The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994 09-12 City Council Manager Workshop PacketCITY COUNCIL /MANAGER MEETING Monda September 12, 1994 Maplewood Room, Cit Hall 4:30 P.M. AGENDA A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA D. 1995 BUDGET OVERVIEW E. AMBULANCE RATES FOR 1995 F. ORDINANCE TO SET RECYCLING RATES FOR 1995 (FIRST READING) G. BUDGET POLICY FOR COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS FUND H. INSURANCE FOR,, OPEN MEETING LAW- SELECTION OF DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAXES, J. ADOPTION OF PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX LEVY PAYABLE IN 1995 K. OTHER BUSINESS L. ADJOURNMENT FINANCE/AGENDA.MTG AGENDA NO. c AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: AMBULANCE RATES FOR 1995 DATE: September 2, 1994 INTRODUCTION It is proposed that ambulance rates be increased effective January 1, 1995 to provide the anticipated revenue in the 1995 Budget and to make our rates comparable to those charged by other providers. BACKGROUND Ambulance rates have been increased annually over the past several years. Since the rate increases have exceeded the inflation rate, the property tax subsidy for paramedic services has decreased as follows: It should be noted that the cost of paramedic services listed above excludes indirect costs such as administration and billing costs. Past rate increases have been based upon the average charged by other providers. During preparation of the 1995 Budget, a survey was conducted of rates charged by other providers in the area. 1995 1993 1994 Proposed Actual Re -Est Bud let Estimated cost of paramedic services: General Fund $479,300 $570 $569X0 Capital Imp. Fund 73 0 0 Less ambulance charges 409251 _417 458000 Property tax subsidy 143,382 153 11L810 Subsidy percent 25.9% 26.9% 19.6% It should be noted that the cost of paramedic services listed above excludes indirect costs such as administration and billing costs. Past rate increases have been based upon the average charged by other providers. During preparation of the 1995 Budget, a survey was conducted of rates charged by other providers in the area. AMBULANCE RATES FOR 1995 September 2, 1994 Page 2 Survey information is listed in the following tables 1994 RATES PROVIDER BASIC ALS MILEAGE City of St. Paul $250.00 $418 - Hennepin County 388.00 649 7.00 North St. Paul 140.00 N/A - Cottage Grove 334.50 557.90 7.80 White Bear Lake 220.00 390.00 5.00 HealthEast 217.00 475.00 6.46 Lakeville 348.00 625.00 7.50 Average 271.07 519.15 6.75 Maplewood: Resident 225.00 430.00 7.10 Non- Resident 250.00 475.00 7.10 A verage Charge 237.50 452.50 7.10 The survey also indicated that many of the other providers have additional charges over and above the charges listed above for supplies and special services. The primary advantage of having these additional charges is that they increase the amount that is eligible for medicare reimbursement. (Approximately, 42% of our ambulance bills are for people covered by medicare.) However, these additional charges make the billing process more complicated and expensive. One factor affecting the ambulance rates which the Council has considered important in the past is the extent to which paramedic services are used by non - residents. In 1993, 37% of the ambulance bills were for non - residents. During the first 7 months of 1994, 34 % of the ambulance bills were for non - residents. Another factor affecting the ambulance rates are the annual limits on the increase in health care provider rates under the Minnesota Care law. The maximum increase allowed for 1995 will be approximately 8.3 %. The actual limit will not be determined until January 1995. The proposed 1995 ambulance rates are within this limit. AMBULANCE RATES FOR 1995 September 2, 1994 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION According to the survey information, Maplewood ambulance rates, excluding mileage charges, in 1994 were less than those charged by other agencies. To decrease the property tax subsidy for paramedic services and to make our rates comparable to those charged by other providers, our ambulance rates should be increased to the average amount charged by other providers. This would decrease the property tax subsidy for paramedic services to 19.6%. Also, it would result in the following rate changes: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...... .......................... ..... . .............. Al '8 I tB . .. ......... -. Increase 1994 1995 Amount Percent Basic life support: Resident $ 225 $ 240 $ 15 6.7% Non - resident 250 265 15 6.0 Advanced life support: Resident: 430 465 35 8.1 Non - resident 475 510 35 7.4 Charge per mile 7.10 7.10 - - The rates recommended for 1995 would still be less than other providers. This is because the 1995 rates are based on the average rates charged in 1994 by other providers and it's anticipated that the other providers will increase their rates for 1995. Thus, Maplewood rates would be "one year behind" the rates charged by other providers. Also, Maplewood does not charge for special services and supplies like other providers. COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Adoption of the attached resolution. w: \agn \amb.95 RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1995 AMBULANCE RATES WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is authorized to impose reasonable charges for emergency and paramedic ambulance services by Minnesota Statutes 471.476 and by special laws (Chapter 426, Laws of 1975, and Chapter 743, Laws of 1978); and WHEREAS, the paramedic ambulance services are partly financed by property taxes; and WHEREAS, it is fair and reasonable to charge non - residents a higher rate than residents for services rendered; and WHEREAS, it is fair and reasonable to charge for services rendered based upon the distance a person is transported and by type of services provided; i.e., basic or advanced life support services as defined by Medicare. NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following charges shall be effective January 1, 1995: Residents Non - Residents Base rates: Basic ambulance services $240 $265 Advanced life support ambulance services $465 $510 Rate per mile transported $7.10 $7.10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there shall be no charge for services rendered when the patient is not transported, when the patient is transported to the detoxification center, or when the patient is transported in a squad car. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if more than one person is transported, the ambulance charges will be pro -rated between the people transported. w:agn \amb.95 - AGENDA NO. AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director -- RE: ORDINANCE TO SET RECYCLING RATES FOR 1995 (FIRST READING) DATE: September 2, 1994 PROPOSAL It is proposed that the recycling charge be increased by $1.25 per quarter effective 1 -1 -95 to provide the revenues anticipated in the 1995 budget. BACKGROUND Until 1992, Ramsey County collected recycling charges and reimbursed the City for the cost of the City's contractor who handled the curbside recycling program. In 1991, the City instituted a $1 per quarter recycling program charge for all residents and commercial properties. In 1992 the recycling charge was increased to enable the City to fund the entire curbside recycling program as the County stopped assessing the residents on the property tax statements. Also in 1992, the $1 per quarter recycling charge on non - residential units for recycling education was discontinued to simplify billing procedures. PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET The attached Exhibit A shows the Proposed 1995 Budget for the Recycling Program Fund. The recommended 1995 recycling charge rates that are proposed will finance 69% of the anticipated expenditures. Most of the remaining expenditures will be financed by a grant from the County. Agenda Report — Ordinance to Set Recycling Rates for 1995 (First Reading) September 2, 1994 Page 2 1995 RECYCLING CHARGE RATE Exhibit A indicates that $151,300 is needed from recycling charges to finance the 1995 recycling costs. It is anticipated that 12,400 housing units will be billed in 1995. Therefore, a quarterly recycling charge of $3.05 will be needed to produce the required revenues. In 1994, the quarterly recycling charge was $1.80. An alternative to an increase in the recycling charge rate would be to levy property taxes to provide the additional revenues needed in 1995. This would require a $63,660 increase in the proposed tax levy for 1995. (Assuming a 97.8% tax collection rate, the net tax revenues would be $62,660.) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that first reading of the attached ordinance (Exhibit B) be approved to increase the recycling charge effective 1 -1 -95. lz W:AGN /RECYCHRG. IST Attachments EXHIBIT A CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Recycling Program Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance 1994 1995 ACCT. 1992 1993 ORIGINAL MGR. ADOPTED NO. ---------------------- - - ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET RE -EST. PROPOSED BUDGET - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Intergovernmental: 3534 County - other grants $82,084 $64 $64,230 $65 $67,050 Charges for Service: 3781 --------------- - - -- Recycling charges 85 87,210 86,910 89 151 Miscellaneous Revenue: --------------- 3801 - - - - -- Interest on investments 2,519 2 2 1,550 600 Total Revenues ------------------------------------------------------- 170,393 153 153,900 155,690 218,950 Total Expenditures 154,724 -------------- 178,608 - - - - -- ----------------------------------- 165,170 181,310 190,670 Excess (deficit) of revenues over expenditures 15,669 (24 (11 (25 28,280 Fund Balance - January 1 50,966 66 65,954 41,951 16,331 Residual equity transfers out: General Fund 0 ------------------------------------------------------- 0 0 0 (25 Fund Balance - December 31 $66 $41,951 $54,684 $16,331 $19,066 EXHIBIT B .ORDINANCE NO. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MAPLEWOOD CODE FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING CHARGES The Maplewood City Council hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Sec. 16 -58 is hereby amended to read as follows: All residential property shall be billed $3.05 per unit per quarter for solid waste reduction and recycling. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 1995. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk AGENDA NO, C"" AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: BUDGET POLICY FOR COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS FUND DATE: September 6, 1994 The Community Center building has been constructed with the intent that it would produce sufficient revenues to finance the annual operating expenses. During preparation of the 1995 Proposed Budget, it was decided to budget a small net income amount to build a cash reserve for unexpected events and for the replacement of furnishings and equipment. Attached are excepts from the 1995 Proposed Budget for the Community Center Operations Fund (pages 3 -92 and 3 -93) . The first page indicates anticipated net income amounts of $15,810 for 1994 and $61,660 for 1995. The second page indicates year -end cash balances in the fund of $15,810 for 1994 and $137,470 for 1995. The actual revenues and expenses may be somewhat different than the projections but the net income (difference between them) hopefully will be close to the projected amounts. Since it has been the intent to operate the Community Center like a business as much as possible, the City budget policies need to be modified to facilitate this objective. Therefore, it is proposed that a budget be adopted for net income instead of budgets for revenues and expenses. This will allow flexibility in the amount of expenses and allow quick adjustments as needs arise so that customers can be properly served. As a safeguard, the Finance Department will prepare and distribute a monthly income statement to monitor the financial transactions of the Community Center. Accountability will be based on the "bottom line" (net income) . It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution to formalize this policy and to adopt an initial net income budget for 1994. Attachments RESOLUTION ADOPTING BUDGET POLICIES FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATIONS AND ADOPTION OF INITIAL 1994 BUDGET WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Maplewood to operate the Community Center as a business, and WHEREAS, it is important that management have the flexibility to incur expenses as needed so that customers can be properly served, and WHEREAS, the Finance Department will prepare and distribute a monthly income statement to monitor the financial transactions for the Community Center operations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the annual budget for the Community Center Operations Fund consist solely of a planned net income amount, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City management staff shall have the flexibility to incur expenses as needed so that customers can be properly served, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the budgeted 1994 net income for the Community Center Operations Fund be set at $15,810. WAAGNIBUDPOLCC CITY OF MAPLEWQOD, MINNESOTA Community Center Operations Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance Other revenues (expenses): Interest on investments 0 0 0 1994 0 1995 PROG. 0 1992 1993 ----------------------- ORIGINAL Contingency ----------------------- MGR. ADOPTED NO. 0 ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET RE -EST PROPOSED BUDGET -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operating Revenues: 0 Net Total ---- - - - - -- ---- 0 - - - - -- ---- 0 - - - - -- ----- 0 001 Memberships and daily fees 0 0 0 276,900 953,500 002 Concessions 0 0 0 12,200 49,800 021 Theater fees 0 0 0 4 24 022 Banquet room fees 0 0 0 7 34 061 Pool fees 0 0 0 10,000 39,100 062 Gym fees 0 0 0 1,600 11,700 063 Multi- purpose room fees 0 0 0 8 41 064 Exercise fees 0 0 0 10,200 46,000 023 Day care fees 0 0 0 0 0 Total --- - - - - -- 0 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 0 --- - - - - -- - - - - - -- 0 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 331,950 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 1 - - - - - -- Operating Expenses: 001 Office 0 0 0 105 340,550 002 Admission desk /concessions 0 0 0 26 105,750 021 Theater 0 0 0 6 15,000 022 Banquet room 0 0 0 1,200 6 061 Pool 0 0 0 44,020 159 062 Gym 0 0 0 4 17 063 Multi - purpose room 0 0 0 1,100 3 064 Exercise programs 0 0 0 12,000 35 023 Day care 0 0 0 5,640 22,150 024 Senior lounge 0 0 0 200 1 Maintenance 0 ---- - - - - -- 0 ---- - - - - -- 0 ---- 107,750 367,030 Total 0 ---- - - 0 - - - - -- 0 ----- - - - - -- 314,140 ----- - - - - -- 1,072 Operating income (loss) before - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- other revenues (expenses) 0 ---- - - - - -- 0 ---- - - - - -- 0 ---- - - - - -- 17 ----- - - - - -- 126,660 ----- - - - - -- Other revenues (expenses): Interest on investments 0 0 0 0 0 Depreciation 0 0 0 0 (60 Contingency 0 0 0 (2 (5,000) Investment Management Fees 0 0 0 0 0 Net Total ---- - - - - -- ---- 0 - - - - -- ---- 0 - - - - -- ----- 0 - - - - -- ----- (2 - - - - -- (65 Net Income (loss) ---- - - - - -- ---- 0 - - - - -- ---- 0 - - - - -- ----- 0 - - - - -- ----- 15,810 - - - - -- 61,660 Retained earnings - January 1 0 0 0 0 15,810 Retained earnings - December 31 ---- - - - - -- ---- $0 - - - - -- ---- $0 - - - - -- ----- $0 - - - - -- ----- $15,810 - - - - -- $77,470 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Community Center Operations Fund Statement of Sources and Applications of Cash 1994 1995 ----------------- - - - - -- ----------------- - - - - -- 1992 1993 ORIGINAL MGR. ADOPTED ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET RE -EST PROPOSED BUDGET --- - - - - -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources of cash: - - -- ------ - - - - -- Net income (loss) Add depreciation Total Applications of cash: Purchase of fixed assets Net increase (decrease) in cash Cash balance - January 1 Cash balance - December 31 $0 $0 $0 $15,810 $61 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 15,810 121,660 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 0 0 0 0 0 ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 121,660 0 0 0 0 15,810 $0 $0 $0 $15,810 $137,470 AGENDA NO. AGENDA REPORT TO: Cit mana FROM: Finance Director h[��I RE: INSURAN FOR OP MEETING LAW DEFENSE COSTS I DATE: September 1, 1►94 On Februar 14, 1994 the Council tabled action on this item until "bud timer' Attached are articles that cover the new law which became effective Au 1. Also attached is the a report from the Februar 14 Council meetin If the Council is interested in obtainin insurance covera for open meetin law defense costs, staff can obtain an updated premium estimate. In Januar the estimated premium was $1,600. w:\aqn\ueetins X 11 L-M C. eDL-tL j-i /v L Some open meeting law amendments benefit city officials Joel Jamnik Violations of the state open meeting law will be punishable by personal fines of up to $300 (currently $1 tom) under a new law that takes effect August 1. 71u flew iaw will allow awards t() successful plaintiffs of up to $ for attorney fees. The Minnesota Newspaper Association strongly supported these provisions. The League, the Minnesota Scho , ol Boards Association, and other feral government associations lobbied f other sections that will benefit local government officials. Not only does the law cap attorney fees for plaintiffs at $13 it allows the government to pay for them in full. This reduces the chance that individual public officials will have to pay attorney fees. Also, neither attorney fees nor penalties may be awarded unless the court finds that the official(s) had a tipec•ific intent to violate tile open meeting law. to ina i ly, the court niay (award attonicy lees for dcf'endants (up to $13,000) in frivolous cases. The law also clarifies that the court cannot impose forfeiture of public office as a penalty until after the third separately adjudicated violation. Consequently, plaintiffs will no longer have an incentive to wait to sue until there are three alleged violations. Further, the new law eliminates troublesome requirements to refer to "not public data" at public meetings by letters or numbers that do not reveal the identity of the person involved. The laws makes .several ether amendments beneficial t() public officials. One deals with the notice Ihat must be given f emergency meetings. A second clarifies that the city may hold more than one preliminary disciplinary meeting. As a result of this new law. city officials should protect themselves from specific is intent violations by always giving notice of closed meet- ings as required by law and never closing meetings without consulting the city attorney or other legal counsel. 0 37A Carlso g s f dr viotatin g Open ME s, Hash c�aa.o tennona� rio4tion�. Staff Writer More P v-. Mne,Grlaon baa aig�ned a bill fine is tlu as � the ea ncraxs the penalties for inter- officiala to pay the sttacney Of ti y violstin� the Open Meetin= those who we them, up to a mau- mum of S 13 The 4M is enfa+cad only when s verwQ or s amour arch "1ror the first time, the 4w has real teeth," paid newspaper lobbyist Mark Anfinson. He said the cha are the result of s eerier of oomproml ses that produced "the most significant amendment" in Afan to the law, w ne9uira ic bodies such as J," 76 � councils tchod bonds to pen lt s , . , etin 9 Law Anflinson said the threat of payin fm will be the g reatest deter- rest to riolstioo:. M to having the city treasury pay the lea, he cud, "If tluy want a try politically to het away with spending taspayera' money to finance an in- as a union or a newspaper on the tentional violation of the law, I wish o�ciali. Tew people and few wal1 ffiem the bat, but I thick it': politi- s20,000 it cc Its to pursue a Lwwait. AWCM9 -a for the of to Cities, Joel Jamnik, called revised ruin "a big win for us" because elected officials are leas likely to be fined at alL Bdt "there are mined feelings all around" because of the eompro- 0 he said. T!p chance, effective Auk. 1, triple ��ws3oo �riaw,g the law, but allow a to impose it o if it is = that the P W*C 0 . naea w Hsu the law by mM- Under the der law the Bne was $10% but could be imposed aver for aain. S' , the coat to a public official of against a suit can be just as much. In the %4#U& omises that led to the amendmeats, the allowed public bodies such as city councils to pay �p when their inenabers are found to have violated the law. That means that if a majority of a council meets illegally and, as a M suk is sued and ordered to pay the legal fees of the swat , the council can then vote to have city treasury pay not only all of its legal fees but also up to s 13,000 of the eapesses of the party that aced. Jamnilc sitid that - won't hiw pen because the league will advise its members to mslCe we that they an- nounce a, private trailng. That would avoid a cow that the intended to violate the law, he raid. (Stiex alt+esdy an buying insurance 5nm the leaw to Dever legal ex- be � their council l membe The whole issue is open to another though, because an- �Vw law requires a council to SCE a . 'n ipproval before paying its nasal legal bills with city funds. AGENDA NO, 3 AGENDA REPORT �atio� b� �� }� � Endorser' 11odifieA TO: City Manager Re�ecte� > Date_: FROM: Finance Director �!��.�,� O . RE: INSURANCE FOR OPEN M[EETnvc LAW COSTS DATE: January 31, 1994 Our self- insurance plan, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, is offering a new option. The option would reimburse council members for legal costs if they are charged with violating the Open Meeting law. The annual premium for this coverage would be approximately X1,600. Attached is detailed information about this coverage . and a newspaper article regarding it. If the Council is interested in this option, they should approve the purchase of insurance for open meeting law defense costs and authorize a budget transfer from the General Fund contingency account to finance the premium. Mom. Metro /Region e suits spur new insurance Deliberate violations by officials covered By Dennis Csssaso Staff Writer Several Minnesota cities are buying insurance that covers the legal ex- pcnses of city council members and mayors accused of violating the state's open Meeting Law, even if they have deliberately met in secret. ' The insurance, recently offered for the- first time by the Minnesota League of Cities, pays 80 percent o legal fees, up to $20,000 per official. A half -dozen citiesL have voted to purchase the insurance: Alexandria and Cottage Grove, for about $ 1,354 a year, Woodbury for $2,200, and Afton, Rogers . and Lam berton for $300. Others are considering it. The possibility of taxpayers subsidiz- ing the defense of officials who try to hide their actions from taxpayer scru- tiny troubles Joel Jamnik, a lawyer for the league. "I don't like that," he said. "We don't want bird intention to be en- dorsed by the league. But it [a blatant violation) is not a likely prospect. I'm not pushing the panic button. He said the main rayon for offering the insurance is to protect elected officials from high . legal fees when they make good -faith efforts to fol- low the law but are challenged, or when someone sues them for politi- cal reasons. Now, he said, even offi- cials who are cleared in court must pay legal fees, which often run to Ias—am continued on page 2B Insurance/. County boards group considering similar coverage ContnneW frown page I thousands of dollars. Mark Anfinson, attorney for the Minnesota Newspaper Association, was critical of the breadth of the .coverage. "If a person has `evil in- tent' to violate the law, he should not be able to buy an insurance policy [to pay his expenses], he said. "Its ter- rible public policy because it engen- ders so much suspicion." Anfinson said he thinks other laws would prohibit the insurance compa- ny from paying if there was an inten- tional violation. Jamnik :aid he thinks the insurance underwriter for the league, Berkley Risk Services, would refuse to pay under those cir- cumstances. That probably would in- spire another lawsuit on whether the underwriter must pay. The state association of county boards is considering similar cover- age for its 86 members, said Mike Rhyner, director of its insurance trust. But wiUful violation "is the issue we want to take a look at," he said. "I'm not sure we want to extend coverage that far. That defies the principles of insurance. You can't purposely have an accident or violate the law and then collect insurance." The state school boards association has no plans to offer similar cover- age, said John Sylvester, director of management services for the group, which has 392 members. The League i of Cities' *Insurance trust, which provides a sort of group nsur- ance for cities, offered the new policy at the suggestion of Afton after one of its residents sued City Council mem- bers. The league represents 807 of 856 cities in the state. In a suit filed by Peggy Thuma, Washington County District Judge J.E. Cass ruled that Afton Mayor John Kroschel and two council mem- bers, Nick M ueciacciaro and Su- zanne Flinsch, violated the Open Meeting Lary when they met briefly in a corner during a planning com- mission meeting to discuss repairing a well. The judge said the meeting was an unintentional violation, but he fined each $ 100. The law provides that, except in cer- tain circumstances, a quorum of a • public body (such as a city council, county board, school board or their committees) may meet only in pub- lic. Elected officials can be fined a maximum of $100 for each violation and be removed fro, i office on the third violation. But violations are not criminal of- fenses. Enforcement is left to citizens such as Thuma, and interest groups such as newspapers, unions and the newspaper association. Their re- course is to sue the public official: am 141 - d of violating the law. Anfinson said that until 1992, one or two suits were filed a year, but five or six were filed in each of the past two years. Nearly 30 cases have been de- cided by appellate courts since 1964. In the Afton case, Cass ruled that the officials had to pay their own legal fees, The Court of Appeals upheld his finding that they violated the law, and the Supreme Court has allowed that decision to stand. Still on appeal is his decision that they must pay their own fees. That came to S 18,000 for Kroscbel, who has taken a second mortgage on his home to pay it, and about $35,000 each for the council mem- bers. If they had been covered by the league insurance policy, the policy would have paid $14,400 of Kros- chel's bill and ' he would have paid S3,600•, the policy would have paid $20,000 each for M ucciacciaro and Flinsch and they would have paid $ 15,000 each. Thuma, who filed the suit, is paying her own $21,000 in lawyer fees. Anfinson, Jamnik and' repTesenta- tives of other government groups are. negotiating a bill for the upcoming session of the Legislature to address the issue of who should pay the ktl expenses on both sides of open meet- ing lawsuits,. League of Minnesota Cities 3490 I�angton Avenue Nato &. Paul, MN 551268044 (612) 490.5600 OPEN MEETING LAW DEFENSE COST REIMBURSEMENT COVERAGE NOW AVAILABLE Beginning November.15, 1993, LMCIT is offering an new Open Meeting Law Defense Cost coverage. This optional coverage will reimburse city officials for 80% of the legal costs they incur to defend themselves if they are charged with violating the Open Meeting Law. This new coverage is quite different from anything LMCIT (or anyone else, for that matter has done before. We'll try in this memo to answer some of the questions that will come up when city officials are deciding whether this coverage makes sense for their city. I. Why is this needed? Doesn't our existing LMCIT coverage apply to Open Meeting Law claims? Generally, no, The LMCIT liability coverage is designed to respond to claims for damages. The Open Meeting Law doesn't provide for damages; it provides for a $100 civil penalty, and loss of office for repeated violations. Fines and penalties are not "damages" for purposes of the liability coverage, and LMCIT therefor generally has no duty to get involved in defending Open Meeting Law charges under the liability coverage. The only exception is if the Open Meeting Law charge is combined with a claim for damages that is covered under the liability coverage. For instance, if an employee brought a wrongful termination action against a city, the employee might also charge that there was a violation of the open meeting law as .part of the termination process. In that case, LMCIT would be responsible for defending the entire litigation - the Open Meeting Law charge as well as the covered liability claim. But an Open Meeting Law charge. by Itself is not a claim for damages, and the LMCIT liability coverage would therefor not respond. II. Why provide coverage for this type of exposure? One of LMCIT's member cities asked the Trust Board to consider adding this kind of coverage. The request grew out of an instance in which several council members incurred very substantial legal bills defending themselves against an Open Meeting Law charge. The Trust Board recognized that defending an Open Meeting Law charge can cost a city official a lot of money. Defense costs are often the most significant financial consequence of these lawsuits. While the statutory penalty of $100 might be relatively minor, defense costs can easily run to thousands of dollars. And those costs are incurred whether or not the official is ultimately found to have violated the law. The Board acted on the assumption that most violations of the law are inadvertent and may even be on the advice of an attorney. The Board also realized that is easy for somebody to make an accusation of an Open Meeting.Law violation, forcing the city council member to expend significant sums to defend him /herself regardless of the merits of the allegation. The threat of that kind of litigation could even be used as a tactic to intimidate or coerce council members in some Cases. Finally, the Board assumed that most city councilmembers act in good faith and try to comply with the law. But sometimes even these best faith efforts are not enough to head off an Open Meeting Law lawsuit. III. Why should public funds be used to pay for defending someone who actually did violate the open Meeting Lav? Doesn't this encourage city officials to violate the law? The legislature has spelled out in the statute what the penalties are for violating the law: a $100 civil penalty, potential loss of office for repeated violations, and possibly an award of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees in some cases. If the individual has to pay for his /her own defense costs as well, the real monetary penalty to the individual can be many times greater that the penalty the legislature provided in the statute. And how much those defense costs are may not have much relation to how serious the violation was. If more serious penalties are needed to deter violations, the legislature can change the statutes. That wakes more sense than relying on defense costs as a kind of hidden penalty that might be wildly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense, and are incur red even i f , there was no offense. iv. Why is the coverage optional? Why not simply provide it as a standard part of the liability coverage? The LMCIT Board recognized that there are good public policy reasons why a city might want to protect its officials from this risk. But the Board also recognized that some cities might consider it inappropriate to use their taxpayers' funds for this purpose. Making the coverage optional lets each city make this call for itself. V. What does the Open Meeting Law Defense Cost Reimbursement Agreement cover? Under the new coverage, LMCIT will reimburse a city official for 80% of the defense cost incurred by the city official in defending an open Meeting Law lawsuit. The Open Meeting Law Defense Costs Reimbursement Agreement is 1imited to $20,000. This is the most LMCIT will reimburse anyone city official for defense costs for Open Meeting Law lawsuits commenced during the term of the coverage agreement, regardless of the number of lawsuits or the number of actual alleged violat ions. V1. What doesn't it cover? There are two major kinds of costs for which this coverage would not reimburse the official: 1. Any fine or penalty for violating the open meeting law. 2. Any award that orders the city official to pay for the opposing party's attorney's fees. As an example, suppose newspaper is successful in bringing an open meeting claim against a city official. The judge awards a $100 penalty against the official and also orders the official to pay the attorneys fees incurred by the newspaper in bringing the claim. The new coverage would not pay or reimburse either the penalty or the attorneys fees awarded. Note too that this coverage would not cover any legal costs that the city might incur if the city itself were a party to the Open Meeting Law litigation - unless, of course, it was part of a suit that also included a covered claim for damages, as discussed earlier. VII. Nov will the Open Meeting Lap Defence Cost Reimbursement Agreement Mork? The coverage is significantly different from other coverage provided under the standard LMCIT coverage agreements in a couple important ways. First, unlike LMCIT's liability coverages, the Open Meeting Law coverage does not pay the legal costs on the city official's behalf. Instead, LMCIT will reimburse the city official for 80% of those costs, to a maximum of $20,000, after the official has incurred those costs. The city official remains responsible for paying his /her defense attorney, including the 20% which LMCIT will not reimburse as well as any costs over $20,000. Second, the city official retains control of the litigation. The city official makes the decisions on what attorney to hire, whether to settle or compromise the litigation, whether to appeal, etc. The coverage is triggered when a lawsuit is served on the city official alleging a violation of the, Minnesota Open Meeting Law. If a lawsuit is filed during that term of the agreement, the city official has to do two things 2 . Notify LNCXT of the Z f toga tion; and 2. select defense counsel. VIII. Now much will this coverage cost? Initially, we'll be basing the charge for this coverage on the premium for the city's liability coverage. Generally, the cost will be 1.5% of the liability premium, subject to a $500 minimum premium. In an individual city's case the premium could be somewhat higher if in the underwriter's judgement there is a substantially higher risk of Open Meeting Law claims in that city, though we expect this to be rare. IX. Nov do we go about adding this coverage for our city? Have ,your agent contact LKCIV & unde writers at Berkley Risk Services and ask for an application fora. The underwriters will be able to return quote fairly quickly. X. Whom can we call if we have other questions? If you need additional information or have other questions, you can contact Tom Grundhoefer or Pete Trite at the League office, or call the underwriter at Berkley Risk Services who handles your city. We'd also appreciate any comments or suggestions city officials have for ways this coverage could be improved, or for any other changes cities would like LMCIT to consider. 11/17/93 AGENDA NO. z AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director f RE: DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAXES DATE: September 6, 1994 State law requires that, by September 15th, the City certify to the County the dates it has selected for its 1995 Budget public hearing and for the continuation of its hearing (if necessary). The hearings must be held between November 29 and December 20 but must not conflict with hearings listed in the attached letter. The dates available for public hearings are listed on the last page attached, The City's final property tax levy and final budget must be adopted at another hearing held on a date subsequent to the initial public hearing and the continuation hearing if one is held. The City can approve its levy and budget on a date which may coincide with another unit's truth in taxation public hearing or continuation hearing, It is recommended that (a) the initial hearing be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 29, (b) the continuation hearing (if needed) be scheduled for 5:00 p.m. Friday, December 9 and (c) the final hearing to adopt the tug levy and budget be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. Monday, December 12. Attachment WAAWBUDHEAR wannsErcounmr Properly Records and Revenue Genene Johnson, Division Manager 820 Government Center West 50 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 -1696 August - 12 , 1994 Fax: 266 -2022 TTD #: 266 -2002 Dan Faust, Finance Director Ci. ty of Mapl 1830 E. County Road B .Maplewood, MN 55109 .RE: Truth in Taxation Hearings Dear Mr, Faust: Minnesota Statutes 275:065 outlines the procedures p for holding public • budg hearings to comply with Truth in Taxation. It provides that the County Auditor is responsible for the coordination of ' the selection of hearing dates for the school district's and cities within the county The fol lowing l owing hearing dates that affect your city have already been established: Governmental Unit Date Ramsey County Tuesday 12/13/94 Tuesday 12/20/94 Metro Special Taxing Monday 12/0 Districts Monday 12/12/94 I.S.D. #622.. _Thursday 12/01 / 94 ` -- Thursday 12/08/94 I . S . D.. #623 Tuesday 12/06/94 Wednesday 12/14/94 I . S . D. #624 Wednesday 12/07/94' Monday 12/19/94 The c ity must now set its hearing and continuation dates. B statute the dates selected must not conflict � Y ict with those listed above.. Hearings must be held between November 29 and December 20 on an weekday after Y Y 5 :00 p.m. or at any time on Saturday. Also, the continuation hearing must be held at least five business days . y but no more than fourteen business days after the original hearing I f ou choose an initial laI hearing date between December 14 and December-19, 1994 i no continuation hearing could be held. nuation Minnesota's ftmt Home Mule County printed on reacted paper with a minimum of 10% poet-oonsumer content SCHOOL DISTRICTS, CITIES, AND METROPOLITAN SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS .Allowable Publication Dates and Public Hearing Dates in Regard to Proposed Property Tiaxes for Payable 1995 IF INITIAL NOTICE OF CONTINUATION ADOPTION HEARING PUBLIC HEARING HEARING HEARING IN 1994 MAY BE ptn3LI HED CAN BE HELD ff NEEDED SAN BE HELD # ON OR IS QL AFTER BUT NOT LATER THAN: ON OR AFTER: BUT NOT LATTER JEM: ON OR AFTER: BUT NOT LATER AN: NOV. 29 NOV. 18 NOV. 27 DEC. 06 DEC. 19 NOV. 30 DEC. 28 NOV. 30 NOV. 21 NOV. 28 DEC. 07 DEC. 19 DEC. 01 DEC. 28 * The "on or after" dates shown for your adoption hearing assume that no continuation hearing is held. If a continuation hearing is held, the levy adoption hearing could be held no earlier than one day after the continuation hearing. NOTE : (1)School district, city, and metropolitan special taxing district initial or continuation hearings on proposed property taxes for payable 1995 cannot be held on December 4, 11, or 18 in 1994 since these are Sundays; and December 13 and December 20 in 1994 since these are the dates set aside for county initial hearings and county continuation hearings, respectively. (2) If the initial hearing is held after December 12, in 1994, a continuation hearing is not allowed since the continuation hearing must be held at least 5 business days after the initial hearing, but cannot be held after December 19, 1994 (December 20, 1994 is set aside for county continuation hearings). Pl axz W DEC. 02 NOV. 23 NOV. 30 DEC. 09 DEC. 19 DEC. 03 DEC. 28 DEC. 03 NOV. 23 NOV. 30 DEC. 09 DEC. 19 DEC. OS DEC. 28 DEC DEC D6 ANINOV. 28 DEG 04 DEG 14 DEG 19 DEG 07 DEG. 28 CF. 06 DEC. 09 DEC. 01 DEC. 07 DEC. 16 DEC. 19 DEC. 10 DEC. 28 DEC. 10 DEC. 01 DEC. 07 DEC. 16 DEC. 19 DEC. 12 DEC. 28 cp*13 B'ri"C : )6"_DEG 12 ri�J BL'C DEC. 15 DEC. 07 DEC. 13 DISALLOWED DEC. 16 DEC. 28 DEC. 16 DEC. 08 DEC. 14 DISALLOWED DEC. 17 DEC. 28 DEC. 17 DEC. 08 DEC. 14 DISALLOWED DEC. 19 DEC. 28 DEC3. 09 DEG 15 IDISA16LOWEID 20 D I ME. a G-0. 31 SO * The "on or after" dates shown for your adoption hearing assume that no continuation hearing is held. If a continuation hearing is held, the levy adoption hearing could be held no earlier than one day after the continuation hearing. NOTE : (1)School district, city, and metropolitan special taxing district initial or continuation hearings on proposed property taxes for payable 1995 cannot be held on December 4, 11, or 18 in 1994 since these are Sundays; and December 13 and December 20 in 1994 since these are the dates set aside for county initial hearings and county continuation hearings, respectively. (2) If the initial hearing is held after December 12, in 1994, a continuation hearing is not allowed since the continuation hearing must be held at least 5 business days after the initial hearing, but cannot be held after December 19, 1994 (December 20, 1994 is set aside for county continuation hearings). AGENDA NO, O AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: PRELINJ[ NARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 1994 PAYABLE IN 1995 DATE: September 6, 1994 State law requires that cities certify their proposed property tax levies to the county auditor by September 15. The proposed tax levy that is given preliminary approval cannot be increased Therefore, it is important that the proposed tax levy provides adequate revenues to finance the 1995 Budget. The proposed tax levy of $8,572,900 listed on page 2 -3 of the 1995 Proposed Budget will provide adequate revenues. Therefore, it is recommended that the Council adopt the following resolution which will give preliminary approval to the proposed tax levy. RESOLUTION PROVIDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED TAX LEVY FOR 1994 PAYABLE IN 1995 WHEREAS, State law requires that the City Council give preliminary approval of a proposed tax levy for 1994 payable in 1995 by September 15, 1994, and WHEREAS the City Council has reviewed the Proposed 1995 Budget and has determined the amount of the proposed tax levy payable in 1995 which is the maximum amount that will be levied, and WHEREAS, the proposed property tax levy certified must be after the deduction of the homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA), and WHEREAS, the 1995 HACA for the City of Maplewood is $1,593,415. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD MINNESOTA THAT the proposed tax levy for 1994 payable in 1995 in the amount of $8,572,900 less $1,593,415 for HACA is hereby iven preliminary approval. y �y pP W:\agn\95TAX