Loading...
081621 Work Session Meeting Packet      CITY COUNCIL  WORK SESSION MEETING    New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North  Northwood Conference Room    Monday, August 16, 2021  6:00 p.m. ‐ dinner  6:30 p.m. ‐ meeting    Mayor Kathi Hemken  Council Member John Elder  Council Member Andy Hoffe  Council Member Michael Isenberg  Council Member Jonathan London        1. CALL TO ORDER – August 16, 2021    2. ROLL CALL    11. UNFINISHED & ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS     11.1 Discuss West Metro Fire‐Rescue 2022 Budget   11.2 Discuss City Code 7‐6, number of domestic animals allowed   11.3 Discuss bond proceeds from city hall/police facility project 994   11.4 Discuss acceptance of American Rescue Plan funds   11.5 Discussion regarding 2022 preliminary general fund budget and tax levy    12. OTHER BUSINESS    13. ADJOURNMENT  I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\WMFRD\WS 081621\11.1 Q ‐ 2022 WMFRD Budget.docx   Request for Action  August 16, 2021    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager    Agenda Title  Discuss West Metro Fire‐Rescue District 2022 Budget.  Requested Action  Staff requests that the City Council briefly review and discuss the proposed 2022 West Metro Fire‐Rescue  District budget prior to it being placed on the August 23 council agenda for formal action. Chief Larson will  be in attendance at the meeting.   Policy/Past Practice  Past practice has been for the City Council to review the budget after it has been approved by the Fire Board  and prior to it being placed on the council agenda for formal consideration.  Background  Staff and Chief Larson are requesting that the City Council review the WMFRD 2022 budget before it is  presented for formal approval at an upcoming council meeting. The Council previously reviewed the budget  at the April work session. The budget was presented to the Fire Board at their July 14 annual meeting and the  Board unanimously recommended approval of the budget. The Joint Powers Agreement requires both city  councils to act on the budget by August 31; or state their objections to the budget. Council Member Elder  serves as the New Hope Council Representative on the Board and Marc Berris serves on the Board as the  New Hope Citizen Representative. The city managers from both cities also serve on the Board.  2022 Budget  The proposed 2022 budget is attached and includes maintaining seven full‐time members serving as daytime  duty crew (also responsible for department operations including inspections, public education, community  outreach, finance/payroll, records management, IT, human resources, emergency management,  apparatus/equipment maintenance and training) and maintaining up to 66 paid on call firefighters (WMFRD  currently has 49 paid on call firefighters).  The total 2022 budget is $2,782,100, which is a $108,050 increase of 4.04% over the 2021 budget of $2,674,050.  The general operating budget increase is $88,050 or 4.15%, based on increases in salaries, PERA, health  insurance, workers comp. insurance, communications and equipment and vehicle repairs. There is a $20,000  increase to the capital plan to offset a future deficit. The budget includes a $20,000 increase to the special  pension fund, which is offset by a $20,000 decrease to the special revenue insurance fund. The contributions  to the budget from cities include a $103,600 lease payment for the new aerial truck (tower). The 2022 budget  does not include the replacement and leasing of four (4) new engines; that cost will be integrated into the  2023 budget (2 new engines) and the 2024 budget (2 additional engines).    The costs of the budget are split between the two cities based on a cost sharing formula that includes average  number of calls over a five‐year period, population, and taxable market value. Based on the 2022 preliminary  Agenda Section Work Session Item Number  11.1      Request for Action, Page 2    budget, New Hope’s increase is $65,859 or 4.9% (the increase for 2021 was $54,673.33 or 4.2%). New Hope’s  share of the total budget is $1,418,222.38 or 50.9767%. Crystal’s share of the budget is $1,363,977.62 or  49.0233%. Per the chart below, New Hope’s market values increased more than the market values in Crystal  between 2020 and 2021, and the average number of calls for service were greater.    Market Values in Millions   2021 Budget 2022 Budget Change  New Hope 2,106 2,257 +151  Crystal 2,123 2,214 +91    Average Calls Over 5 Years   2021 Budget 2022 Budget Change  New Hope 920 965 +45  Crystal 782 803 +21    As the Council is aware, the WMFRD budget is incorporated into the city’s general fund budget. Staff  recommends that the budget be placed on the August 23 council agenda for approval. It is anticipated that  Crystal will approve the budget at their August 17 council meeting.    Attachment   2022 West Metro Fire‐Rescue District Budget      I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\Animal Ordinance\11.2 Q ‐ Animal Ordinance ‐ WS.docx   Request for Action  August 16, 2021    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: Community Development  By: Brandon Bell, Community Development Assistant   Kirk McDonald, City Manager    Agenda Title  Discuss City Code 7‐6, number of domestic animals allowed  Requested Action  Staff recommends the City Council review the current code and provide direction to staff if changes are  warranted  Policy/Past Practice  It is the past practice of the city to provide regulations to govern general and various activities and situations  which actually or may occur or exist in the city, and which will or may affect the general welfare and safety  of residents of the city, with the intention of promoting and protecting the health, safety and welfare of the  citizens of the city.     Background  At the June 14, 2021 City Council meeting, Council denied a request from a resident to exceed the standard  city limit for a resident to keep three chickens. The petitioner was requesting to keep 12 chickens. At that time,  Council expressed interest in potentially amending New Hope’s City Code regarding limits on chickens, to  match those of the city of Crystal since both cities share their Animal Control Officer. Current New Hope City  Code allows for residents to have no more than three fowl (no roosters), unless granted a permit to exceed  limitations. Crystal City Code allows for a resident to keep up to 4 chickens, with no possibility for a permit  to extend that amount.     It should also be noted that New Hope City Code also differs from Crystal in that the only type of “fowl”  allowed in Crystal are chickens. New Hope City Code defines “fowl” as chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants,  turkeys, or other domestic, agricultural or wild fowl.    There are currently four permits to exceed limitations in the city. Two are to allow for six chickens to be kept,  one is allowed for four cats to be kept and the other is for five dogs to be kept. In 2017, a permit to exceed  limitations that was issued in 2009 to allow for 20 chickens was revoked due to health issues caused because  the owner was unable to maintain the property, and there were neighborhood complaints of waste products  and excess compost.     Permit to Exceed Limitations for other animals  Crystal differs from New Hope regarding the permit to exceed limitations on cats and dogs as well. Crystal  City Code states that a person may keep up to three cats or dogs, and up to four of a combination of the two  animals, without having to obtain a multiple animal license. A multiple animal license allows the holder of  the permit to have up to five of a combination of cats and dogs, and no more than that number. New Hope  Agenda Section Work Session Item Number  11.2    Request for Action, Page 2    City Code allows for households to have up to three cats and three dogs without a permit to exceed limitation.  There is no cap on the amount of cats and dogs a person can be granted through a permit to exceed limitations.    Recommendation  Council may wish to consider the following options:  1. Retain Section 7‐6(8) and establish a maximum number for the “Permit to Exceed Limitations”   2. Delete Section 7‐6(8) “Permit to Exceed Limitations”  3. Change Section 7‐6(4) definition of Fowl to be limited to Chickens.   a. Increase maximum allowed number of chickens from three to four.  b. Prohibit roosters/adult male chickens.  c. Add additional language similar to Crystal’s code (shelter/coop structure, sale of eggs, prevention of  nuisance conditions for care of chickens).    Staff recommends options 2 and 3. The four existing permits would be grandfathered in.    If Council directs staff to amend the city code, staff will work with the city attorney to draft an ordinance  amendment for consideration at a future Council Meeting.    Attachments   Minutes from June 14, 2021 City Council Meeting   RFA to Exceed Limitations from June 14, 2021 City Council Meeting   Minutes from June 21, 2021 City Council work session   New Hope City Code Sec 7‐6   Crystal City Code    List of issued permits to exceed limitations      New Hope City Council  June 14, 2021  Page 1         PUBLIC HEARING  PERMIT TO EXCEED  LIMITATION OF  KEEPING ANIMALS   8353 50th AVE N.  Item 7.1    Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 7.1, Public Hearing to consider a  request for “permit to exceed limitations on the keeping of animals” at 8353 50th  Avenue North.    Mr. Jeff Sargent, director of community development, explained that Keri and  Clayton Miller are seeking permission to keep up to 12 chickens on the property  located at 8353 50th Avenue North. He stated the chicken coop is 12’ x 16’ and is  located approximately five feet from the rear property line. He stated city code  allows property owners to keep a maximum of three chickens without needing  special approval by the City Council.    Mr. Sargent stated the applicant has submitted an application for a “permit to  exceed limitations” which requires a public hearing. He stated property owners  within 500 feet of the subject property were notified of the public hearing. Staff has  received feedback from property owners, both for and against the proposal.  Neighborhood concerns include the number of chickens, potential health risks,  size of the chicken coop, and public nuisance issues such as odor and waste  products.    Director Sargent illustrated the chicken coop and vegetative screening from  neighbors. He noted the enclosure inside the coop was sized for 12 chickens (the  chickens emit body heat for survival in winter). He reported on past permits issued  in the city and one permit that was revoked due to improper maintenance. He  explained the permit expires annually and can be revoked if problems arise.    Council Member London spoke of setting a precedence. He questioned the  nuisance aspects if an entire neighborhood desired to have several chickens.    Mr. Sargent noted that ordinances allow regulation, and the city’s code could be  amended for stricter rules.    Ms. Stacy Woods, city attorney, noted the permit to exceed limitations is not a  permanent action, and it provides flexibility as well as the ability to revoke a  permit.     Council Member Hoffe asked how long the chicken coop has been on the property.  He noted the two existing permits on file allow six chickens per property compared  to the Millers’ request to own 12 chickens.     Mayor Hemken questioned why the applicant has 12 chickens without approval.  She noted some residents in the neighborhood do not support the request.    Ms. Keri Miller, applicant, explained that her family moved into the property in  November of 2020. She stated in January of 2021 she spoke with the animal control  officer regarding chickens and was instructed to submit the application after the  coop was constructed and the chickens were obtained. Mr. Clayton Miller  indicated they were told an inspection of the chicken coop was necessary. Ms.  New Hope City Council  June 14, 2021  Page 2   Miller stated the coop was constructed this summer, and the chickens are about a  month old.     Mr. Tom Mahan, animal control officer, explained that he did advise the Millers to  construct the coop and obtain the chickens prior to submitting the application to  have more than three chickens. He noted in the future he will ensure residents are  told to complete the application process first.     Mr. Mahan responded to questions from Council. He stated the other four permits  (to exceed limitations) were issued within the past five years. He indicated he tries  to inspect the properties on an annual basis. He stated the city of Crystal recently  amended its ordinance to allow a maximum of four chickens, with no option to  have greater than four.    Mayor Hemken opened the public hearing for comments.    Mr. Scott Stover, 8316 50th Avenue North, was recognized. He expressed support  for the permit and noted the benefits of allowing children to learn about farming.    Council Member Elder spoke regarding the presumption that the permit will  automatically be approved. He noted the request is for four times the number of  chickens normally allowed by ordinance. He commented on the burden placed on  neighboring property owners.    Council Member Isenberg supported approving the permit based on the  misinformation from city staff and because the applicant has incurred expenses  with the coop and chickens. He noted the permit can be revoked if there is lack of  maintenance by the property owner.    Council Member London stated he believes the city should avoid a high  concentration of chickens and allow no more than three chickens per property.    CLOSE HEARING  Item 7.1  Motion was made by Council Member Elder, seconded by Council Member  London, to close the public hearing. All present voted in favor. Motion carried.    MOTION  Item 7.1  Motion was made by London, seconded by Council Member Elder, to deny the  “permit to exceed limitations on the keeping of animals” at 8353 50th Avenue  North. The following voted in favor thereof: Hemken, Elder, Hoffe, London; and  the following voted against the same: Isenberg; Abstained: None; Absent: None.  Motion carried.     Mayor Hemken advised the Mr. and Mrs. Miller that only three chickens will be  allowed at the property.    Council Member London commented at the next work session the Council will  be discussing nuisances within the city and the need to enforce city ordinances.  Director Sargent indicated the animal ordinance can be reviewed as well.     EXCHANGE OF   COMMUNICATION  Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion Item 12.1, Exchange of communication  between members of the City Council.  New Hope City Council  June 14, 2021  Page 3   Item 12.1   Mr. Jeff Sargent, director of community development, indicated the city is  sponsoring “food truck Fridays” at city hall parking lot from 11 am until 2 pm on  Fridays through September 3.    Mayor Hemken reported on upcoming events.    ADJOURNMENT    Motion was made by Council Member Isenberg, seconded by Council Member  Elder, to adjourn the meeting, as there was no further business to come before  the Council. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. The New Hope City  Council adjourned at 7:43 p.m.  Respectfully submitted,    Valerie Leone, City Clerk    I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\Animal Ordinance\permit to exceed RFA 06.14.21.docx   Request for Action  June 14, 2021    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Valerie Leone, City Clerk    Agenda Title  Public Hearing to consider a request for “permit to exceed limitations on the keeping of animals” at 8353 50th  Avenue North   Requested Action  The city has received a request by a resident to keep greater than three chickens at 8353 50th Avenue North  Policy/Past Practice  City code section 7‐6(8) requires Council to hold a hearing for such permits. Similar permits are held  elsewhere in the city and the permits are renewed annually.  Background  Keri and Clayton Miller, 8353 50th Avenue North, submitted an application to seek permission to keep up to  12 hens.    Sixty‐two property owners within 500 feet of the property have been notified of the hearing. As of this  writing, staff has received letters both in support and against the request (communication is attached and the  addresses are identified on attached map). The concerns were similar in nature and include the following  issues:   number of chickens (whether 12 is excessive)   potential health risks for persons with allergies   size of coop   public nuisance issues such as odor and insects from chicken feces    Staff advised residents the applicant is aware of the city ordinance and the requirement to properly maintain  the chicken coop. Residents were also advised that if the permit is granted, any future complaints would be  handled through the animal control officer, and the permit can be revoked if the chickens become a public  nuisance.    If Council approves the permit, the permit will expire on December 31 of each calendar year and is subject to  annual renewal. Council may revoke a permit prior to its expiration if it is determined that the terms of the  permit have been violated or if the animals have become either a public nuisance or a hazard to the public  health or safety.      The animal control officer has conducted an inspection of the property and found no issues.  Funding  The applicant has submitted the $75 non‐refundable application fee. Renewal permits are $35/year.  Agenda Section Public Hearing Item Number  7.1    Request for Action, Page 2    Attachments   Application   City code 7‐6   Public hearing notice   Communication from neighbors   Map illustrating comments in support and against   Memo from Animal Control Officer        City Council Work Session June 21, 2021  Page 1   2022 BUDGET  Item 11.3    Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion item 11.3, Preliminary discussion on 2022  Budget.    Mr. Kirk McDonald, city manager, reported on the goals/priorities for 2022 budget  cycle. He briefly reviewed the budget schedule indicating a special meeting could be  held September 7 if necessary; he reported on local government aid, central garage  funding, PERA contribution rates, administrative charges, IT charges, election cost  increase, council salaries, employee compensation and insurance, park and street  infrastructure levies, the EDA levy, and debt service levies. Mr. McDonald also  recommended conducting a professional city survey by Morris Leatherman in 2022.    Mr. McDonald stated the budget notebooks will be distributed at the August work  session at which time the maximum levy will be reviewed. He stated a hearing will be  held on December 6 to consider adoption of the budget.     Mayor Hemken inquired if leasing police vehicles will impact the budget. Ms.  Holthaus stated some central garage figures could change.    Council Member London inquired regarding the funds the city received from the  federal government relating to the pandemic.    Mr. McDonald stated funds from the American Rescue Plan can be used for revenue  losses (pool, ice arena, permits). He stated staff will make a recommendation on the  use of the funding.    Ms. Holthaus commented that some CARE funds were recently transferred to the  temporary financing fund per Council’s direction.     NUISANCES  Item 11.5    Mayor Hemken introduced for discussion item 11.5, Discuss nuisances and other  related issues.    Mr. Jeff Sargent, director of community development, explained at the April work  session, Council Member London asked that the city’s policies regarding responses to  nuisances be discussed at a future meeting.    Mr. Sargent explained reviewed the staff report regarding nuisances at residential  districts. He stated items or structures on properties are usually dealt with through  community development. He stated issues such as noise complaints are handled  through the police department. He noted the police department can act as a mediator  on neighbor issues.    Ms. Stacy Woods, assistant city attorney, explained the difference between public  nuisances and private nuisances. She stated a public nuisance affects the community  whereas a situation involving two properties affecting one owner is a private nuisance  and the city should not become involved with the dispute. She stated in most cases,  police officer intervention is successful.    Chief Hoyt spoke of the importance of allowing the police department try to mediate.    City Council Work Session June 21, 2021  Page 2   Discussion ensued regarding noise from car engines, weed complaints, and group  home occupants.    Council Member London indicated the city should be able to improve the tracking of  complaints to understand problem areas and address ongoing issues.    Director Sargent pointed out oftentimes the problem is an educational issue and can  be resolved once the resident understands city ordinances.    Director Sargent asked Council if it would like staff to prepare an ordinance  amendment to eliminate the “permit to exceed limitations” process based on action  taken at the June 14 Council Meeting. Mayor Hemken recommended review of  Crystal’s animal ordinance to determine if New Hope’s code should be similar.    ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. as there was no further business to come  before the Council at its work session.    Respectfully submitted,     Valerie Leone, City Clerk    7/6/2016 New Hope, MN Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-6. -Number of domestic animals allowed. It shall be a public nuisance and unlawful to allow, permit, keep, maintain, sell or harbor animals within the city, in violation of the following regulations or without a city permit as provided for in subsection (8): (1)Dogs. No more than three dogs over six months old, up to a limit of ten dogs if the additional dogs are puppies under six months old, unless a kennel license is obtained. (2)Cats. No more than three cats over six months old, up to a limit of ten cats if the additional cats are kittens under six months old, unless a kennel license is obtained. (3)Other household pets. No more than three other domesticated household pets of any kind or combination thereof kept for companionship and pleasure, including, but not limited to, small caged animals in the rodent family, members of the lagomorph family, domesticated ferrets, caged birds in the parrot or finch families, non-venomous reptiles less than six feet in length and non­ poisonous amphibians. This limitation shall not apply to non-game fish sold at retail in pet shops for the purpose of being kept in an aquarium. (4)Fowl. No more than three fowl of any kind or combination thereof. "Fowl" means chickens, ducks, geese, pheasants, turkeys or other domestic, agricultural or wild fowl. "Fowl" does not mean roosters and no roosters of any kind are permitted within the city by this section. (5)Wild animals. No live wild animals of any kind. (6)Hoofed animals. No horses, cows, sheep, goats, pigs or any kind of other hoofed animals with the exception of one pot-bellied pig. (7)[Nuisance animals.] No combination of animals and/or fowl of any age referred to in subsections (1)through (6) above kept in such numbers or under such conditions which unreasonably annoy, injure, or endanger the health, safety, comfort, repose or welfare of the public or of said animals or fowl. (8)Permit to exceed limitations. Any person desiring to exceed the limitations on the keeping of animals as set out in subsections (1) through (7) above may do so only by permit granted by the city council after submitting an appropriate application for a public hearing on the permit as provided in this section. a.Application. An application for a permit must contain the following information: (i) the name and address of the applicant, (ii) the address of the premises upon which the animal or animals are to be kept, (iii) the number, species and, except in the case of bees, the sex of such animal or animals, and (iv) a statement regarding any property damage or physical injuries caused by such animal or animals in the past. The council may also require submission of such additional information or material as it deems necessary or convenient. The applicant must pay to the city clerk such initial permit fee and renewal permit fee as shall be established from time to time by council resolution. Upon submission of the initial application, the city clerk must set a date for a hearing on the application before the city council and must notify the owners of all properties located within 350 feet of the subject premises of the date and time of the hearing. htlps://www.municode.com/library/mn/new_hope/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=CD_ORD_CH7AN_S7-6NUDOANAL 1/2 7/6/2016 New Hope, MN Code of Ordinances b. Hearing. At the hearing the city council may take such testimony or receive such documents or information as it deems appropriate. A permit will not be issued if the city council finds that such animal or animals, because of their number, size, proximity to other properties, history of vicious or destructive actions, or inherent characteristics, are or are likely to become either a nuisance or a hazard to the public health or safety. In the case of bees, a permit will not be issued unless the hive or hives are to be located at least 500 feet from any other property. c. Term. Permits are valid until December 31 of the year of issuance and may be renewed annually by the council. The council may revoke a permit prior to its expiration if the council finds that the terms or conditions of the permit have been violated or if the animal or animals have become either a public nuisance or a hazard to the public health or safety. Nothing herein in this subsection is to be construed to prohibit or constrain any action allowed by law designated to prevent the spread of disease or the imminent damage to persons or property caused by such animal or animals. (Ord. No. 15-23, § 2, 10-26-2015) htlps://www.municode.com/library/mn/new_hope/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeld=CD_ORD_CH7AN_S7-6NUDOANAL 212 562888v4CR225-464 2019 Crystal City Code 910.01, Subd. 10 Subd. 10. Multiple animal license. “Multiple animal license” means a license required of any person possessing or maintaining more animals on a property than is allowed under this section without a license. Subd. 11. Potentially dangerous dog. “Potentially dangerous dog” means any dog that: (a) When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (b) When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (c) Has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. Subd. 12. Proper enclosure. “Proper enclosure” means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the dog from exiting. Subd. 13. Provocation. “Provocation” means an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or bite. Subd. 14. Special event. “Special event” means an event designated by city council resolution and occurring in a city park, other than a designated dog park. Subd. 15. Substantial bodily harm. “Substantial bodily harm” has the meaning given it under Minnesota Statutes, section 609.02, subdivision 7a. 910.03. General provisions. Subd. 1. Custodians of animals. A custodian is required to comply the requirements imposed on an owner under this section while the person is in possession of an animal. Subd. 2. Animal control officer. The city manager shall designate the animal control officer. Subd. 3. Enforcement. The police department and animal control officer are authorized to enforce the provisions of this section, including issuing citations for violations, transporting animals to the city animal pound, and destroying animals in accordance with the provisions of this section. 562888v4CR225-464 2019 Crystal City Code 910.03, Subd. 4 Subd. 4. Interference with officers. An unauthorized person shall not take or attempt to take from any officer any animal taken up by a police officer or the animal control officer in compliance with this section, or in any manner interfere with or hinder the officer or agent of the city in the discharge of the person’s duties. Subd. 5. Muzzles. When the animal control officer determines that a dog is infected with rabies, the police chief may require that the dog be muzzled while in public. Subd. 6. Diseased animals prohibited. It is unlawful to knowingly bring into the city, or have in one’s possession, an animal that is afflicted with infectious or contagious diseases. Such diseased animals must be destroyed in a humane manner unless the disease is curable and the animal is under the care of, and receiving treatment from, a licensed veterinarian. Subd. 7. Zoning regulations. It is unlawful to keep or harbor an animal or fowl, except domestic animals, within any district of the city zoned residential unless otherwise permitted by the Crystal city code. 910.05. Vaccination of animals. Subd. 1. Required. Each dog, cat, or ferret over three months of age must be vaccinated for rabies. The vaccination must be administered by or under the supervision of a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine. The certificate of vaccination must show that the animal has been vaccinated in accordance with the current recommendation of the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians and the Centers for Disease Control of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The certificate is prima facie proof of the required vaccination. Subd. 2. Vaccination tag. An owner must have a current rabies vaccination tag securely affixed to the collar of its dog or cat when the animal is off of the owner’s property. It is unlawful to falsify a vaccination tag. 910.07. Regulations on number of animals. Subd. 1. Noncommercial. The number of animals that may be kept on a property without a license, or with a multiple animal license, are as follows: 562888v4CR225-464 2019 Crystal City Code 910.07, Subd. 1 Dogs Cats Pot-bellied Pig Chickens Combined Total Number of Animals Allowed* No license required Up to 3 Up to 3 1 4 Up to 4 Multiple animal license required 4 to 5 4 to 5 No more than 1 allowed No more than 4 allowed Up to 5 * No more than three dogs over the age of three months shall be kept on a property without a multiple animal license. No more than three cats over the age of three months shall be kept on a property without a multiple animal license. Without a multiple animal license, the combination of dogs, cats, or pot-bellied pig shall not exceed four. A multiple animal license shall entitle a property owner to keep no more than five total animals on the property. In no event shall more than one pot-bellied pig be kept on a property. A pot-bellied pig is counted toward the total number of animals, but chickens are not. Subd. 2. Commercial. Anyone engaging in the business of raising, selling, boarding, showing, treating, or grooming animals is required to obtain a commercial kennel license regardless of the number of animals involved in the business. 910.09. Multiple animal licenses and commercial kennel licenses. Every person proposing to keep more animals on a property than are allowed without a license, or to operate a commercial kennel, is required to obtain either a multiple animal license or a commercial kennel license from the city and is required to comply with the provisions of this subsection. No license shall be required for veterinarians as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 347.40. Subd. 1. Application. Application for an appropriate license must be made using the forms provided by the city and shall be submitted to the city clerk together with the payment of the appropriate fees required by Crystal city code, appendix IV. The applicant must provide, at the time of application, an up-to-date detailed plan and description of the premises and structures wherein the kennel is to be operated, the number and types of animals proposed to be handled therein, and such other information as the city may deem necessary. If the application is for a renewal of a previous license and no changes in the premises, structures, or operation have been made or are contemplated to be made, a new plan or description need not be provided but the completeness and accuracy of the existing plan must be so certified. Subd. 2. Procedure. (a) The city clerk shall forward complete applications to the animal control officer for review. (b) The animal control officer shall review the application, conduct an inspection of the property if deemed needed, and make a recommendation regarding the requested license. 562888v4CR225-464 2019 Crystal City Code 910.09, Subd. 2(c) (c) The city council shall determine whether to issue the requested license. Subd. 3. License term. Licenses expire on April 30 of each year. Subd. 4. Posting. A commercial kennel license must be posted in a conspicuous place on the property. A multiple animal license need not be posted, but must be produced upon request by the city. Subd. 5. Vaccination of animals. A certificate of vaccination for rabies shall be kept for every dog, cat, and ferret kept at a licensed premises and must be produced upon request by the city. 910.11. Pot-bellied pigs. In additional to the other regulations contained in this section, the following additional regulations shall apply to pot-bellied pigs. Subd. 1. Only one allowed. No person may keep more than one pot-bellied pig, which must be kept solely for the private use and enjoyment of the person. Subd. 2. Single-family dwelling. A pot-bellied pig may be kept only by residents of single family detached dwellings. Subd. 3. Neutered or spayed. All male pot-bellied pigs must be neutered by the age of three months, and all female pot-bellied pigs must be spayed by the age of one year. The owner shall maintain a record showing the animal has been neutered or spayed by a licensed doctor of veterinary medicine upon the animal reaching the age indicated herein. 910.13. Chickens. In additional to the other regulations contained in this section, the following additional regulations shall apply to chickens. Subd. 1. Prohibitions. (a) No person shall keep on any single family or two family residential property more than four total chickens. Chickens are not counted toward the number of animals that may be kept on a property without a multiple animal license. (b) No person shall keep roosters, or adult male chickens, on any property within the city. (c) Chickens are not allowed on properties with three or more dwelling units. (d) Cockfighting is specifically prohibited within the city. 562888v4CR225-464 2019 Crystal City Code 910.13, Subd. 1(e) (e) The slaughter of chickens is prohibited in the city. (f) The raising of chickens for breeding purposes is prohibited in the city. (g) Chickens over the age of four weeks shall not be kept inside of a dwelling or garage. Subd. 2. Owner present. The owner of the chickens shall live in the dwelling on the property. If the property is not owner-occupied, then the property owner must provide a written statement to the city confirming that the tenant may have chickens at the property. Subd. 3. Shelter requirements. Chickens shall be properly protected from the weather and predators in a shelter or coop, and have access to the outdoors in an enclosure or fenced area. The shelter and/or enclosure shall meet all of the following requirements: (a) Applicable building, property maintenance and zoning requirements of Crystal city code, chapters IV and V; (b) All electrical work shall be done according to applicable codes and with appropriate permits; (c) The shelter shall be situated closer to the chicken owner’s dwelling than to any of the neighboring dwellings, and in no case closer than five feet to the lot line; (d) Shelter and enclosure must not be located closer to an adjacent street than the owner’s dwelling; (e) Screening from abutting residentially used properties and streets in the form of a solid privacy fence of at least four feet in height constructed according to the fence standards of Crystal city code, subsection 515.13, subdivision 7 shall be provided for the shelter and enclosure; (f) A shelter shall not exceed 120 square feet in size and shall not exceed six feet in height; (g) An enclosure or fenced area for chickens shall not exceed 20 square feet per bird and shall not exceed six feet in height and shall have protected overhead netting to prevent attracting predators and other animals running at large; 562888v4CR225-464 2019 Crystal City Code 910.13, Subd. 3(h) (h) An enclosure or fenced area may be constructed with wood and/or woven wire materials that allow chickens to contact the ground; and (i) The structure must be properly constructed and of quality materials to deter rodents and predators. Subd. 4. Prevention of nuisance conditions. Owners shall care for chickens in a humane manner and shall prevent nuisance conditions by ensuring the following conditions are met: (a) The shelter and enclosure are maintained in good repair, and in a clean and sanitary manner free of vermin and objectionable odors; (b) Feces and discarded feed is regularly collected and stored in a leak-proof container with a tight-fitting cover to prevent nuisance odors and the attraction of vermin until it can be disposed properly; (c) Chicken feed shall be stored in leak-proof containers with a tight-fitting cover to prevent attracting vermin; (d) Chickens shall be secured inside of a shelter from sunset to sunrise each day to prevent nuisance noise and attracting predators; (e) Chickens shall remain in either the shelter or enclosure at all times and shall not run at large; and (f) The shelter shall be winterized to protect the chickens in cold weather. Subd. 5. Sale of farm poultry or eggs. Owners must comply with all requirements and performance standards for home enterprises in Crystal city code, subsection 515.33, subdivision 3b and all Minnesota Department of Agriculture requirements for the sale of eggs. 910.15. Manner of keeping animals. Subd. 1. Sanitary conditions. It shall be unlawful to engage in any of the following: (a) Keeping an animal in an unclean or unsanitary place or in an unclean or unsanitary condition so as to endanger the animal’s health or safety; (b) Owning, harboring, keeping, or having in possession or on one’s premises an animal in a manner that produces an odor that can be detected by any person from a location outside of the building or premises where the animal is kept; or 562888v4CR225-464 2019 Crystal City Code 910.15, Subd. 1(c) (c) Owning, harboring, keeping, or having in possession or on one’s premises an animal that by howling, yelping, barking, fighting or otherwise, produces noise that disturbs the peace, quiet or repose of a person of ordinary sensibility. Subd. 2. Basic care. All animals shall receive kind and humane treatment from their owners, which shall include proper, adequate, clean, ventilated, and sanitary housing or shelter from the elements and sufficient food and water for their comfort. Failure to provide basic care is a violation of this subsection. Subd. 3. Removal of animal feces required. An owner or custodian shall immediately pick up and remove any feces deposited on public property or on the property of another. Any such person must have in their possession a means to collect and dispose of all fecal matter in a proper manner. Subd. 4. Accumulation of feces prohibited. An owner or custodian shall keep the premises on which an animal is kept free from an unreasonable accumulation of fecal matter. 910.17. Confinement and control. A person who owns or keeps an animal, or the parent or guardian of a person under 18 years of age who keeps an animal, may not permit the animal to be on private land in the city unless the animal is effectively restrained from leaving the land by leashing or fencing, except on the owner’s own private land. The owner of the land may keep an animal on that land but the animal must be kept under the immediate supervision and verbal command of a responsible person. A person having custody or control of an animal may not permit the animal to be on public property in the city unless the animal is effectively restrained by leash not exceeding six feet in length. An animal in heat must be confined in an enclosure that prevents its escape and the entry of other animals. While on the owner’s property, a dog designated as dangerous must be kept in a proper enclosure and as otherwise provided in Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51 and 347.52, and this section. 910.19. Public nuisance. Subd. 1. Violation. An animal is a public nuisance if its owner or custodian violates Crystal city code, subsection 910.15: (a) Three times within a period of 60 consecutive days; (b) Four times within a period of 180 consecutive days; or (c) Five times within a period of 360 consecutive days. For purposes of this subsection, the date of a violation is the date the violation occurs, not the date of conviction for the violation. I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\Animal Ordinance\List of Permits to Exceed 6.14.21.docx  Permits to Exceed  (as of 6/14/21)    Address          Type of Animal       Number Allowed      Council approval  5947 Independence Ave N Chickens 6 05/23/16  3413 Ensign Ave Chickens 6 07/25/16  8961 42nd Ave N Cats 4 06/26/17  8931 60 ½ Ave N Dogs 5 11/12/19      Permit Revoked 6/26/17 for 6016 Rhode Island Ave N (permit to exceed was issued in 2009 for  maximum of 20 chickens). Due to health issues the property owner was unable to maintain the  property and there were neighborhood complaints of waste products and excess compost.  I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\Bond Proceeds\WS 081621\11.3 Q ‐ Bond Proceeds 081621.docx    Request for Action  August 16, 2021    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager    Agenda Title  Discuss bond proceeds from city hall/police facility project 994  Requested Action  Staff and AEM request to discuss options with the City Council for the use of the remaining bond proceeds  from the city hall/police facility project.  Policy/Past Practice  In the past staff and AEM have discussed financing options for projects with the City Council, taking into  consideration future project needs and the overall impact on the tax levy.  Background  Per the attached memo from AEM, when the city issued the bonds for the city hall/police facility in 2017, the  city accepted a premium on the bonds which provided additional funding for the project. In the preliminary  planning phases of the project the city had saved $600,000 in the city hall capital fund and those funds remain  intact for future city hall/police facility capital replacement or improvement needs.     At the end of July, approximately $700,000 of the 2017 bond proceeds remained and a portion of the funds  will be utilized to finalize project costs, make technical improvements to meeting rooms and to fund the  security measures. It is estimated that $400,000 ‐ $500,000 of the proceeds will remain and require formal  action by the Council to redistribute the funds.    AEM has consulted with the city’s bond counsel from Dorsey & Whitney on the options available for the use  of the bond proceeds and staff is recommending they be utilized for improvements at the public works  facility. AEM will further discuss the details of the options at the work session.  Attachments   August 4 AEM Memo   2022 Preliminary Tax Levy Chart      Agenda Section Work Session Item Number  11.3  I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\ARPF\WS 081621\11.4 Q ‐ American Rescue Plan Funds 081621.docx    Request for Action  August 16, 2021    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager    Agenda Title  Discuss acceptance of American Rescue Plan Funds  Requested Action  Staff requests to discuss the formal acceptance of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding with the  City Council and is recommending that the Council approve a resolution formally accepting the funds at the  August 23 council meeting.  Policy/Past Practice  The City Council has approved the acceptance of Federal funding for the coronavirus pandemic in the past.  In 2020 the city formally accepted $1,641,664 in CARES Act funding from the Federal government via the  State of Minnesota.  Background  Per the attached memo from AEM, the city received the first installment of American Rescue Plan funding at  the end of July in the amount of $1,106,158.24. The city will receive a second distribution in 2022 for a similar  amount for a total of $2,195,235. Similar to the CARES Act funding received in 2020, the city needs to  establish options for the use of the funding that meet Federal guidelines and then formally accept the  funding. Staff is recommending that the funding be utilized to offset 2021 and 2022 infrastructure project  costs so unspent infrastructure funds could potentially be contributed to the future public works facility  improvements (without the use of bonding). The funding options will be discussed in more detail at the work  session.    Attached is the resolution staff and AEM are recommending be adopted at the August 23 council meeting  along with the Federal guidelines for American Rescue Plan funding.    Attachments   August 4 AEM Memo   Draft Resolution for August 23 Council Meeting   American Rescue Plan Funding Amounts   LMC American Rescue Plan Information for Cities      Agenda Section Work Session Item Number  11.4  City of New Hope Resolution No. 2021- Resolution to accept the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund established under the American Rescue Plan Act WHEREAS, since the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was discovered in the United States in January 2020, the disease has infected over 32 million and killed over 575,000 Americans (“Pandemic”). The disease has impacted every part of life: as social distancing became a necessity, businesses closed, schools transitioned to remote education, travel was sharply reduced, and millions of Americans lost their jobs; WHEREAS, as a result of the Pandemic cities have been called on to respond to the needs of their communities through the prevention, treatment, and vaccination of COVID-19 WHEREAS, city revenues, businesses and nonprofits in the city have faced economic impacts due to the Pandemic. WHEREAS, Congress adopted the American Rescue Plan Act in March 2021 (“ARPA”) which included $65 billion in recovery funds for cities across the country. WHEREAS, ARPA funds are intended to provide support to state, local, and tribal governments in responding to the impact of COVID-19 and in their efforts to contain COVID-19 in their communities, residents, and businesses. WHEREAS, the City of New Hope (“City”) was allocated funds in July, 2021 pursuant to the ARPA (“Allocation”). WHEREAS, the United States Department of Treasury has adopted guidance regarding the use of ARPA funds. WHEREAS, the City, in response to the Pandemic, has had expenditures and anticipates future expenditures consistent with the Department of Treasury’s ARPA guidance. WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota will distribute ARPA funds to the City because its population is less than 50,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The City intends to collect its share of ARPA funds from the State of Minnesota to use in a manner consistent with the Department of Treasury’s guidance. 2. City staff, together with the Mayor and the City Attorney are hereby authorized to take any actions necessary to receive the City’s share of ARPA funds from the State of Minnesota for expenses incurred because of the Pandemic. 3. City staff, together with the Mayor and the City Attorney are hereby authorized to make recommendations to the City Council for future expenditures that may be reimbursed with ARPA funds. Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 23rd day of August, 2021. Mayor Attest: City Clerk I:\RFA\City Manager\2021\Budget 2022\WS 081621\11.5 Q ‐ 2022 Preliminary Budget 081621.docx    Request for Action  August 16, 2021    Approved by: Kirk McDonald, City Manager  Originating Department: City Manager  By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager    Agenda Title  Discussion regarding 2022 preliminary general fund budget and tax levy  Requested Action  Staff requests to begin initial discussions on the preliminary 2022 general fund budget and city tax levy.  Budget binders were distributed with the work session agenda packet, and an electronic copy of the budget is  attached. The city manager and representatives from AEM will be present to provide an overview of the  budget.  Policy/Past Practice  In the past the Council has discussed and provided feedback/direction on the general fund budget and city  tax levy prior to the September council meeting when the maximum levy must be established. The general  fund budget is reviewed and refined during the fall months with the final budget and tax levy adopted in  December. All utility and enterprise fund budgets are reviewed and discussed in the fall, a determination is  made regarding any necessary rate increases and all budgets adopted in December.  Background  Per Hennepin County, the City Council needs to adopt the preliminary maximum tax levy for certification  to the county auditor by September 30. Staff is recommending that Council certify the preliminary tax levy  at the September 13 council meeting. Per the schedule reviewed with the Council earlier this year, it was  determined the preliminary budget would be distributed and discussed at the August 16 work session. If a  special work session is needed prior to the September 13 council meeting to reach agreement on the initial  maximum levy, staff recommends that it be conducted on September 7 (a special work session has not  been necessary in the past). All general fund department budgets will be reviewed and discussed at the  September 20 work session with department heads in attendance. All enterprise and utility fund budgets,  including HRG, will be discussed at the October 18 work session. A final budget presentation that includes  results from the city services survey is prepared and reviewed at the November 15 work session in advance  of the December 6 public hearing.    2021 Budget  The 2021 general fund budget was $15,936,977, and included a $368,034 levy increase (or 3.5% levy increase)  over the 2020 budget of $15,410,550 for a total general fund tax levy of $10,879,465. The total city tax levy for  2021 was $17,417,601 which represented a 3.4% or $572,885 increase over the 2020 levy. The major increases in  the general fund were for police department body and squad camera purchase, wage and benefit increases  (3% wage increase for city employees and council members), West Metro Fire‐Rescue District joint powers  agreement, central garage charges and the city hall budget (increases in utility cost and liability insurance for  larger building and new emergency generator replacement cost). The city received $865,307 in local  government aid (LGA), and it was utilized in the general fund to help fund equipment replacement savings  (not used for general operations). The total tax levy included a 5% increase in the street and park  Agenda Section Work Session Item Number  11.5      Request for Action, Page 2    infrastructure levies, a $100,000 increase in the park infrastructure fund for ice arena debt service/capital  improvements and a $17,000 increase in the EDA levy for redevelopment. Overall, the combined debt levies  decreased by $3,611.     2022 Budget  The 2022 preliminary general fund budget is $16,179,193, which is an increase of $242,216 (1.5%) over the  2021 budget of $15,936,977. The major changes in the budget include:      An increase of $281,056 for wage and benefit increases ($131,694 for reallocation of personnel expenses  from EDA to provide funding for scattered site housing/redevelopment projects; $149,362 for all other  general fund personnel costs). A 3% cost of living adjustment is budgeted for employees along with an  increase in the city’s share of health insurance coverage and a comparable cities adjustment. A 3%  increase in City Council salaries is also included in the budget.   IT charges to the general fund increased $105,200. Similar to 2021, the charges are based on the new  allocation method for indirect charges (number of phones, computers and employees per department),  with direct departmental LOGIS IT costs being allocated to the benefitting department. The software for  body cameras (WatchGuard/$30,000) is allocated to the police department budget, and in 2022 a small  percentage of the HR director/coordinator personnel cost is allocated to the IT budget.   There is an increase of $65,859 in the budget for West Metro Fire‐Rescue District due to a 4.9% increase in  New Hope’s share of the joint powers agreement. Similar to 2021, it is recommended that New Hope’s  share of the aerial lease payment ($51,800) be funded by the general fund instead of a transfer from the  Fire Capital Projects. The lease payments for two new engines will be included in the 2023 budget.    The budget includes a $50,000 increase for the Emerald Ash Borer Removal/Replacement Program on  public property (city right‐of‐ways, parks, etc.) due to the increasing occurrence of the disease in the  northwest metro area.   2022 is a gubernatorial election year, and there is a $39,000 increase in the budget for election judge costs.    There is a $315,454 decrease in central garage charges primarily in the police department (for leasing  vehicles) and the street department (reduced equipment purchases).    The city is scheduled to receive $866,642 in LGA (local government aid) in 2022, which is a $4,916 increase  over 2021. The revenue will be utilized in the general fund to offset central garage equipment and  building replacement charges; it is not used for general operations.   There is a decrease of $130,000 in building permit and related revenue, as the Windsor Ridge single‐ family home development will be completed at the end of 2021.    2022 Tax Levy  The tax levy for the general fund is $11,393,354, which is $513,889 or a 4.72% increase over the 2021 general  fund levy of $10,879,465. The total tax levy for 2022, including the general fund, street and park infrastructure  funds, economic development and housing and redevelopment authorities, and prior debt levies for City  Center, Northwood South and Northwood North infrastructure bonds, the 2017 Police Station/City Hall  facility bonds, and the 2018/2019 Pool and Park improvement bonds is $18,231,011. This represents a 4.67%  or $831,410 increase over the 2021 levy of $17,417,601, which was a 3.4% or $572,885 increase. The total tax  levy includes a 5% increase in the street and park infrastructure levies to support the long‐term funding plans  for street and park improvements. There is no additional increase in the park infrastructure levy for ice arena  to assist with ice arena capital needs, as the final increase was implemented in 2021. A $55,000 increase in the  EDA levy is recommended and a new HRA levy is recommended; both levies are needed to support the    Request for Action, Page 3    scattered site housing program and other redevelopment due to funding changes in the CDBG program.  Three of the bond debt tax levies are decreasing (2015 City Center, 2015 Northwood South, and 2018 Pool and  Park) for a total decrease of $8,833. Three of the bond debt tax levies are increasing (2016 Northwood North,  2017 Police Station/City Hall, and 2019 Pool and Park) for a total increase of $7,036. Overall, the combined  debt levies are decreasing by $1,797.    The median home value for taxes payable in 2022 is $275,000, which is a 7% increase from the median value  home in 2021. At this time the estimated impact on residential homes based on the proposed 4.67% increase  in the city tax levy is 5%. For homes valued between $150,000 and $400,000 the tax increase estimate is $41 to  $131. The city tax rate is projected to decrease from 62.596% in 2021 to 61.559% in 2022.    The 2022 budget goals are listed in the preliminary budget binder and are the same goals discussed at the  June work session.     At the September 13 council meeting, the Council will be asked to set the public hearing date for the  proposed 2022 budget. The meeting can be held at a regular council meeting; however, historically the  Council has preferred a separate meeting for public input. Staff recommends the meeting be held on Monday,  December 6, at 7 p.m. If Council desires an alternate date, please advise and staff will prepare the Request for  action accordingly. The budget would then be presented to the Council for final adoption at the December 13  council meeting.    Staff feels this is a reasonable place to start for the preliminary maximum budget and tax levy, with the  understanding that more detailed discussions will transpire over the next several months. A PowerPoint  presentation will be prepared for the September 13 council meeting after feedback is received at this work  session.      Thanks is extended to the city staff and AEM that have prepared information for the preliminary budget. As  the Council is aware, staff is always open to your comments ‐ the budget is a work in progress.  Attachments   2022 Preliminary Budget Workbook   Powerpoint presentation    2022 PRELIMINARY BUDGET New Hope City Council Work Session • Aug. 16, 2021 Review Budget Process August 16, 2021 Work Session High level overview of preliminary general fund budget and maximum tax levy. Need Council agreement prior to September 13 Council Meeting. If no agreement reached, special work session may be needed on September 7 (a special work session has not been necessary in the past). Once maximum levy is established/adopted September 13, it cannot be increased; the tax levy can be decreased before final adoption. 2 Budget Process September 13, 2021 Council Meeting Approve 2022 preliminary tax supported budgets Approve 2022 preliminary tax levy (maximum amount) Schedule public hearing date for 2022 budget (December 6 at 7:00 pm) City Clerk submits maximum tax levy to county auditor for certification along with public hearing date September 20, 2021 Work Session General fund budgets reviewed with city manager, AEM and department heads 3 Budget Process October 18, 2021 Work Session Utility and enterprise fund budgets reviewed with city manager, AEM and department heads HRG budget/program/rates discussed Utility rate recommendations reviewed November 15, 2021 Work Session County assessor information reviewed City services survey results presented Budget public hearing presentation reviewed 4 Budget Process December 6, 2021 Budget Public Hearing Presentation and comments from residents December 13, 2021 Council Meeting Final budget approved Utility/recycling rate changes approved Certify final levy to Hennepin County Auditor and Department of Revenue 5 General Fund Budget 6 2020 2021 Adopted Adopted 2020 to 2021 2020-2021 Budget Budget Increase % Increase $15,410,550 $15,936,977 $526,427 3.4% 2021 2022 Adopted Preliminary 2021 to 2022 2021-2022 Budget Budget Increase % Increase $15,936,977 $16,179,193 $242,216 1.5% 2022 Preliminary General Fund Major Budget Changes $281,056 increase to fund 3% increase in wages/benefits; increase in Council salaries ($131,694 for reallocation of personnel expenses from EDA to provide funding for scattered site housing projects; $149,362 for all other general fund personnel costs). $105,200 increase in IT charges; includes $30,000 for WatchGuard/PD body camera software and 10% of HR director/coordinator personnel costs. $65,859 increase in West Metro Fire-Rescue District joint powers agreement (includes aerial lease payment). $50,000 increase for Emerald Ash Borer removal/replacement program on public property (increasing occurrence). 7 2022 Preliminary General Fund Major Budget Changes $39,000 increase in elections budget for election judge costs; 2022 is a gubernatorial election year. $315,454 decrease in central garage charges in the police department (leasing vehicles) and street department (reduced equipment purchases). $130,000 decrease in building permit/related revenue as Windsor Ridge development will be completed at end of 2021. City to receive $866,642 in Local Government Aid (LGA ) which is a small increase of $4,916 over 2021; LGA used for equipment replacement savings –it is not used for general operations. 8 2022 Preliminary Tax Levy General fund tax levy is $11,393,354, which is $513,889 or 4.72% increase over 2021 general fund levy of $10,879,465 (3.5%). Total tax levy, including: General Fund Street and Park Infrastructure Funds EDA Levy HRA Levy (new) Prior Debt Levies is $18,231,011, which is $831,410 or 4.67% increase over 2021 total levy of $17,417,601 (3.4%). 9 2022 Preliminary Tax Levy Total tax levy includes: 5% ($77,035) increase in street infrastructure levy 5% (19,283) increase in park infrastructure levy (no additional increase to assist with Ice Arena debt/capital needs; final increase implemented in 2021) $55,000 increase in EDA levy for redevelopment projects New $150,000 HRA levy to achieve long-term funding plan for scattered site housing program due to CDBG funding changes 10 2022 Preliminary Tax Levy Total tax levy includes: Prior Debt Levies: 2015 City Center infrastructure 2015 Northwood South infrastructure 2016 Northwood North infrastructure 2017 Police Department/City Hall 2018 Pool and Park 2019 Pool and Park Three of the bond debt levies are decreasing for a total of $8,833 Three of the bond debt levies are increasing for a total of $7,036 Overall, the combined debt levies are decreasing by $1,797 11 Property Tax Levy 12 Estimated Tax Impact Median home value in 2022 is $275,000, which is a 7% increase from 2021 Current estimated impact on residential homes based on 4.67% increase in city tax levy is 5% For homes valued between $150,000 and $400,000 the tax increase estimate is $41 to $131. 13 Tax Rate Based on current information: The city tax rate is projected to decrease from 62.596% in 2021 to 61.559% in 2022 The total tax rate is projected to decrease from 136.227% in 2021 to 135.240% in 2022 14 Summary Staff feels this is a reasonable place to start for the preliminary maximum budget and tax levy. More detailed discussions to take place over next several months. Council needs to determine if preliminary budget/tax levy is acceptable for September 13 Council Meeting where maximum budget/tax levy will be adopted. 15