design Review
14C-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of the “CCD-R”, Central Community District –
Residential Overlay is to provide for sites within the “CCD”, Central Community
District that are appropriate for full use as multiple family attached housing,
including residential uses on the ground floor. In establishing this district and
rezoning property for the uses herein, the City finds that the goals and policies of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan are being fulfilled by ground floor residential
uses, including those goals and policies expressly applying to uses in the
downtown area as may be adopted as a part of any Downtown Revitalization Plan
or similar component of the Comprehensive Plan. Parcels shall be zoned “CCD-
R” only where the more intensive residential uses allowed by this overlay district
can be found to enhance the commercial concentration in the surrounding “CCD”
downtown area.
14C-2: PERMITTED USES: The following are permitted uses in the “CCD-R” Overlay
District:
[A] All those uses permitted in the “CCD”, Central Community District,
Section 14B-2.
14C-3: ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted accessory uses in the “CCD-
R” Overlay District:
[A] All those accessory uses as provided for in the “CCD”, Central
Community District, Section 14B-3.
14C-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are allowed as conditional uses in the
“CCD-R” Overlay District:
[A] All those conditional uses as provided for in the “CCD”, Central
Community District, Section 14B-4.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE TITLE X, CHAP 14C, PAGE 2
[B] Buildings containing multiple family dwelling units on the ground floor in
excess of density otherwise allowed in the “CCD”, Central Community
District based on the procedures set forth in Chapter 22 of this ordinance,
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The subject parcel is located in an area that does not abut directly on
any of the following roadways: Trunk Highway 25 (Pine Street),
County State Aid Highway 75 (Broadway Street), or Walnut Street.
2. The subject parcel does not interfere with the flow of pedestrian
commercial traffic in the “CCD” area.
3. The exterior building materials for principal and accessory buildings at
ground floor level shall be consistent with commercial buildings,
including brick or concrete masonry, glass, and similar materials up to
a height of no less than twelve (12) feet from grade.
4. Upper floor building materials (above the ground floor), may utilize
residential materials such as lapped siding.
5. Parking shall be provided on-site at a rate of no less than one and one-
half spaces per residential unit, unless the facility is expressly reserved
for senior citizens. No less than fifty percent of the parking shall be
covered.
6. Density shall be based on the capacity of the site to accommodate
parking, green space, and all necessary accessory uses.
14C-5: INTERIM USES: The following are allowed as interim uses in the “CCD-R”,
Overlay District:
[A] All those interim uses as provided for in the “CCD”, Central Community
District, Section 14-B-4.
14C-6: LOT AND BUILDNG REQUIREMENTS: The following requirements shall
apply to all properties in the “CCD-R” Overlay District, except where otherwise
expressly stated in this Chapter:
[A] All requirements as listed in Chapter 14B-6, “CCD”, Central Community
District.
14C-7: DESIGN REVIEW: The Design Review process as found in Chapter 14B-7,
“CCD”, Central Community District shall apply to all buildings in the “CCD-R”
Overlay District.
(#515, 5/24/10)
City Council Agenda: 05/24/10
1
12. Consideration of adopting Ordinance #515 approving an amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance for the Central Community District, Chapter 14C, (CCD-R)
Residential Overlay (NAC/AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at its May 4th meeting, voting to
recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing for the creation of
a CCD overlay district. The vote on the amendment was 4-1, with Commissioner Spartz
dissenting on the grounds that the amendment process and consideration of expansion of
residential uses in the CCD should be delayed until the downtown plan has been completed.
The applicant (Barry Fluth and Masters Fifth Avenue) had originally requested an amendment
that would have simply eliminated the restrictions on ground floor residential uses in the CCD
zoning district, or created a special Conditional Use Permit process for higher density
multiple family residential throughout the CCD. Instead, staff has recommended an
alternative to a blanket amendment.
By considering this proposed amendment, the City can apply a much more focused zoning
allowance to property that the City believes has the characteristics of a residential parcel,
thereby expanding the possibility for these uses in the downtown area, but only on those sites
that avoid interfering with the City’s broader commercial purposes.
The proposed amendment allows ground floor residential at a density based on performance
characteristics of the property and the proposed building. The City would choose to apply
this allowance by creating an overlay “CCD-R” District designation on a parcel-by-parcel
basis. The ordinance includes a number of specific characteristics for the City to consider in
determining whether a particular property is appropriate for this designation.
The applicant is seeking an amendment to the CCD language in the Zoning Ordinance that
would have the effect of allowing residential development on the ground floor without
restriction as to density or unit count.
Currently, ground floor residential is allowed by Conditional Use Permit, under the following
conditions:
14B-5[C]: Residential dwellings on the ground floor subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed site for residential is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Downtown Revitalization
Plan.
2. The proposed site does not interrupt the flow of
commercial pedestrian traffic in the CCD district.
3. Density for ground floor residential units shall not
exceed one unit per 9,000 square feet of lot area
City Council Agenda: 05/24/10
2
exclusive of land area utilized by or required for
permitted uses on the property.
Beyond the ground floor density restriction, the CCD also includes the following density
requirements for all residential uses.
14B-6[C] Residential Density: One dwelling unit per 3000 square feet of lot
area for permitted residential uses The number of dwelling units maybe
increased by up to twenty five 25 percent over the permitted density for
projects which provide at least half of the required parking underground or
above ground such as ramps or decks including covered at-grade parking
areas
Under these current CCD clauses, a parcel of approximately 32,000 square feet (such as the
applicant’s Landmark Square Phase II parcel) would be allowed to have no more than 3 units
on the ground floor, plus an additional 7 units on upper levels. Therefore, on a parcel of
32,000 square feet, the maximum number of units allowed currently under the CCD is 10
units total, with a maximum of 3 units at ground level (without the 25% bonus permitted with
underground parking).
For reference, the City’s maximum permitted use density for a 32,000 square foot lot would
be 12 units under an R-3 designation. The R-3 District would be considered to be a more
“suburban” style district, whereas the CCD is more likely to be developed in an urban
arrangement with less green space per unit, and possibly, less off-street parking.
For “elderly housing” in an R-3 District, the maximum density would be 32 units (based on
Lot Area per Unit standards as detailed in Chapter 3-4[B].
The applicant has indicated a preference to achieve approximately 20 units on the Landmark
II site. This would equate to a unit to lot area ratio of 1 unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area.
The table below summarizes a comparison of unit count and density information:
R-3 District
R-3 Senior-
Restricted
Current CCD Amended CCD
(As proposed by
applicant)
Maximum
Units on
32,000 sf
parcel
12 units
permitted
More by CUP
32 units
10 units
+ potential bonus
for underground
parking
21 units
Density
(units/acre)
17 du/acre
43 du/acre
25 du/acre
35 du/acre
In considering the purpose and intent of the CCD, the CCD language was written to provide
for a continuous commercial flow with only limited interruptions in the store-fronts. This
direction from the City’s Downtown Revitalization Plan encouraged second story residential
City Council Agenda: 05/24/10
3
uses over ground floor commercial as a common theme – this was the concept applied in
Landmark Square’s first phase.
The policy at issue with this application would be whether the City believes the incorporation
of more extensive housing opportunities in the downtown area would be appropriate, and if
so, how such opportunities should be accommodated.
As such, the City has a number of options. The first four essentially entail a land use policy
change that would form a cornerstone of the upcoming downtown revitalization study.
Option 1. Permit housing similar to that proposed (greater than 1 unit per 3,000 feet
on upper floors and 1 unit per 900 feet ground floor) as a permitted use in the
downtown.
Option 2. Allow housing similar to that proposed only in certain areas of the
downtown.
Option 3. Allow housing similar to that proposed as a conditional use permit which
outlines specific conditions such as location elements (neighboring property and/or
zoning or street frontage); performance elements such as site improvements, building
height, building materials/architecture, or unit size.
Option 4. Allow housing in the downtown area, but with greater density allowances,
such as those in the current R-3 District.
Option 5. Withhold changes until the City, through its EDA, completes its updated
downtown revitalization study. With this option, the City would utilize the study to
direct the downtown land use policies that would then result in potential changes to
the CCD language related to housing.
ANALYSIS
In analyzing these options, there are pros and cons to both the current treatment of housing, as
well as to the provision for increased housing choice in the downtown area.
In support of the current policy, a continuous commercial flow, coupled with the
concentration of commercial enterprise, tends to support greater numbers of multiple-
destination shopping trips.
That is to say, by increasing the number of shops nearby to each other, the greater the
likelihood that a consumer will utilize downtown retail without driving between each store.
Conversely, separating commercial locations quickly results in the likelihood that consumers
will drive between store locations. This also has the added impact of diluting the commercial
attraction of the overall area. As convenience declines, so does the viability of a commercial
enterprise.
City Council Agenda: 05/24/10
4
There is also a side impact of this – the need for convenient parking increases as customers
are made to drive between stops. This reduces the efficiency of the land use by reducing the
concentration of building space in the downtown.
In support of an amendment, housing directly increases the market for current and future
business enterprise in the downtown area. Thus, by increasing the allowances for housing, the
City would be supporting, at least demographically, the long-term viability of commercial
locations in the downtown.
Presuming that the City intends to continue its support for commercial uses in the downtown
for the long-term, the question becomes how best to do so. The current ordinance addresses
these two potentially conflicting approaches by allowing housing primarily on upper floors,
with a code that discourages (although does not prohibit) housing on the ground floor. As
noted previously, the original Landmark Square phase is an example of this allowance, as are
a number of other buildings in the downtown commercial core.
Planning staff would suggest that expanding ground floor residential may be appropriate in
some areas to increase land use redevelopment options and support commercial activity. It
would be important to do so, however, only in a manner that does not compromise the
viability of commercial uses. It is a fact that commercial uses are far more sensitive to
location and direct support accessory operations than are multiple family residential uses.
As such, finding appropriate sub-areas in the downtown district may be possible in a way that
supports, rather than undermines, commercial concentration. To do this, the City may set a
series of conditions within the CCD for proposed locations to meet. Under a CUP approach,
an applicant would have to prove compliance with those conditions to justify exemption from
the ground floor residential restriction.
In the alternative, the City may establish a sub-category of the CCD that accommodates
ground floor residential through the use of an overlay district. By creating and utilizing a
“CCD-R” designation, the City has much greater discretion over whether to “re-zone” a
parcel for ground floor residential use.
Under the CUP approach above, the burden of proof for denial is on the City. Under the
CCD-R overlay approach, the burden of proof for approval is on the applicant. This
distinction can make a large difference for the City when an application is made for a property
that the City believes to be inappropriate for ground floor residential uses.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
City Council Agenda: 05/24/10
5
Planning Commission recommends alternative 3 below. Amendment of the CCD District
would remove the restrictions relating to ground floor residential uses.
1. Motion to approve an amendment that deletes density restrictions for ground floor
residential uses and increases allowable density to 1 unit per 1,500 square feet of lot
area as a permitted use.
2. Motion to approve an amendment that establishes ground floor residential uses at a
higher density (to be specified by the City Council) by CUP, and creates a series of
performance standards for such uses in the CCD.
3. Motion to approve Ordinance 515, an amendment that creates an overlay district in the
CCD for ground floor residential uses, along with specific performance standards for
such development.
4. Motion to table action on the amendment, pending additional information from staff
and/or the applicant.
5. Motion to deny the amendment, pending the outcome of the EDA downtown
revitalization study.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the City believes that it is appropriate to proceed prior to completion of the downtown
revitalization study, staff recommends Alternative #3. Under the overlay district concept, the
City has significantly increased discretion as to where ground floor residential may be
allowed in the CCD, permitting the City to minimize any interference with business
interaction that such housing might cause.
Moreover, as a subset of the main CCD district language, there should be less concern over
conflicting land uses that may result in “spot zoning” issues. Draft language for such a
district has been prepared, although it is recognized that Council may seek to add additional
restrictions if adopted.
If Council elects to approve motion 1 or 2, staff will prepare revised ordinance language for
review at the June 14th Council meeting.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Ordinance No. 515 – Chapter 14C, “CCD-R” Overlay District
Chapter 14B – Central Community District
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
1
11. Consideration of approving a rezoning request from CCD (Central Community
District) to CCD-R (Central Community District Residential); Applicant: Masters
5th Avenue/Barry Fluth (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
A public hearing on this request was held by the Planning Commission on June 8th.
During the hearing, it was clarified that the current CCD zoning district provisions
already allow for residential development in the downtown, and further allow for
ground floor residential under a Conditional Use Permit. A CCD-R overlay
designation allows for increased residential density, provided that the applicant can
demonstrate the ability to meet the prescribed performance standards. Essentially,
the density of a development is determined by ability to meet those standards. The
CCD-R still requires a CUP for ground floor residential development.
It was also clarified that this application is only the first step for a development as
proposed by the applicant. The application is only for action to rezone and does not
include an actual development plan. To achieve the unit count proposed by the
applicant (20-21), including units for the ground floor, the applicant will need to
apply for a Conditional Use Permit. At that time, the City will be able to review
development plans and determine compatibility with the CCD-R performance
standards.
For this application, the Planning Commission noted this site’s proximity to both
residential and commercial uses, and indicated that there was some merit in viewing
a CCD-R overlay designation as an appropriate transitional zoning.
The Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the rezoning request, with
Commissioner Spartz dissenting on the grounds that the rezoning and consideration
of expansion of residential uses in the CCD should be delayed until the downtown
plan has been completed.
The applicant is seeking an amendment to the Monticello Zoning map that would rezone
the property legally described as Lot 4, Block 36, Original Plat of Monticello, from CCD
to CCD-R. The property is located on the west corner of Locust and Third Street and is
approximately .75 acres in size.
As the Planning Commission is aware, the applicant had previously received approval of
a conditional use permit for a commercial development known as Landmark Square II at
this location. That CUP has been extended three times since its approval in 2005.
In May of 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by the applicant to amend
the CCD language to allow for greater ground floor density in the CCD. Rather than
allowing for the increased density on the ground floor across the district as a whole, the
Planning Commission instead recommended approval of an overlay zoning district for
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
2
the CCD that would accommodate increased ground floor density under a conditional use
permit. The City Council subsequently approved the overlay district amendment on May
24th, 2010.
In the Council’s discussion, there was some consideration for delaying action on the
rezoning to permit the City’s downtown planning process to occur. In addition, concern
was raised over the addition of apartment buildings in the downtown. However, the
majority agreed that the ordinance was proper, and voted 3-2 to establish the amendment.
For the applicant’s purposes of developing a commercial CUP allowing increased
density, the property would first need to be rezoned to CCD-R.
In making a determination that the CCD-R zoning is appropriate for this particular parcel,
the Planning Commission will want to consider whether the rezoning will meet the
findings specified within the district purpose statement as follows:
In establishing this district and rezoning property for the uses herein, the City
finds that the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan are being
fulfilled by ground floor residential uses, including those goals and policies
expressly applying to uses in the downtown area as may be adopted as a part of
any Downtown Revitalization Plan or similar component of the Comprehensive
Plan. Parcels shall be zoned “CCD-R” only where the more intensive residential
uses allowed by this overlay district can be found to enhance the commercial
concentration in the surrounding “CCD” downtown area.
In short, the primary issue for the City is whether the use of this parcel for residential
purposes, including the intended ground floor residential, will serve to enhance the
commercial downtown.
In considering this question, the Commission may review a number of influencing
factors, including the location of this property relative to other commercial and
residential uses, the capacity for commercial development at this location, and the
potential break-up of the flow of commercial development along this corridor.
In looking at the surrounding uses, the majority of property to the west of this site is
utilized as single-family residential, while the property directly to the north includes a
mixed residential/commercial project in Landmark Square. To the east is a former
single-family home that has been converted to a multi-tenant professional building.
Directly to the south, across Third Street, is a strip center commercial facility. Although
the uses are predominantly commercial in nature, especially at the ground floor level, this
area is adjacent to a broader area of residential, although primarily single-family. A
multi-family use in this location could be viewed as a transitional use between the
commercial properties and the single-family homes.
The CCD-R language adopted does allow for this parcel to be considered for overlay
rezoning in terms of its street frontage, as this property does not directly front Pine,
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
3
Broadway or Walnut Street. Other conditional requirements would require review as part
of the Conditional Use Permit application.
In review of the potential for commercial development for the site, it was noted in the
previous report that a continuous commercial flow, coupled with the concentration of
commercial enterprise, tends to support greater numbers of multiple-destination shopping
trips for the downtown. Disruption of that flow may decrease the viability of additional
commercial development in the area. However, it was also recognized that the addition
of housing may directly increases the market for current and future business enterprise in
the downtown area. The applicant has attempted to develop the site as commercial,
although market forces may have precluded its success to date.
To further discussion the following are applicable Comprehensive Plan goals and policy
statements.
2. Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected and supportive collection of
land uses. The primary function of Downtown is as a commercial district. Other
land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for Downtown.
3. Wherever possible, street fronts should be reserved for businesses.
4. Housing in the downtown can facilitate necessary redevelopment and bring
potential customers directly into the area. Housing may be free-standing or in
shared buildings with street level commercial uses.
In summary, the Commission will need to weigh the potential rezoning in terms of
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan’s objectives, which are currently evolving in
light of the “Embracing Downtown Monticello” planning effort.
A1. Budget Impact: None.
A2. Staff Workload Impact: None.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends alternative 1 below.
Rezoning of Lot 4, Block 36, Original Plat of Monticello to CCD-R
1. Motion to approve an amendment rezoning Lot 4, Block 36, to CCD-R based on
the finding that for this parcel, the more intensive residential uses allowed by
CCD-R will enhance the commercial concentration in the surrounding “CCD”
downtown area, and that the rezoning is consistent with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Motion to deny the amendment, based on a finding that the rezoning is not
consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that the
City Council Agenda: 06/28/10
4
intensive residential uses allowed by the overlay district on this parcel will not
enhance the commercial concentration in the surrounding CCD.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Under the overlay district concept, the City has significantly increased discretion as to
where ground floor residential may be allowed in the CCD, permitting the City to
minimize any interference with business interaction that such housing might cause. In
making its determination on this request, the Planning Commission’s specific focus is on
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and this parcel’s impact in terms of achieving
the goals for the downtown area. It is noted that the current planning efforts may
redefine those goals.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A: CCD-R Regulations
Exhibit B: Comprehensive Plan – Land Use, Downtown
Exhibit C: Landmark II – Aerial Image
Exhibit D: Downtown Area – Aerial Image
CityCouncilAgenda:8/23/10
1
3.Discussionof2011BudgetandPropertyTaxLevy (TK/JO)
A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND:
AttheAugust9th budgetworkshop,theCityCouncilapprovedthefinancialmanagement
policies,andthefive-yearCIPanddirectedstafftodevelopabudgetwithalevyof
$7,700,000andonewithalevyof$7,648,272.Staffhasreviewedthebudgetsasturned
intofinanceandtriedtoachievethe$7.7millionlevybutafteranumberofchangesstill
hasalevyof$8,166,387whichis$466,387abovethe$7.7million.Proposeditemsinthe
2011budgetinclude:
1.RevenuebudgetincludeschargingMonticelloTownshipforfireservices
beginningin2011.
2.Staffatcurrentstaffinglevels.
3.ACOLAincreaseof1%(increasesthegeneralfundlevy$19,378).
4.Fullstepincreasesforthoseeligible(increasesthegeneralfundlevy$30,718).
a.Thereare68employeesontheCity’spaysystem,with44eligibleforstep
increases.
5.Variousinsurances(benefits)toincrease10%.
a.CityandemployeestocurrentlyshareincreaseperstandingCityPolicy.
Theapproximatesplitsis80%Cityand20%employee.
6.$75,000foralobbyistrelatedtoYuccaMountainclosure.
7.ExpensesrelatedtooperatingthePrairieCenterBuilding($23,175)
a.Revenuebudgetincludesleaserevenueof$30,000fromPrairieCenter
Bldg.tenants.
8.Lawenforcementcontractatcurrenthoursandcost(nochange).Thetotallaw
enforcementcontractamountfor2011is$1,095,000.
9.$7,245forFireDepartmentradiolicensingfees.
10.Partialfundingofcityequipmentrentalfeetofundequipmentreplacement
purchasesinthefutureof$39,225.Shouldbe$256,190tobefullyfunded.
a.Allequipmentpurchaseidentifiedinthe5-yearCIPfundedfromCapital
RevolvingFundin2011.
11.$5,000toaddontopublicworksparkinglot.
12.Budgetforstormwatermaintenance,startingat$40,172including$25,000of
improvements.
13.Parksimprovementbudgetincludes$10,000fordiscgolfcourse.
a.Revenuebudgetincludesacontributionof$10,000tooffsetthis
expenditure.
14.NSPBallfieldsincludes$3,750fordugoutroofs.
15.EconomicDevelopmentbudgetincludes$80,000forthedowntownstudy.
Byremovingitems3,4,6,10,11,12,and14wouldlowerthelevyby$213,243which
wouldstillleavetheCity’slevy$253,144abovethe$7.7millionlevygoal.Councilis
askedtoreviewtheitemsaboveandconsiderwhichitemsyouwouldliketoremove.
Someoftheseexpendituressuchasfundingofequipmentrentalfeeareimportantto
maintainingservicelevelovertimeandarerequiredinordertofollowourCapital
CityCouncilAgenda:8/23/10
2
ImprovementProgram.Staffdidnotremovecertainitemsinordertomeetthelevygoal
suggestedbyCouncilbecauseourworrythatthesavingswouldrepresenta“false
economy,”thatisweknowweneedtospendacertainamounttoprovidetheservice,so
whyshowabudgetlessthanthatamounttoachievethelevygoal.
Thefollowingarebudgetitemsrequestedandnotincludedinthebudget:
1.Nointernsfortheplanningandzoningorbuildingdepartments.
2.Noincreaseinanimalcontrolbudget.
3.Noincreaseintemporarysalariesinstreetsandalleysdepartment.
4.Streetimprovementbudgetreducedfrom$100,000requesteddownto$80,000for
sealcoatproject(2010level).
5.Noincreaseintemporarysalariesinparkadministrationdepartment.
6.RemovedSunsetPondsshelter($10,000),playgroundreplacement($5,500),
pathwayconstruction($40,000),BertramChainofLakesimprovements($2,500),
andgravestonerestoration($5,000).
7.CommunityCenteruses$217,970ofreservestofundcapitalimprovementsand
debtrequirements.
a.Willhaveabout$662,141ofreservesremainingwitha$300,000
replacementcostforthedehumidificationsystemscheduledin2012.
8.StreetReconstructionfundlevysetat$150,000insteadofthe$250,000tobe
fullyfunded.
Councilisaskedtoreviewthislistandunderstandthatsomeofthesecostsarebeing
delayedbynotfundingin2011andwilleventuallyneedtobeaddressed.
Otherissues:
1.The2011levywasincreased$179,390fortheutilitytransitionaidtheCity
receivedin2010butwillnolongerreceive.However,anincreaseinXcel
marketvalueshouldoff-setthisreduction,however,inordertooff-set,thelevy
needstoincreaseinthisamountaccordingly.
2.The2010levydidnotincludealevyforthestreetreconstructionfund.
3.NolevyrequiredforadditionalBertramChainofLakespropertypurchasein
2011.However,infutureyears,alevymaybeneeded,soCouncilmaywishto
levysomeamountinpreparationforthisneedinthefuture.
4.ShadeTreeandLibraryFundsbudgetedtobreakevenin2011.
5.WaterandSewerFundsincludea5%rateincrease(stillnotfundingdepreciation
ofassets).
6.LiquorFundincludesa$250,000fundtransfertoStreetReconstructionFundas
inthepast.
StaffdidreceiveaverypreliminarytaxcapacityestimatefromWrightCountyonwhat
theCity’sestimatedtaxcapacitywillbefortaxpayableyear2011,whichis$16,435,391.
ThiswouldgivetheCityataxrateof49.688%andifaproperty’smarketvalue
decreasedbythe10%averagetheywouldseea3.49%decreaseinCitypropertytaxes.
CityCouncilAgenda:8/23/10
3
Asyouknow,thevalueofresidentialandcommercialpropertieshasdroppedrelativeto
Xcel.Duetothisrelationship,itcouldbepossibletoraisethelevyandpotentiallyraise
thetaxrate,withoutincreasingthetaxespaidbypropertyowners.Itshouldalsobe
noted,thatCouncilandstaffhavedoneverywellinreducingthelevyoverthepast
severalyears.However,intakingstockofcurrentandfuturerevenueneeds,Council
mustseriouslyconsiderboostingthelevyfor2011abovethenumberproposedatthe
previousmeeting.Unfortunately,wedonothavetaxcapacityvaluessoitisimpossible
todemonstratehowthelevywillimpacttherate/propertyowners.Councilmaywantto
seriouslyconsidersettinganamplepreliminarylevyattheCityCouncilmeetingon
September13th forcertificationtotheCounty.Betweenthe13th andtheadoptionofthe
finallevy,thetaxcapacityvalueoftheCitywillbecomeavailable,whichwillhelp
Councilinsettingthefinallevy.Thisinformationiscrucialtocalculatingthetaxrate
andassociatedpropertytaximpactonpropertyowners.
Basedonthelevyof$8,166,387andataxrateof49.688%for2011staffreviewedthe
taxhistoryonthepropertylocatedonRedOakLaneasfollows:
Year MarketValue CityPropertyTax
2004$209,900$1,222.14
2005$215,400$1,177.59
2006$230,600$1,100.44
2007$239,900$951.64
2008$244,400$1,079.98
2009$244,400$1,063.05
2010$223,500$951.69
2011$205,800$1,022.58
TheinformationisfromtheCountywebsiteandthisproperty’sactualtaxstatements.
YoucanseetheCitytaxeswouldbelowerthanwhattheywereinallyearsexcept2007
and2010.Theyhavebeenaround$950to$1100formostofthetimeeventhoughthe
property’smarketvalueincreasedregularlyuntil2009.
Asnotedabove,therearesomeexpensesthatcanbeeliminatedinordertogettothelevy
identifiedbyCouncilatthepreviousworkshop.StaffseeksCouncil’sinputonwhich
itemsshouldcomeout.However,therearenotenoughpotentialcutsprovidedtoCity
CouncilthatwouldgetustothelevyamountsuggestedbytheCityCouncil.Therefore,
ifCouncilwantstoholdtothelevyamount,thenstaffwillneedtolookatservices,
programs,andstaffinglevelreductionsthatgosignificantlydeeperthanreductionsmade
inthepastbasedonCouncildirection.
Attachedarethebudgetsheetsfordiscussionofanypossiblechanges.
A1.BudgetImpact:Willprovidestaffdirectionfordevelopinga2011operating
budget.
A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Sameasbudgetimpact.
CityCouncilAgenda:8/23/10
4
B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS:
1.Providestaffdirectiontodeveloppreliminary2011budgetandpropertytaxlevy.
IfCouncildesirestohitthelevyamountsuggestedatthepreviousmeeting,then
itemslistedaboveneedtobeevaluatedandremovedperCouncilprerogative.If
afterthisdiscussion,theadjustmentsmadebyCouncildonotgettothelevy
amountdesired,thenstaffwillprovidefurtheroptionsforcutsthatinclude
services,programs,andstaffinglevelsbasedonCouncildirection.
2.Donotprovidestaffdirectionon2011budgetandpreliminarypropertytaxlevy.
C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION:
TheCityAdministratorandFinanceDirectorrecommendthatCouncilprovidestaff
directiononthe2011preliminarypropertytaxlevy.
D.SUPPORTINGDATA:
Summaryofpropertytaxlevy
FundBalancesummary
Variousdepartmentbudgetsheets