HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 03-14 City Council/Manager Workshop Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15P.M. Monday,March 14, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.ROLL CALL
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Discuss 2011 Capital Expenditures and 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement PlanGoals
(5:15 – 6:15 p.m.)
E.NEW BUSINESS
1.Discuss Marshlands Goals (6:15 – 6:45 p.m.)
F.ADJOURNMENT
*
Times Listed Are Approximate
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Work Session Agenda Item D1
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Council
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Gayle Bauman, Finance Manager
SUBJECT:Discuss 2011 Capital Expenditures and 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement
Plan Goals
DATE:March 4, 2011
INTRODUCTION
As part of thecontinuing discussion from the City Council–Staff retreat on a Financially Sustainable
Maplewood, staff would like to review some financial considerations and requests direction from the City
Council in order to begin preparation of the Capital Improvement Plan as well as proceeding with
preparation and planning for the 2012 Budget Document.
It is anticipated that staff will present financial information for Council discussion and then receive direction
for future documents before final decisions by the Council on the CIP in May or June 2011 and on setting
of a levy for 2012 in September 2011, plus adoption of the final budget for 2012 in December 2011.
Background on 2011 Capital Expenditures
The 2010 Budget document was prepared in June – August 2009. As part of the 2011 Budget process,
expenditures were adjusted down due to an estimated downturn in revenues within the General Fund,
whichrepresents about 65 – 75% of the operating costs for the City personnel. Those estimates indicated
that a reduction in expenses of $400,000 - $600,000 was necessary to provide for a balanced budget in
2010. Staff implemented numerous decisions such as delayed and cancelled personnel hirings, delayed
projects and cancelled purchases. As the new Finance staff completespreparations for the annual audit,
preliminary indications are showing that all departmentsfar exceededthe direction that was given them.
th
Staff will bring more information to the Council on March28, but it appears thatthe City ended 2010 with
a much greater fund balancein the General Fund than originally planned. A closer look at these numbers
reveals that avast majority of this is due to one-time corrections in budgeting revenues and corrective
expenditure actions that are notlikely to berepeatedin 2011.
Attachment #1 is a spreadsheet showing the trends in expenditures and revenues in the General Fund.
This additional money(unaudited number is currently about $800,000)does not significantly change the
trend because it is one-time money. It may shift the trend 6-9 months into the future, but does not address
the goal of a financially stable Maplewood. It can, however, be used to help defray some existing
expenses, as well as begin to make progress on achievingthe Council’s preliminary goal from the Retreat
to keep the 2012 Levy Increase below 3%. It is that basis that the Management Team has developed the
following recommendations for Council consideration in providing direction on this funding if available.
2011 Capital Expenditures
Page Two
Options for 2010 One-Time Funds(if available):
The Management Staff reviewed the followingstrategies foruses of the $800,000if available.
1.Reserves for 2012 to increase fund balance from 36.1% to 39%. $420,000
a.This use willhelp reduce the impact of budget cuts in all departments.
i.Inflationary costs for 2012 = $180K
ii.COLA for 2012 = $125K
iii.Fuel cost increase in 2012 at $4/gallon = $150K
iv.Fire Department Increased cost = $100K
b.Could be used to reduce property taxincrease from 3% to 1- 2% in 2012. Thishas the
potential todelay the sustainability decisions for one year because the funding is not
repeating, but provides a one-year reduction in levy increase. [Note: an increase in the levy
for debt service is planned,but undetermined at this time.]
i.A bill in the legislature is being considered to freeze the levy increase at 0% for
2012. By placing these funds in reserves, the Council will have options to consider
in July and August 2011 that will not all revolvearound cuts.
c.This also replenishes some of the reserves used to fund operational expenses over the
past 3 years and returns the fund balance to more historic levels.
2.Make a one-time transfer into the Employee Benefit Fund: $100,000
a.Similar to reserves, this provides relief toward 2012 Expenses.
i.This helps keep property taxes lower over the longer term.
ii.This also gives the Council more options in July for savings.
3.Apply to Capital Projects in 2011
a.This is a recommenduse for one-time funds, if available: $280,000
b.In recommended order:
i.New Phone system - $90K
ii.MCC Light Fixtures Grant Match = $20K
iii.City Hall/Police Space Needs Evaluation = $20K
iv.Pool Upgrades at MCC -$150K
c.The following needed projects were considered by not funded:$ 0
i. Election Equipment = $80K
ii.Park Improvements = $125K
iii.Tartan Ice Arena Fund = $50K
iv.Seal Coating/Overlay = $250K
v.Fish Creek = $200K
vi.Solar Panel Costs at MCC and Nature Center = $25K
vii.Wipers Fund = $200K
viii.Economic Development Authority Costs = $200K
4.Diminish negative cash balance in EMS or MCC Fund: $ 0
a.The following rationale was explored:
b. The Management Team consider using some of this one-time money to reduce the
negative cash balances in the EMS Fund and/or the MCC Fund, which will delaythe
impacts onthe expected need forreductionsor revisionsin 2012.
i.The EMS Fund needsto be analyzedand one-time money would not solve the
sustainability needs of the program.
ii.The MCC Fund is working on a 3-year plan to resolve their sustainability issues.
The funding of the pool is assistance to the MCC to help in that effort.
5.Recommendations from the Management Teamfor use of one-time funds if available:
a.$420,000 to General Fund Reserves
b.$100,000 to replenish Employee Benefit Fund
c.$280,000 to 2011 Capital Projects
2011 Capital Expenditures
Page Three
Discussion on 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan Goals
The staff has submitted preliminary requests for Capital Improvements for the period covering 2012 to
2016. The Financial staff has discussed these proposals and is looking for preliminary guidance from the
City Council. The following items will be presented as general categories for discussion with the Council
on the goals for the next 5 year period:
Overall bonding level
: the Council established a goal tohave $65 million in debt by the end of
2015. At the end of 2010, we have $79 million in debt and will make an $11 million payment in
2011 giving us a level of $68 million. The plan is to issue $5 millionof debtfor the Western Hills
project in2011toraise the level to $73 million. Add in Gladstone at another $6 million and we are
at $79 million. Beginning in 2012, the City will be making payments of about $7 million per year on
the existing bonds, so the debt level in 2012 would be reduced to $72 million. The current CIP
proposals add about $4 million, so our new debt level at the end of 2012 is $76 million. The
existing proposals in 2013 is a net decrease in bonding of $1 million, while 2014 is another $1
million decrease and2015 is a neteven on overall debt. Thus, given a rough estimate of the
currentproposals, our debt level at the end of 2015 will be about $74 million(see attachment #2).
At this point, if we stay with the $65 million goal, either the Council agrees to increase the debt
level, or we need to cancel $9 million of currently planned projects.
If you look at the individual categories, we have the following comments:
o
1.Assessments – are increasing on projects, even though a delay in the increase in
2011’s projects slowed that goal.
2.Tax Levy – an average of $2.0 million per year is planned for 2012 – 2016. We
currently levy about $4.0 million per year, while on a direct payment schedule we
should be levying nearly $5.5 million. If we can hold this planned levelof debt levy
in 2012 - 2016to about $2.0 million per year, we will make progress and should not
need to substantially increase thecurrentlevel of the debt levybeyond inflationary
costs or losses to Market Value Homestead Credit. However, this assumes that
every dollar of the debt levy is dedicated to the streets program, which takes Fish
Creek, Gladstone II, Fire Station improvements, and Police Department expansion
off the table.
3.Tax Increment Financing – Plans such as Gladstone, TH 36 – English and
Maplewood Mall improvements call for the use of tax increment financing bonds
through a combination of debt with special assessments to developers. If Tax
Increment debt is removed from consideration, the City will likely achieve its goal of
$65 million in debt levels by 2015.
Sewer Utility – the fund is in reasonable good shape, we probably can get through 2016
o
with minimal bonding for these expenses.
Environmental Utility Fund – this is an area of concernas the cost of implementing non-
o
degradation and infiltration requirements are driving construction expenses higher and are
being shown in this fund. At this point, our projections are that we do not have the funding
to meet these needs. Many of these are costs are all related to street improvements.
Rather than move the costs to the tax levy,we probably can only afford about 50% of what
has been proposed and that assumes that we raise the fee by 5 – 10% per year.Due to
this fund’s limitation, numerous projects will need to be delayed.
Water Availability Charge – thesefunds are still being evaluated but will possibly add to the
o
bonding needs of the City, due to the failure of SPRWSto fund replacement adequately.
2011 Capital Expenditures
Page Four
Municipal StateStreetAid – We have two bond issues now; we are proposing to use $1
o
million for Gladstone / Frost Bridge; we probably need to consider $1.0 million toward the
current phase of White Bear Avenue. In addition, a minimum of$3.0 million for TH 36 –
English project isstretching the fund to the maximum, although based on the state formula,
the more spent the more received in aid. An overlay or additional roadway construction
work is probably not feasiblein the 2012 – 2016 timeframe. We are experiencing some
failure of some of our collector roadways [Highwood, McMenemy, Roselawn, Southlawn,
Beebe, Conway, Maryland] wherewe are going toneed todo overlay work. Additional
bonding might be possible, but not withthe current debt limit at $65 million, even though
the support for the bonds does notimpact the debt levy. We may have to consider
assessmentfor the overlay program along with tax levy, which will reduce your streets
program. It is a matter of priority. We probably do not have the money to do both.
The discussion for the Council will involve a summary of the status of the proposals and the funds
listed above. The staff is in a situation wherethe debt we incurred in the 2000 – 2010 timeframe is
coming due, plus the Gladstone/Frost Bridge and TH 36 – English projects need the remainder of
the funds. Following are the questions/areas of discussions for the Council to provide direction:
Can the 2012 – 2016 CIP propose a debt level in excess of $65 million, if:
o
1.If the debt levy is holding steady or decreasing.
2.Tax Increment Financingfor redevelopment is not counted.
3.The Municipal State Aid Street Bonding is not counted.
4.[Note: during the 2010 bond rating review by Moody’s rating agency, one of
Maplewood’s financial strengths was noted as the willingness of the Council to
actively address infrastructure needs with appropriate bond levels.]
Is the Council okay with significant increases in Environmental Utility Fund and
o
Water Availability Charges over the next 4 – 5 years to support the current program?
If not major projects should be delayed.
Which redevelopment initiative should be cancelled / delayed?
o
1.Gladstone
2.Hillcrest
3.TH 36 – English
4.Maplewood Mall
5.Redevelopment / EDA Funds
Recommended Action
The City Council should provide staff direction on using the one-time money, ifavailable, from 2010as
recommended above.Staff is specifically looking for direction regarding the $280,000 proposed to be
spent on Capital Projects in 2011 to assist with the preparation of the CIP.In addition, the Council should
review the goals for the2012– 2016 Capital Improvement Plan and subsequent debt levels.
Attachments:
1.General Fund Trend Chart
2.Debt Level analysis
Attachment 2
Debt Level analysis
Balance 12-31-10 $78,972,297
2011 activity Scheduled payments (10,955,000)
Western Hills project 5,000,000
Gladstone 6,000,000
Balance 12-31-11 79,017,297
2012 activity Scheduled payments (6,825,000)
New projects 4,000,000
Balance 12-31-12 76,192,297
2013 activity Scheduled payments (7,000,000)
New projects 6,000,000
Balance 12-31-13 75,192,297
2014 activity Scheduled payments (6,800,000)
New projects 5,800,000
Balance 12-31-14 74,192,297
2015 activity Scheduled payments (6,500,000)
New projects 6,500,000
Balance 12-31-15 $74,192,297
Work Session Agenda Item E.1.
AGENDA REPORT
TO
: City Council
FROM:
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Discuss Marshlands Goals
DATE:
March 9, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The City Council will hear a presentation from Ron Cockriel, a resident who served as the chair of the
Marshlands Task Force. The Marshlands was a proposal that was developed for the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) property at TH 5 and TH 120, north of the St. Paul Monastery
property. It is the current site proposed for the East Metro Fire Training Facility (Attachment 1). Staff
has spent minimal time evaluating the Marshlands and East Metro Fire Training Facility, but has
proposed and planned to implement the features of Marshlands within the East Metro Fire Training
Facility concept.
Background on Marshlands
Following are e-mail correspondence received from Mr. Cockriel in preparation for the March 14,
2011, City Council workshop:
Sent: March 3, 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to follow up on the city project 03-20 - Property at Hwy. 120 and
Hwy 5.
There is a need to continue the discussions of what are the public usages at this site, and
what are the best usages for the site and the surrounding properties.
It is my understanding that city project 03-20 was appropriated a $30.000.00 sum to "find out
what we have there" (referring to environmental impacts on the site) and to review different
options for the site and what might be the appropriate land use for the property.
In this spirit I look forward to reviewing with Council on March 14th (I would like approx. 30
min.) the background of the Marshland’s eight year old efforts, restate the Marshland’s goals
and suggestions for the site and to discuss the examples as to how this effort can be funded.
Eight years ago the Council set up this city project for this site-this is five years before ANY
mention of a Fire Training Facility.
This Council prides itself on Process. What happened here? I am a believer in "the reset
button" as a legitimate part of the Process.
Sent: January 31, 2011
I know a "task force" that wasn't broadcast in Maplewood during the "D" years. It was a heck
of a time for Maplewood and certainly the employees charged to keep the ship afloat. Thank
you Chuck for that...But both old and new council has stressed the importance of "process"-
and Marshlands has paid its dues.
I will compile the emails and mailings, agenda, minutes of the many meetings (several you
attended along with past and current staff members) related to the Marshlands project and
have them to you by 03/03/11 and I look forward to a productive work session on 03/14/11.
Would the results of the environmental reviews I & II be ready by the work shop date?
And also will there be a study from our environmental staff or consultant of what the impact of
the proposed activities of the Fire training and vehicle cutting and burning operations of more
then one thousand six hundred fire fighters (and their trucks) will have on the site?
Also what is the time line for determining the zoning and land use for this site? And shouldn't
ownership be determined before we apply for State? As it is to be used as collateral
funding? Determine the land-use and zoning as well as what the "public purpose" for the
property can (should) be.
Sent: January 24, 2011
As a result of the citizen’s petition to the City regarding property at Hwy 5 and Hwy 120, the
city set up a task force to review options at that site. As Chairperson of that task force I am
ready to give a report to City Council on the state of the citizen’s requested (petitioned)
desires and the Council's directive to seek option(s) for that land. Yes option(s) as in
plural...are there are.
This is a very timely issue and I request a workshop or City Council agenda item (as old
business) as the city directed $30.000.00 for this review.
There is another horse in this race and it should be allowed to be shown...some may discount
it but that should be left up to the City Council to review and decide as they directed Staff and
Task force for options.
Staff Information
The MnDOT property is classified as an unused right-of-way in the city’s land use and zoning maps,
with no specific land use designation. Ramsey County open space property surrounds the site and is
guided as open space in the city’s comprehensive plan (Attachment 2). The MnDOT property was
originally proposed for the relocated School District Bus Garage, which was opposed by staff.
At this point, the $30,000 authorized by the City Council in October 2006 has long ago been spent on
studies and evaluations by SEH engineers. The funds were used for submission and securing the
$600,000 grant from Ramsey County for the environmental cleanup of this property. The grant money
is subject to receiving the funding for the Fire Training Facility. At this point, staff is not actively
working on this proposal because it does not appear likely that the East Metro Fire Training Facility
will be funded through state bonding and thus there are no dedicated funds for Marshlands.
In repeated correspondence with Mr. Cockriel, he has asked for funding and work implementing the
Marshlands. It is unfortunate, but we have attempted to raise funds for Marshlands concepts for six
plus years and have not been able to raise any extra dollars from any agency, except the money
spent by Maplewood since 2006. As noted previously, it is staff’s belief that the only way to
implement many of the concepts of Marshlands is to incorporate those findings into the East Metro
2
Fire Training Facility. Staff is very supportive of constructing a green Fire Training Facility. The
problem is obviously getting money for either.
Mr. Cockriel is proposing that the City abandon portions or all of the Fire Training Facility and embark
on a plan to restore the entire site to a natural setting. Maplewood is currently spending significant
funds on the following proposals for open space and parks that are straining the available resources:
Fish Creek = up to $2.2 million
Gladstone = up to $1.2 million
Gerten Pond = up to $1.0 million
Maplewood Mall area as part of White Bear Avenue = $1.0 million
Gethsemane Park = $400,000
Nature Center = cemetery purchase = approximately $200,000
Joy Park = $750,000
Lions Park = $500,000
Each of these projects requires funding and park resources to implement the improvements, and staff
resources to manage those facilities. It is staff recommendation that without outside funding, such as
provided in the East Metro Fire Training Facility proposal to the State of Minnesota, that the
Marshland’s proposal remain inactive.
Recommended Action
The City Council should provide staff direction on the Marshland’s project. At this point, staff is
recommending including Marshlands within the East Metro Fire Training Facility and working to
secure funding through the Fire Training proposal. A separate project is not recommended.
Attachments:
1. East Metro Fire Training Facility Concept
2. MnDOT Property Land Use Map
3
Key
A Training Building/Storage
Building
D. Burn Tower
E. Burn Building
F. Training Pond
A
B
C
D
E
F
0100200400 Feet
East Metro Training Facility
Site Plan Concept
City of Maplewood, MN
October 13, 2009
DIETER ST