Loading...
2020.03.12 Work Session Packet 4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696 Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov Posted: March 6, 2020 City Council Work Session Agenda March 12, 2020 6:30 p.m. Conference Room A Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter, the work session of the Crystal City Council was held at ______ p.m. on March 12, 2020 in Conference Room A, 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, Minnesota. I. Attendance Council Members Staff ____ Deshler ____ Norris ____ Kiser ____ Gilchrist ____ LaRoche ____ Revering ____ Parsons ____ Therres ____ Adams ____ Sutter ____ Banks ____ Ray ____ Budziszewski II. Agenda The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda items: 1. Panhandling. 2. Easements. 3. City manager 2020 work plan. 4. Budget process – review and expectations for the future. * Denotes no supporting information included in the packet. III. Adjournment The work session adjourned at ______ p.m. Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531- 1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529. Kennedy Troy J. Gilchrist 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9214 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax tgilchrist@kennedy-graven.com http://www.kennedy-graven.com & Graven C H A R T E R E D Also: St. Cloud Office 501 W. Germain Street, Suite 304 St. Cloud, MN 56301 (320) 240-8200 telephone MEMORANDUM To: Crystal City Council From: Troy Gilchrist, City Attorney Date: March 5, 2020 (March 12, 2020 Work Session) Re: Panhandling Issue This memorandum provides a high-level overview related to the regulation of panhandling. This topic has become one of the more complex regulatory issues that cities face. The information contained in this memorandum in intended to provide an overview of the various legal issues that arise when a city is considering such regulation. This memorandum also seeks to answer some general questions related to such regulations, the steps involved in considering regulation, and to provide some examples for what approach other cities have employed in this area. I. General Overview The term “panhandling” encompasses a broad array of various activities.1 Most traditionally, panhandling was simply the act of requesting money or other things of value from passersby in a public place. The United States Supreme Court has been addressing panhandling, and ordinances regulating panhandling, since as early as 1938. As the Supreme Court has continued to consider cases which address the scope of permissible local regulation of panhandling and related activities, the rules surrounding what tools are available to local governments continues to grow more and more complex. Below is a discussion of some of the major legal issues which should be considered when a city is cont emplating regulations which would limit panhandling. While cities clearly have an interest in regulating the time, place, and manner of certain activities through their police powers, those regulations must be certain to not run afoul of other Constitutional protections. As discussed below, panhandling regulations are commonly 1 For the purposes of this memorandum, the term “panhandling” shall be used to refer to all related solicitation activities. 2 challenged on the grounds that they interfere with the First Amendment rights of the person engaged in the Constitutionally-protected activity. II. Common Legal Concerns Up until 2015, the law was somewhat unclear on what legal test applied to the regulation of panhandling. Courts in different parts of the Country were applying different legal tests when reviewing local ordinances which regulated panhandling. However, the major point of agreement between these courts was that (1) panhandling, as an activity, was generally protected by the First Amendment because it implicated Free Speech, and (2) that any regulation limiting panhandling should be content-neutral.2 In 2015, the United States Supreme Court also decided a case related to local regulation of signs known as Reed. While that case did not address panhandling or any other activity, the legal rule that came from it has been found to apply to local regulations, including those related to panhandling. Under the Reed standard, the Supreme Court essentially developed a rule whereby the courts are to look first at whether the law itself is content-neutral, meaning whether it by its own terms regulate a certain type of content.3 If the law is content-based, it is subjected to a heightened level of scrutiny and is likely unconstitutional. However, if the law is deemed content-neutral, meaning that it applies to activities regardless of what the content of that activity is, t hen the courts are to look at the government’s goal in enacting the regulation. If the goal of the regulation is to regulate some protected activity, such as speech, then the law is similarly subjected to heightened scrutiny and presumed unconstitutional. Many panhandling ordinances, at their heart, seek to regulate content because they are directly related to the underlying message being relayed or communicated. For instance, an individual standing on a sidewalk who asks for money would likely be regulated by a local panhandling ordinance. However, a person standing on a sidewalk asking what the weather will be tomorrow will not be regulated by such ordinance. Because the only difference in those two scenarios is what is being said, under the Supreme Court’s reasoning the regulation is aimed at regulating speech and it must pass the heightened test. Based on the current state of the law, local ordinances related to panhandling should be carefully crafted to be as limited as possible to avoid implicating the heightened review standards under Reed, as applied to panhandling. III. Possible Approaches to Regulation In response to these changes in the law, many cities have taken steps aimed at further limiting the scope of their regulations related to panhandling. It is important to note that to date, the courts 2 While content-based regulation is not on its face invalid, any content-based regulation will be judged in light of a very difficult legal standard, and local regulation very rarely survives. 3 Typically, the content referred to relates to a certain type of speech. While this is another very complex area of law, it is sufficient for purposes of this memorandum to understand that speech takes many forms, including various non - verbal acts that are intended to relay a message. 3 have not provided definitive guidance related to whether these approaches are susceptible to the same challenges as the pre-Reed ordinances had been. Cities have begun regulating “aggressive panhandling” as opposed to simple panhandling.4 In defining what types of activities are prohibited, these laws focus on certain activities which involve some element of physical confrontation, coupled with it being done in a specific place. For instance, a request for money which is made within 80 feet of an ATM may be seen as “aggressive panhandling” because of the inherent intimidation associated with such requests. Additionally, things like physical contact, blocking a person’s path until they comply with a request, or using obscenities may also be included in definitions of “aggressive panhandling.”5 While these ordinances may help regulate the issue of concern to some degree, it is worth noting that they are not without difficulties of their own. As an example, prosecution under these ordinances may be difficult and costly. Additionally, these ordinances may come under Constitutional attack as being “overbroad” if they sweep too many possible actions or activities under their regulatory scheme. It is also critical to note that there is still some question regarding these types of ordinances and their ultimate fate. However, based upon recent action by the Courts, cities have become significantly more limited in what they can do in order to regulate panhandling, and adoption of more limited panhandling ordinances appears to have become one of the main ways cities continue to regulate this unwanted behavior. IV. Process to Consider Regulation Many of the decisions striking down local regulations have been critical of the lack of factual support for the concerns being expressed and the failure to exercise existing law or to explore non-regulatory means of addressing such concerns. In an attempt to learn from those identified shortcomings of local regulations, if the Council would like to move forward with examining its options to address the concerns being expressed, I recommend it proceed as follows: (1) Identify the specific concerning conduct. (2) Determine if the conduct is adequately regulated by existing state law. (3) Determine if the Council is interested in developing an ordinance to address any unregulated conduct of concern. (4) Identify the government interest being served by the proposed ordinance (what is the Council attempting to achieve?). (5) Collect data to further identify the basis for the concern and where it occurs in the City. (6) Identify a narrowly-tailored, content-neutral method of regulating the conduct that is supported by the collected data and that can be enforced uniformly. The following provides some additional information on each of these recommended steps. 4 The major reason for this further refinement relies on legal nuances and an effort to craft Constitutionally-permissible ordinances. 5 The Cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Rochester, and St. Louis Park have adopted an “aggressive panhandling” ordinances that lists several restricted places and restricted activities as being aggressive panhandling. 4 1. IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC CONCERNING CONDUCT This step involves taking the information received from the public, law enforcement, and the Council’s own observations and experiences regarding the types of conduct that are of concern. It is critical that this analysis focus on conduct and not what is being communicated. For example, is the concern threatening conduct, interference with traffic, negative impacts to local businesses, safety of those on medians, etc. 2. DETERMINE IF THE CONDUCT IS ADEQUATELY REGULATED BY EXISTING STATE LAW OR CAN BE ADDRESSED IN SOME OTHER WAY SHORT OF NEW REGULATIONS. As mentioned, when reviewing ordinances the courts have often pointed out that the ordinance is not the least restrictive way of addressing the conduct because there are various state laws that already exist to address the concerns being pointed at to support the reasons for the ordinance. While this is not an exhaustive review, a list of statutes that may apply to at least some of the concerns being expressed is attached as Exhibit A. Also, failure to consider non-regulatory methods for addressing the conduct has served to undermine the regulatory approach as not being the least restrictive. If a particular type of conduct is already prohibited by state law that the police department and the City’s prosecutor determines can be effectively enforced to address the conduct, then there is no need to regulate it by ordinance. Furthermore, at least attempting to address the concerns short of imposing new regulations that may have an impact on protected First Amendment activities will help support the Council’s decision to adopt regulations if those non-regulatory attempts are not successful. 3. DETERMINE IF THE COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING AN ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS ANY UNREGULATED CONDUCT OF CONCERN. This step involves evaluating what concerning conduct is not regulated by state law or can be effectively addressed through non-regulatory means, and whether it makes sense for the City to attempt to develop an ordinance to address that conduct given the constitutional limits imposed on such regulations. This discussion will necessarily involve whether an ordinance can effectively address the issue in a way that will likely withstand a legal challenge if one is brought. 4. IDENTIFY THE GOVERNMENT INTEREST BEING SERVED BY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. This step involves specifically identifying the lawful purposes of the ordinance, such as protecting public safety. Courts have criticized local governments for appearing to engage in after-the-fact justifications for regulations so it is important to identify those reasons before enacting the ordinance. Even if a city does identify specific purposes for the regulations, courts have focused on the lack of evidence to support the claim the regulation furthers the identified purposes. There is no question that protecting public safety is a legitimate government interest, but merely stating that purpose without facts to 5 support the claim that the regulated activity actually threatens public safety, and that the regulations enacted narrowly and effectively achieve that purpose, is not sufficient. 5. COLLECT DATA TO FURTHER IDENTIFY THE BASIS FOR THE CONCERN AND WHERE IT OCCURS IN THE CITY. This is a critical step as many ordinances attempting to address the types of concerns that have been expressed have been struck down as being overbroad or not supported by actual data. This step will help bring the concerns into focus, demonstrate that they actually exist, and set out a basis for how the proposed regulations will actually achieve the identified governmental interests. For example, courts have struck down ordinances prohibiting standing in all medians as being overbroad since the concerns being expressed really only applied to a few busy intersections in the city. Courts have also been critical of attempts to regulate certain activities based on distances from things like ATM machines because the cities were not able to produce data to demonstrate that asking for money 20 feet from an ATM poses a public safety risk, or at least one that is different than if the person were to ask while standing 25 feet from the machine. The guide on panhandling produced by the Community Oriented Policing Services from the U.S. Department of Justice the Council has previously seen provides helpful guidance in collecting such data. The point of this step is to move beyond perceptions to develop actual data on the existence of the concerning conduct and where it is occurring in the City. 6. IDENTIFY A NARROWLY-TAILORED, CONTENT-NEUTRAL METHOD OF REGULATING THE CONDUCT THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE COLLECTED DATA AND THAT CAN BE ENFORCED UNIFORMLY. This, of course, is ultimately the challenge in developing an ordinance to address these issues. As the cases summarized in the attached Exhibit B demonstrate, various attempts to regulate the t ypes of conduct being complained about have been struck down by the courts. Reviewing the summarized cases will help to further demonstrate the difficulties of imposing lawful or permissible regulations and also help explain reasons behind this recommended process for considering an ordinance. Part of the challenge, as previously discussed with the Council, is to make sure the regulations can reasonably be enforced and that they are applied uniformly. For example, a regulation that prohibits remaining on narrow medians of certain busy intersections must apply to firefighters passing the boot for charity the same as it does the person standing on the median with a sign requesting assistance. I realize some residents may be pushing to move directly to this ordinance adoption step in the process; however, working through the prior steps will dramatically increase the odds of any resulting ordinance being upheld if challenged. While I can offer no guarantees given the uncertainties created by Reed, following a systematic process for developing regulations given the legal complexities involved is the best way of ensuring the regulations effectively address the identified concerns and help avoid the potential financial consequences if the regulations are found to be unconstitutional. In short, it does little good, and can actually result in significant consequences, to adopt an 6 ordinance that may impact a constitutional right without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the ordinance will withstand a challenge. V. Conclusion The regulation of panhandling invokes a significantly complex and quickly evolving area of law. Further complicating the issue is the fact that panhandling ordinances often impact a number of various rights, oftentimes not even explicitly. Because of this, cities must take care to ensure that their regulations are carefully crafted to avoid some of the common pitfalls. Regardless, for cities considering putting in place regulations related to panhandlers, they should do so only upon full knowledge that any ordinance stands a heightened chance of legal challenge, as many similar ordinances have ended up in court in recent years, and there is no indication that trend is likely to slow. 7 EXHIBIT A Existing State Regulations Concerning Conduct Statutory Provisions Standing in median Public Nuisance (below) Stepping into traffic Public Nuisance, Minn. Stat. § 609.74 – any person who interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, any public highway or right-of-way, or waters used by the public, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Blocking traffic by standing in road Public Nuisance (above) Stopping a vehicle in traffic Public Nuisance (above) Reckless Driving, Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd. 1 – a person who drives a motor vehicle while aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the driving may result in harm to another or another’s property is guilty of reckless driving. Careless Driving, Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd. 2 – Any person who operates or halts any vehicle upon any street or highway carelessly or heedlessly in disregard of the rights or others, or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any property or any person is guilty of a misdemeanor. Stopping, Standing, and Parking, Minn. Stat. § 169.32 – No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle upon the paved or improved or main-traveled part of the highway when it is practical to stop, park, or so leave such vehicle off such part of said highway, but in every case a clear and unobstructed width of at least 20 feet of such part of the highway shall be left open. Prohibition on Stopping or Parking; Minn. Stat. § 609.34 – includes a number of defined areas where parking or stopping is prohibited. Aggressive/intimidating behavior 5th Degree Assault, Minn. Stat. § 609.224 – any person who “commits an act with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death” is guilty of a misdemeanor Threats of Violence, Minn. Stat. § 609.713 – any person who threatens, directly or indirectly, to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another is guilty of a crime. Jaywalking Pedestrian rights, Minn. Stat. § 169.21 – provides rules related to crossing roadways depending on whether a crosswalk is or is not present. Blocking travel upon public sidewalks Public Nuisance (Above) 8 EXHIBIT B Case Review Case name: PETRELLO V. CITY OF MANCHESTER, 2017 WL 3972477, U.S. Dist. Court, D. New Hampshire Law challenged: Two laws challenged. A. A state statute criminalizing disorderly conduct which included a person who “obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on any public street or sidewalk or at the entrance to any public building.” B. A city ordinance which stated “no person shall knowingly distribute any item to, or receive any item from, or exchange any item with the occupant of a motor vehicle when the vehicle is located in the roadway.” Result: The Court invalidated both rules, finding that each was unconstitutional. A. Statute. The Court reasoned that, to be permitted, the statute must “not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s interest.” In this case, the government’s interests were to promote public safety and ensure the free flow of traffic. The Court invalidated the statute because it found that the statute prohibited “substantially more speech than necessary to further those legitimate interests.” B. Ordinance. The Court also reasoned that the ordinance was intended to promote public safety and the free flow of traffic, both of which are legitimate interests. However, the Court also found that the ordinance burdened substantially more speech than necessary to further those legitimate interests. The Court provided four examples for why the ordinance was overly restrictive: i. The ordinance banned roadside exchanges that do not obstruct traffic or pose safety risks; ii. The ordinance is too broad geographically and unsupported by any data showing why the government needs to impose such restrictions city-wide; iii. The ordinance is under inclusive because, by its terms, it only penalizes pedestrians, not the vehicle drivers who stop in the roadway; and iv. The city has less restrictive means available to address its concerns (i.e., public safety and free flow of traffic). Helpful Hints: The Court provided a few “helpful hints” which may have helped either the statute or ordinance survive. Statute: The City could have done the following: A. limited enforcement of the statute to panhandlers who step into the road and obstruct traffic; or 9 B. enforce the statute against motorists who stop in the road at a green light, thereby causing a traffic obstruction. Ordinance: The City could have done the following: A. Provide data related to the specific public safety threats raised by the banned activity, as well as data which shows how the City’s regulation is aimed at curbing those threats. The Court pointed out that the City simply “modeled the Ordinance after a nearly identical ordinance passed by” another city, which was insufficient to show that the regulation furthered the legitimate goals. __________ Case name: BLITCH V. CITY OF SLIDELL, 2017 WL 28400009, U.S. Dist. Court, E.D. Louisiana Law challenged: The City of Slidell passed a law requiring panhandlers to obtain a panhandling license from the police department. To obtain a license, each panhandler was required to visit the police department, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on a weekday. The license was then required to be worn while panhandling. Result: The Court held that the ordinance was unconstitutional. Because the aim of the law was to regulate a specific type of speech (i.e., panhandling or asking for charity), the Court applied the strictest standard of review available (strict scrutiny). The Court accepted the City’s legitimate governmental interest – public safety – but rejected the City’s contention that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In reaching its conclusion, the Court pointed out that the City’s ordinance prohibited a large amount of speech which was not directly harmful to public safety (i.e., it censored panhandlers who were not a threat to public safety, beyond their existence as panhandlers itself). The Court also pointed out that the City’s basis for adopting the ordinance – that it received 70 complaints related to panhandlers over a two-year period in a city of over 25,000 – did “not substantive an epidemic of panhandling” and did “not provide a strong justification for burdening speech.” Helpful Hints: The Court outlined a number of alternatives that the City could have utilized to curb panhandling which the Court felt were less restrictive than the ordinance. 1. Allocate additional police resources to enforce the rules against aggressive panhandling and soliciting on public highways. 2. Increase penalties for violations of those codes. 3. Install cameras or other technological devices at locations frequented by panhandlers to aid in the identification of aggressive panhandlers. 4. Requiring only those persons who were violators of the aggressive panhandling ordinance to wear nametags (as opposed to all panhandlers). 10 5. The Court also stated that the city-wide ban was too broad, and suggested that the City may have been able to achieve some regulation if it identified specific “problem areas.” However, this item refers simply to the breadth of the law, and this fix would not, in and of itself, correct the constitutional issues with the ordinance as not being narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s compelling interest of public safety. __________ Case name: HOMELESS HELPING HOMELESS, INC. V. CITY OF TAMPA FLORIDA, 2016 WL 4162882, U.S. District Court, M.D. Florida Law challenged: City ordinance which provided that it was illegal to solicit donations, or to exhibit oneself for such purposes. The ordinance also prohibited the use of threatening statements or actions, making repeated verbal demands, and acting to impede passage in order to secure solicitation. The ordinance was geographically limited in that it only applied in a specific zone, or around specific places (e.g., bus stop, sidewalk café, within 15 feet of an ATM). Finally, the ordinance excluded solicitation that only involved holding a sign from the prohibited acts. Result: This was a decision on a temporary injunction, so the Court was required to analyze the likelihood of success on the merits. The Court granted the injunction in favor of the plaintiff, barring application of the City’s ordinance. The Court found that the City’s ordinance was content-based, even with the specific limitations included. The City also conceded in the process that it did not have a compelling interest, nor was the ordinance the least restrictive means available for achieving that interest, presumably acknowledging the unlikelihood that it would prevail under such analysis. Helpful Hints: The Court provided an apt explanation of the difficulty of regulating panhandling in light of Reed. The Court stated that, without the decision in Reed, it would “uphold the City’s ordinance, which results from a constructive and demonstrably benign legislative attempt to manage fairly and humanely a tangible and persistent problem in a manner narrowly and artfully tailored to fit the compelling facts in the affected community.” However, as stated above, because the Court was required to apply the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Reed, it ultimately held the City’s ordinance was unconstitutional. _________ Case name: BROWNE V. CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, 136 F. Supp.3d 1276, U.S. Dist. Court, D. Colorado Law challenged: City ordinance which prohibited, among other things, panhandling one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise. The ordinance also prohibited what is traditionally known as “aggressive panhandling” behaviors (e.g., using express or implied threats to coerce donations, continuing to request donations following a refusal by that individual, panhandling on a bus or within 100 feet of an ATM, etc.). 11 Result: The Court held the ordinance unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. The Court accepts, as others have, that public safety is a compelling governmental interest. Regardless, the Court invalidated the ordinance on the basis that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to achieve that specific governmental purpose. However, the Court pointed out that the City’s ordinance is overbroad because it prohibits various types of speech which bear no relation to the stated public safety goals of the City. As the Court stated, “the problem in this case is that [the City] has taken a sledgehammer to a problem that can and should be solved with a scalpel.’ Further, the Court stated that “[i]n attempting to combat what it sees as threatening behavior that endangers public safety, [the City] has passed an ordinance that sweeps into its purview non- threatening conduct that is constitutionally protected.” Helpful Hints: The Court provides a useful explanation of the difference between “viewpoint discrimination” and “content discrimination” in municipal regulations, both of which are subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny and is almost always fatal. “Viewpoint discrimination” is a “more blatant and egregious” form of “content discrimination.” Where an ordinance prohibiting speech related to war would be “content discrimination”, an ordinance prohibiting only anti-war speech would be “viewpoint discrimination.” Kennedy Troy J. Gilchrist 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9214 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax tgilchrist@kennedy-graven.com http://www.kennedy-graven.com & Graven C H A R T E R E D Also: St. Cloud Office 501 W. Germain Street, Suite 304 St. Cloud, MN 56301 (320) 240-8200 telephone MEMORANDUM To: Crystal City Council From: Troy Gilchrist, City Attorney Date: March 5, 2020 (March 12, 2020 Work Session) Re: Easement Interests Held by the City I was asked to provide the Council a brief overview of the different types of easements held by the City and what it means to have an easement versus other types of interest in property. Easement Defined:  “[A]n interest in land in the possession of another which entitles the owner of such interest to a limited use or enjoyment of the land in which the interest exists.” Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohler, 177 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Minn. 1970). Put another way, an easement is a written conveyance of an interest in property giving someone else the irrevocable right to use a described portion of the property for one or more particular purposes.  Easements can be exclusive (meaning only the holder of the easement has the right to use the described property) or nonexclusive (meaning the property owner can still use the designated portion of the property as long as the use does not interfere with the purpose of the easement).  An easement can also be perpetual (meaning it runs with the land and continues unless the easement holder agrees to terminate it) or temporary (expires on a specific date or occurrence).  There are appurtenant easements (those benefiting a particular property) and in gross easements (those not tied to a particular benefitted property). An example of the first type of easement is a driveway easement and an example of the second type is a right-of-way easement. 2 Distinguished from Other Property Interests:  License – a revocable right to use property.  Lease – a contractual right to use property for a particular period.  Fee – own the full fee simple title in the property. Types of City Easements:  Right-of-way – The city obtains ROW easements by plat or by direct conveyance. These are sort of highbred easements in that the City has a great deal of authority to protect the easement against uses that interfere with maintenance or public safety.  Drainage and Utility – These are technically different types of easements, but are often conveyed together under a single easement either by plat or direct conveyance.  Access – These can be temporary or permanent easements to allow access to private property to either access other property or to do work (temporary construction easements). Rights Under an Easement: The rights a city holds under an easement are defined in the easement itself if directly conveyed, or by law if it was conveyed by plat. Direct conveyance easements can contain specific limitations and requirements associated with use of the identified easement area. Generally speaking, local governments have broad authority to use the easements for the identified purpose(s), but adjoining owners are deemed to have a limited right to use the ROW next to their properties. The rights conveyed to the city are not necessarily exclusive to it. The courts have found that public utilities have a right to use city rights-of-way to place and maintain their facilities. This has resulted in some tension between the rights of public utilities and cities as the road authority. These tensions have been addressed by the legislature and the public utilities commission by statute and rule that attempt to balance the competing interests in public rights-of-way. Memorandum DATE: February 25, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Anne Norris, City Manager SUBJECT: 2020 City Manager Work Plan During the city manager performance evaluation discussion, there were several “competency opportunities” identified for 2020 which Karen DeYoung and I grouped into the following three broad objectives. 1. Facilitate effective and efficient 2021-2022 budget review and approval. 2. Policy Facilitation – Strategic Planning for Implementation of Council priorities 3. Financial Analysis: assess the short-term and long-term fiscal condition of the community; determine the cost-effectiveness of programs, and compare alternative strategies. Karen DeYoung and I drafted the attached work plan for the balance of this year for review and discussion at the March 12 work session. Attach: Enrichment Development Plan Name Anne Norris Position City manager Review Dates Q1 Q2 Q3 Objective: 1. Facilitate effective and efficient 2021-2022 budget review and approval process Development Opportunity/Enrichment Goal: Contribute to a clear, transparent, no surprises 2021 – 2022 budget process and levy; develop clear talking points so all Council members are in agreement. Action Steps/Goals: - In Council work sessions debrief 2020 budget process, identify areas of opportunity, and outline expectations for 2021 – 2022 budget presentation process – 3/12/20 work session. Redesigned process will be repeatable and budget presented will include percentages. - In a Council work session, discuss 2021 – 2022 budget parameters and factors impacting budget – 4/16/20 work session Timeframe: - August work sessions – 8/6 and 8/20 – preliminary budget and levy review - September meeting – set preliminary 2020 levy - October meeting – public input presentation – 2020 budget and levy - December meeting – final approval 2020 levy and budget Feedback Methods/Periodic Progress Review - Periodic feedback from Council (3/12/20, 4/9/20 work sessions, August budget work sessions, preliminary levy, public input meeting, Truth in Taxation hearing and final budget/levy approval). Required Resources: - Meetings with senior staff and City Council Expected Outcomes/Measures • No surprises with the 2021 budget and levy Enrichment Development Plan Objective: 2. Policy Facilitation – Strategic Planning for Implementation of Council priorities Development Opportunity/Enrichment Goal: Facilitate conversations to enhance working relationships between City Council and senior staff to ensure policy development and implementation (including annual budget) are consistent with City Council priorities and intent: - Strong neighborhoods – EDA activities and investment - Thriving business community – branding and façade improvements - Sound financial policies and practices – long term planning and capital funds - Welcoming, inclusive community – concerted efforts to include all Action Steps/Goals: - Review annual work plan with City Council for changes and have monthly conversations as part of monthly check-in meetings. - Commercial façade incentive grant – application due 4/1/20 - Town Center “branding” – April - Planter boxes out and planted (more commercial areas beyond Bass Lake Road) – May 2020 - Continue discussing development/redevelopment opportunities with developers & EDA – multiple sites - Continue Open for Business technical assistance program - Continue annual review of revenue and expenditure assumptions and capital needs – budget process - New, improved Becker Park programming, including Crystal Frolics – summer 2020 - Partner as opportunities arise for inclusion programming – all departments - Partner with and promote Multi-cultural Advisory Committee activities Timeframe: - On-going Feedback Methods/Periodic Progress Review - Monthly city manager check-ins with City Council - Biweekly senior staff meetings Required Resources: - Staff, Council time Expected Outcomes/Measures - Alignment of policies with Council priorities - Progress towards achieving Council priorities Enrichment Development Plan Objective: 3. Financial Analysis: assess the short-term and long-term fiscal condition of the community; determine the cost-effectiveness of programs, and compare alternative strategies. Development Opportunity/Enrichment Goal: - Be sure 2021 budget and Long-Term Financial Plan is consistent with Council financial goals, particularly relating to funding capital needs Action Steps/Goals: - Incorporate annual adjustment to capital funds - Review/update Long Term Financial Plan to ensure adequate funding long term for capital needs - Biennial analysis of capital needs - Clearly state capital funding as part of annual levy Timeframe: - On-going during 2021 -2022 budget process Feedback Methods/Periodic Progress Review - During March, April, August budget work sessions and at Council meetings during budget decisions (preliminary levy, public input meeting, Truth in Taxation hearing) Required Resources: - Senior staff and City Council time Expected Outcomes/Measures - Capital funds shown clearly as part of overall levy - Adjust for inflationary increases to capital funds - Adequate funding for long term capital needs Memorandum DATE: February 27, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Anne Norris, City Manager SUBJECT: Budget Process ____________________________________________________________________ As the Council is aware the final stage of the 20 20 budget process was a less than ideal experience for both the City Council and staff. In order to avoid having a similar situation in any future year’s budget process, it would be helpful to have a conversation with the Council to discuss expectations. In reflecting on last year’s process, including budget presentations and materials, my suggestions for improvements to budget presentation materials and information include: - Start by framing the message with talking points - Keep the information simple and straightforward (staff shouldn’t get too far into the weeds) - Show the overall impact to the budget and levy clearly, showing percentages for changes - Slow down in presenting the information - Create opportunities for follow up questions and conversation throughout the presentations and process - Agree on metrics to be used (such as dollars and percentages) - Focus on both operating and capital fund impacts The Council should discuss these, review what worked and what didn’t work during the budget process and any other suggestions you have at the March 12 work session.