HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 04-11 City Concil/Manager Workshop Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15P.M. Monday,April 11, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.ROLL CALL
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.2010 Financial Summary
2.MCC Fund Discussion
3.Discussion on Referendum Timingand Topics
E.NEW BUSINESS
F.ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AGENDA NO.D-1
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Finance Manager
Assistant City Manager
2010 Summary from the Finance Department
RE:
DATE:
March 31,2011
INTRODUCTION
Many changes were made in the Finance Department during 2010 including the hiring of a
new Finance Manager and Assistant Finance Manager. This report is intended to give the
Council an idea of the challenges that we faced and where we sit at the end of 2010.
DISCUSSION
The new Finance Manager began employment on 05-10-10 and at that point the audit for
2009 was not yet complete and there was much work left to dobefore it could be
completed. Approximately 1,000 lines of journal entries were entered during the next 2
months to get the 2009 books to a point where both the auditors and the Finance Manager
were satisfied. Some of the major tasks that needed to be donewere: reconciliation of
the bank accounts from Feb 2009 topresent; review of revenue accounts for miscodings;
fixed asset/infrastructure entries; interest allocations; and reconciliation ofthe Developer
funds.
Since closing the books on 2009, staff has had more time to analyze all funds and review
activity from 2007 to present. Here is a list of some of the hurdles we encountered:
Many accounts were added during 2007-2009because of new funds or programs.
The majority of these accounts required some type of adjustment or needed to be
deleted.
Utility revenues were scheduled outfrom 2007 - 2009and it was noted that
revenues were being deposited into incorrect funds.The North St. Paul Water
Surcharge was first effective in January 2007. All of these revenues had been
coded to the St. Paul WAC fund and needed to be recoded to the North St. Paul
WAC fund. This makes things very difficult when staff is putting together
infrastructure financing schedules and fund balances are not reflecting actual
activity.
Project Accounting set up had to be reviewed and amendedto help with the audit
process.
There were many balance sheet accounts that had not been reconciled since 2006.
All of the activity from 2007 - 2010was reviewed and immaterial adjustments were
made to bring the accounts tothecorrect balances.
100 funds were closed during 2010 including:
55 Public Improvement funds – this involved scheduling out all of the revenue
and expenditures for each project and reviewing bond issues to determine if all
transfers were made correctly. Some transfers needed to be reversed because
the funds were bonded for and the transfer was a double dip. Also, State Aid
payments had to be reviewed because some were bonded for and needed to be
transferred to the Debt Service fund instead of being counted as revenue in the
PIP fund.
8 Debt Service funds – this involved scheduling out all of the revenues and
expenditures for each bond issue and the transfers made
34 Developer funds – all of the activity since 2006 needed to be analyzed. There
were corrections needed and small balances were eliminated.
Major projects yet to be done include:
Prepare cash forecasting model
Work withbrokers on investment portfolio
Resume billings to developers
Debt service analysis
Ambulance Service fund analysis
MCC forecasting
General Fund
In our 2011 budget document, the 12/31/10 fund balance was estimated to be $6,501,087.
As we work our way through the audit process, the ending unreserved fund balance
currently sits at $7,317,855, or $816,768higher than anticipated. Of this amount, $84,756
needs to be applied to encumbered items at 12/31/10 and $115,740 needs to be applied to
the carryovers authorized at the 02/28/11 council meeting.These items are over and
above what was anticipated in the 2011 budget.This leaves $616,272 of
unreserved/unbudgeted one time money. The following shows where the differences were
in 2010:
th
At the March 14council meeting, we discussed 2011 capital expenditures, the 2012-2016
Capital Improvement Plan, and recommendations for the possible use of the additional
fund balance. Because the figure available dropped to $616,000, staff is recommending
the following:
Our first priority is still to increase our reserves in the General Fund.To increase the fund
balance as a percentage of revenues from 36.1% to 38.5%: $356,000
Apply to 2011 capital projects as follows:
New phone system $ 90,000
MCC pool upgrades $150,000
City Hall/Police space needs study $ 20,000
th
This differs from the recommendation made on March 14as follows:
General Fund reserves (39.0% to 38.5%) ($ 64,000)
Employee Benefit Fund ($100,000)
MCC Light Fixture Grant match ($ 20,000)
Staff will bring forward the appropriate requests for funds at future council meetings as the
capital projects develop. Council will either authorize or deny the projects at that time.
CONCLUSION
Staff will continue to monitor activity and plans on getting back on the cycle of distributing
monthly financial reports to the council by the end of April. Thank you for your continued
support of achieving a financially sustainable Maplewood.
WorkshopAgendaItemD2
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:
DuWayne Konewko, Parks and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: MCC Fund Discussion
DATE:
April 4, 2011
INTRODUCTION
As per the City Council’s request following the Staff Retreat held this past February, staff is
submitting a sustainable five-year MCC budget proposal for council’s review and comment. The
following MCC budget proposal puts in place target goals for each respective year going out
through 2016 for expenditures and revenue – refer to figures 1 and 2 respectively. The budget
proposal speaks directly to reducing the difference, or bridging the gap, between expenditures
and revenue. This difference, which we’re calling the “swing factor,” is tied directly to the
property tax levy contribution for the MCC.
The swing factor represents the difference between the expenditures (see figure 1 for
expenditure breakdown) and revenue (see figure 2 for revenue breakdown) for a given year. As
an example, the swing factor for 2010 was $414,000, which is the difference between the
expenditures ($2,344,000) and the revenue ($1,930,000) for the MCC. Staff believes that a
sustainable budget, by the conclusion of this five-year period, results in a property tax levy
contribution of approximately $150,000. This figure does not include any monies for Capital
Improvement Projects. The table below illustrates the proposed swing factor trend and the
corresponding percent change/year over year for the period starting in 2011 and running
through 2016.
Another element of the MCC budget in addition to the $150,000.00 proposed property tax levy
will be capital improvement funds. As Council is aware, CIP funds have been cut from the
Community Center for the past five years including 2012 and 2013. As a result of these cuts the
Community Center has fallen into a state of disrepair. The proposed budget is designed to
begin making improvements to the MCC which will ultimately result in increased revenue,
allowing the MCC to fulfill its financial obligations to the City as well.
To that end, staff is proposing that council set aside $200,000.00 - $225,000.00 annually for
capital improvement projects at the MCC. The goal by 2016 will be to reach a $400,000.00
annual subsidy amount. This figure will include both the $150,000.00 tax property levy as well
as the CIP funds noted above (see figure 3 for breakdown of proposed CIP, Tax Property Levy,
and overall MCC subsidy amounts).
PROPOSED SWING FACTOR TREND – 2011 thru 2016
YEARSWING FACTOR PERCENT OF CHANGE/
YEAR OVER YEAR
2010 $414,000.00
2011 $325,000.00 22%
2012 $285,000.00 13%
2013 $235,000.00 17%
2014 $190,000.00 20%
2015 $165,000.00 13%
2016 $150,000.00 9%
WorkshopAgendaItemD2
ACTION PLAN
Staff proposes the following action items to achieve the aforementioned goals:
1) Increase In Membership Levels
Increased Family Focus:
The Maplewood Community Center will focus on creating a welcoming environment
for families and work to grow this important membership demographic.
To accomplish this, the Maplewood Community Center will begin by remodeling the
building’s flagship amenity - the aquatics center. Staff, with the aid of local
contractors, has developed an innovative renovation strategy to make the aquatic
center more appealing for families with children of all ages. Improvements,
scheduled to be phased in over the next five years, will include increased interactive
play structures for older children, smaller slides and water features for younger
children, and bright murals designed to create a bright welcoming environment for
guests of all ages.
Following the lead of many of our area competitors, staff is also reviewing the
feasibility of installing an indoor playground again designed to target young families.
This project would be undertaken in 2012 – 2013.
Continued Senior Programming Offerings:
The MCC has experienced great success with our senior demographic. To continue
to support these memberships, staff will continue to offer a variety of senior
programming options including senior fitness, senior seminars, card clubs, and day
trips.
To welcome additional seniors to our facility, MCC will be introducing the Healthways
SilverSneakers Fitness Program in May 2011. The SilverSneakers Fitness Program
is an innovative health, exercise and wellness program helping older adults live
healthy, active lifestyles.
2) Increase In Banquet Activities
Special Events:
MCC will continue to offer special events for audiences of all ages. These special
events have proven to be a great source of revenue and as such will continue to be a
pivotal growth point for the Community Center. In addition, these special events
WorkshopAgendaItemD2
serve to increase the sense of community in the City of Maplewood while also
helping to improve Maplewood’s overall image.
Weddings/Banquet Use:
The Community Center will continue to increase awareness of our meeting and
special event space by participating in a variety of community wedding fairs and
expos.
3) Increase In Theater Activities
Five Year Rental Contract with Ashland Productions:
In 2011 the MCC entered into a five-year contract with Ashland Productions. This
contract will ensure a consistent tenant in the theater and a guaranteed annual base
revenue of $32,500.
Expanded Entertainment Series:
On top of shows presented by Ashland Productions, the MCC will also host an
expanded entertainment series offering 10 – 20 performances a year from a variety
of musical genres.
In addition, MCC is currently pursuing grants and other outside funding which would
allow them to produce a cultural entertainment series in 2012.
4) Joint Powers Agreement With North St. Paul
Increased Recreation Programming For Both Maplewood & North St. Paul
Increased Arts Programming For Both Maplewood & North St. Paul
5) Increase In Fitness Activities
Streamline Program Offerings
Offer Fitness Programs At North St. Paul Community Center
6) Operational Improvements
Decrease In Staffing Levels
Decrease In Operating Expenditures
Secure Additional Partnerships & Grants
WorkshopAgendaItemD2
Eliminate Marginal Programs
DISCUSSION
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding what the property tax levy for the MCC
should be moving forward. Staff recommends that this number should be approximately
$150,000.00 to offset operating expenses. This amount should be supplemented annually with
$200,000.00 - $225,000.00 in capital improvement funds to maintain the integrity of the building.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide staff feedback regarding the feasibility of the proposed budget and action plan.
WorkshopAgendaItemD2
Figure1:ProjectedMCCExpenditures
2,450
2,400
2,350
2,300
2,250
2,200
2,150
201220142016
FISCALYEAR
Figure2:ProjectedMCCRevenue
2,120
2,100
2,080
2,060
2,040
2,020
2,000
1,980
1,960
1,940
201220142016
FISCALYEAR
WorkshopAgendaItemD2
Figure3:ProposedCIP,TaxPropertyLevy,AndOverallMCCSubsidyAmounts
600
500
PropertyTaxLevy
400
300
CIP
200
Total=Property
taxlevy+CIP
100
0
201220142016
FISCALYEAR
Work Session Agenda Item D3
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Council
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:Discussion of Referendum Timing and Topics
DATE:April 6, 2011
INTRODUCTION
This item is being brought forward on the Work Session agendato begin a discussion with the Council
on the possibility of conducting a referendum on providing for some various facilities within the City.
This item was discussed in a very preliminary nature at the February 2011 Council – Staff Retreat. No
action is proposed on this item at this time.
Background Information
The topic of a referendum for various facilities hasbeen reviewed over the past two years. The scope
of what issues would be asked and what the amount of funding to be considered isunknown. The
Open Space Referendum from the 1990’s will make final payment on those bonds in 2014. One
consideration is to have a referendum in 2012 or 2013, with the first payments on the bonds structure
to continue the impact on the taxpayer similar to that referendum question. The amount of time
necessary to properly prepare for a referendum question is typically 9-12 months in advance, although
legal requirements for notice are much less. It is staff’s recommendation that a 2011 ballot question
will not allow for the proper timing to prepare for the consideration of placing this on the ballot. The
Council should discuss the timing of their desires to pursue a referendum question in 2012 or 2013.
The staff will present information on legal requirements for a referendum at the Work Session.
A second area of discussion for the Council is to decide areas of consideration or emphasis. The
following areas have been raised as potential questions in the past 2 -3 years:
1.New Police Department Facility – this will be the topic of the space needs study later in the
regular agenda. Either expansion of the Police Department facility or an entirely new Police
facility could be a question.
2.New Fire Department Facilities – Chief Lukin has proposed a plan to reduce the number of Fire
Stations, but also there is a need to construct a new facility within the southern leg of the
Community, possibly near 3M, as well as retrofit Fire Station #7 and #2.
3.Fish Creek – this has been proposed to purchase this open space parcel.
4.Parks – our Parks facilities could use a significant infusion of cash to improve the overall
facilities being provided within the community. The scope of the work to be done has not been
studied in detail.
5.Maplewood Community Center – the MCC was constructed in 1994. Many of the facility needs
are going to be coming due for replacement. Funds have not been identified for this purpose.
6.Trails – the Comprehensive Plan proposes a network of trails to provide alternative facilities to
the automobile along with recreational amenities within our community. No direct funding has
been identified.
The Council should discuss which, if any of these areas, should be developed further for a possible
referendum question. If an area is identified, additional scoping work will be consideredto determine
level of funding and improvements. This is not the final decision but is intended to provide the Council
an opportunity to begin the discussion of the referendum question.
REFERENDUM DISCUSSION
PAGE TWO
OtherConsideration
Followingis an update from LMC on some current legislation that is being considered by the state
legislature as an alternative to a taxpayer referendum and using a local sales tax. No determination
on this can be made, as numerous steps are necessary and this option does not currently exist for
Cities and it is unknown if it will remain in the tax bill:
The Senate bill also generally authorizes cities or groups of cities to impose a local sales tax
of one-half percent, with voter approval, that could be used to fund civic and convention
centers; public libraries; parks, trails, and recreation centers; overpasses, arterial, and collector
roads; bridges, railroad overpasses, and railroad protection measures; water quality for
groundwater and drinking water pollution problems; fire and law enforcement facilities; and
municipal buildings.
Recommended Action
No action is recommended on this item. This is a discussion issue.