HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 08-01 City Council/Manager Workshop PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15 P.M. Monday, August 1, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Review of Police Space Study Options
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Department Budget Presentations:
a. IT
b. Executive
c. Legislative
d. Community Development
e. Citizen Services
F. ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Work Session Agenda Item D1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Dave Thomalla, Police Chief
SUBJECT: Review Police Department Space Needs Options
DATE: July 26, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The City Council has authorized preparation of a study of space needs within the Police
Department. The architect performing the study, Larry Koch, of SEH, Inc. began providing a
summary of the findings and options for expanding the Police Department at the July 25th Work
Session and did not complete that presentation. This item will continue the review of the options
and costs, as well as include a discussion on project financing. Mr. Koch’s presentation will
include the following topics:
1. Review of New Building Costs
2. Review of Four Options for Expansion at Existing City Hall
3. Review of Financing Options
4. Questions / Discussion
The SEH representatives have spent a significant amount of time reviewing Police operations
and conducted a survey of personnel regarding the various needs of the various Police
functions. Attached are the four options that were distributed on July 25th. Additional options are
still being considered that will use more of existing City Hall, but further impact current
operations in Citizen Services and Park and Recreation, while requiring a full relocation of the
Community Development staff.
Also attached is probable estimate of the cost of the various options. These are ranges of costs
and not exclusively comparable, as noted below:
New Building; $13.9 - $16.5 million*
Option #1: $ 5.6 - $6.8 million [provides for 40 car indoor parking]
Option #2: $ 5.9 - $7.3 million [provides for 21 car indoor parking]
Option #3: $ 6.7 - $8.1 million [provides for 40-car indoor parking]
Option #4: $ 6.4 - $7.7 million [provides for 40-car indoor parking]
The intent of the work session is to review options. As noted, the most expensive area, because
of the overall space needed is the indoor parking area. Chief Thomalla will report that the
highest priority to address in space needs is locker room space as priority #1a and office space
as priority #1b. The addition of the parking, while very important adds nearly $3.0 million to the
overall project, and also provides for the ability to add a shooting range. Certainly, those
additions are part of the best long-term plan, and should be included in building planning, but as
we move through this discussion, may be part of a phasing plan.
Option #3 is the preferred plan by Chief Thomalla as it addresses the long-term needs. We will
review how Option #3 provides for future space requirements. As noted in each of the options,
areas of expansion are in general “pods” or expansion areas. Each of those could be phases as
we move into funding discussions.
Packet Page Number 1 of 68
POLICE SPACE NEEDS STUDY
PAGE TWO
Funding Discussion
As we continue our evaluation of the Council’s goal to look at facility needs, this type of expense
and improvement will need to be incorporated into the long-range planning. While not
specifically shown in the Capital Improvement Plan, the Council could consider that a $3.0 - $4.0
million expenditure occur in 2012 to 2013 to help address these needs. However, we would
need to set aside about $250,000 to $350,000 annually for 15 years to pay that type of debt. A
$7.5 million expenditure would require approximately $600,000 annually in debt service. The
larger discussion will need to center around a possible referendum for the police station. When
should that be done, if selected? And, how much of a referendum should be requested?
The intent of this work session is to review the options and for the Council to begin to provide
guidance on the direction of the expansion efforts. Do we continue to explore the full/best
expansion and consideration of a referendum? Or should we look at smaller scale
improvements that might be available in a reduced Option that minimize expenses with use of
existing space, but require more departmental relocations, and could possibly be financed with
CIP Bonds that would not require a referendum?
A CIP Bond can be issued by the Council for various types of public facility improvements, such
as City Hall, Fire Stations, Police Stations, or Public Works Buildings. These types of CIP Bonds
can be issued without a referendum if certain conditions are followed. First, the project must be
included within the Capital Improvement Plan. This project, as noted is not within the recently
adopted CIP. Second, the Council must hold a Public Hearing on the proposed improvement
project. Third, following the Public Hearing, a petition may be filed within 28 – 30 days by at
least 5% of the residents who voted in the previous election. If the petition is filed, then a
referendum must be held. If not petition is filed, then the City may issue CIP Bonds. The
limitation on the bonding is based upon a percentage of the market value of the City. Based on
current bonding rates, the City of Maplewood could issue up to $35 - $40 million of CIP Bonds
and still stay within statutory limitations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council discuss the issues of the Police Department space
needs and provide some input and guidance as to the direction for further analysis for either a
new Police Department Building or proceeding with an addition/re-modeling.
Attachments:
1. Option #1
2. Option #2
3. Option #2 – lower level
4. Option #3
5. Option #4
6. Probable Opinion of Cost
Packet Page Number 2 of 68
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 3 of 68
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 4 of 68
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 5 of 68
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 6 of 68
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 7 of 68
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 8 of 68
Work Session Agenda Item E1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Gayle Bauman, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: 2012 Budget – Review of 2012 Budget Requests
DATE: July 26, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The 2012 Budget process began in February 2011 with the goal setting of the Council – Staff
Retreat. In May 2011, the City Council adopted the 2012 – 2016 Capital Improvement Plan, which
began establishing capital expenditures for the 2012 Budget. The next step in the budget process
will be for the Council to begin to review the specific requests and establish a maximum levy that
will need to be adopted on September 12, 2011. The Council received a worksheet format for the
process as we review the various requests. The department presentations begin on August 1st and
will continue through August as follows:
Review of 2012 Budget Requests
The specific items will be reviewed in detail by Departments during August as follows:
o Aug 1: IT; Executive; Legislative; Community Development; Citizen Services
o Aug 8: Police; Fire; Finance
o Aug 22: Park/Recreation/MCC; Public Works
o Aug 29: Final Levy Discussion
• Note: the August 29th Work Session is a special Work Session due to the Labor Day
Holiday.
The Budget Review Spreadsheet is attached. It is suggested that the Council begin completing the
suggested adjustments within the open column as each area is addressed. The CIP items have
been previously reviewed as part of the CIP adoption, but will be reviewed in further detail on
August 29th as the Council moves toward a final levy amount.
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council complete the attached spreadsheet as the department
presentations and recommendations are reviewed during the August department sessions.
Packet Page Number 9 of 68
2011/2012 BUDGET DISCUSSION
PAGE TWO
2012 Budget Review Spreadsheet
Budget Area – Consideration Staff Recommend Council Decide
2011 Levy:
• General Fund $12,980,351
• Ambulance Service Fund $ 0
• Community Center Operations Fund $ 340,000
• Recreation Programs Fund $ 225,000
• Capital Improvements Projects Fund $ 0
• Fire Truck Replacement Fund $ 0
• Park Development Fund $ 0
• Redevelopment Fund $ 0
• Debt Service Fund $ 3,958,103
• TOTAL 2011 LEVY $ 17,503,454 $17,503,454
2012 Proposed Budget
From Capital Improvement Plan:
• Decrease Recreation Program Levy ($ 25,000) ____________
• Increase Community Center Levy $ 120,000 ____________
• Create a new Public Safety Levy $ 350,040 ____________
• Increase Debt Service Levy $ 250,000 ____________
• Increase CIP Levy for Police Expansion $ 150,000 ____________
• Increase CIP Levy for Park Replacement $ 95,000
• Increase CIP Levy for Other Capital Improv. $ 45,000
• Increase Fire Truck Replacement Levy $ 100,000 ____________
• Increase Levy for Public Safety CIP Bonds $ 0 ____________
General Fund Issues: [amounts being reviewed/subject to change]
• Set Fund Balance at 38.5% from 36.7% $ 100,000 ____________
• Contribute cash to Employee Benefit Fund $ 126,000 ____________
• Reduce 2012 department budget requests:
o Citizen Services $ 0 ____________
o Community Development $ (49,860) ____________
o Executive Department $ (24,210) ____________
o Finance Department $ 0 ____________
o Fire Department $ (114,520) ____________
o Legislative Department $ (8,850) ____________
o Parks Department $ 0 ____________
o Police Department $ (179,250) ____________
o Public Works Department $ (129,860) ____________
• Create a Tartan Arena Fund $ 50,000 ____________
• Maintain $20,000 to Taste of Maplewood $ 0 ____________
TOTAL 2012 MAXIMUM LEVY $ 18,357,944 ____________
• 2012 Percentage Increase 4.88% ____________
Packet Page Number 10 of 68
Agenda Item E1.a
1
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Antonen, City Manager
From: Mychal Fowlds, IT Director
Date: 7/28/2011
Re: 2012 Budget Presentation
2012 Budget Request
The IT Departments 2012 budget requests are fairly similar to previous years. We are requesting a
2012 budget of $754,230 which is a 1.1% increase from 2011. Roughly 75% of the IT budget is funded
by the General Fund with the other 25% coming from other internal funds. Currently we are exploring
other revenue sources which would reduce our impact on these funds in future years.
Brief Description of the Department
The IT Department as it is proposed in the 2012 budget consists of 4 full time employees and 3 part-
time video technicians. As you know, we’ve been down an employee for the past 5 years and this
budget assumes the hiring of the IT Technician position in 2011. With this addition, one of the larger
expenses in the IT Department budget will become personnel costs. We look to offset some of these
costs by the sharing of services agreement that has recently been approved.
Performance Measurements
Performance indicators for the IT Department are consistent with what you would imagine to see if your
workload continues to steadily increase, which it has and which we expect it to in the future, without any
additional staff. I believe the IT survey sent to City employees was the most telling. In short is showed
that City staff is disappointed by the length of time it takes to get assistance but once they get that
assistance they are very happy with it. We anticipate a large improvement to response times with the
hiring of the IT Technician position.
Where We Have Cutback – Where We Have Saved
With the economic conditions being what they have and continue to be we’re continuing to stretch out
our hardware replacements as long as we can wherever possible. Case in point, we currently have
budgeted replacement equipment for our core networking equipment at City Hall. If required to reduce
our budget we would look to cut those hardware replacements effectively leaving us more vulnerable to
outages. Our implementation of virtualization technology has reduced our hardware expenses allowing
us to absorb the costs from the ever increasing array of software applications throughout the City.
Packet Page Number 11 of 68
Work Session Agenda Item E1b
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: 2012 Budget Report – Executive Department
DATE: July 26, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Executive Department provides for the leadership of the City’s management staff in
implementing City Council policy. The Executive leadership is under the direction of the City
Manager with the assistance of the Assistant City Manager. Programs include the Legal
Division as well as the Human Resources Division. The Safety Program and Economic
Development Authority are also under this Department jurisdiction.
Budget Information
1. Budget Request
a. The 2012 Budget Request for the Executive Department is summarized as:
Program 2011 Original Budget 2012 Request % Change
Administration $351,090 $346,330 - 1.4%
Legal $329,370 $273,120 -17.1%
Safety Program $ 8,200 $ 9,000 + 9.8%
Human Resources $267,040 $267,970 + 0.4%
Econ Dev Auth $ 0 $ 3,200 N/A
TOTALS $955,700 $899,620 - 5.9%
b. The entire department is part of the General Fund / tax support.
c. Outside revenues are collected partially by the legal division through the City
Attorney as Court Fines and Penalties as follows:
1. 2008: $218,172
2. 2009: $205,491
3. 2010: $221,490
4. 2011 Est: $221,490
5. 2012 Budget: $225,000
d. The trend for the department expenditures over the past five years:
1. 2008: $915,578 [$278,491 paid to judgments]
2. 2009: $773,206
3. 2010: $783,066
4. 2011 Budget: $1,040,070 [$235,000 in legal contingency fund]
5. 2012 Request: $899,620
Packet Page Number 12 of 68
2012 BUDGET – EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
PAGE TWO
2. Brief Description of Department
a. Personnel
1. City Manager
2. 40% of Assistant City Manager’s time
3. Human Resources Coordinator
4. City Attorney
5. Senior Administrative Assistant
6. HR Attorney
b. The personnel in this department over the past five years has varied due to the
changes within the City Manager’s office. The 2008 Expenditures for City
Manager included only 5 months of Mr. Copeland, while Acting City Manager
Chuck Ahl was paid through the Public Works Department. Mr. Antonen began
in March 2009, at which point Mr. Ahl began working as the Assistant City
Manager. Other than these changes, the department has remained consistent in
personnel assigned to the tasks within this area.
c. Major Expenses within this department are for contractual City Attorney [proposed
at $210,000 in 2012 a $10,000 increase]; HR Attorney [proposed at $50,000 in
2012, a $30,000 decrease]; and an allocation for judgments and claims, which is
proposed at $50,000 [a reduction of $50,000 from 2011] for general claims; and
no contribution into the Legal Contingency Fund [a reduction of $135,000 from
the 2011 Budget.
3. Performance Measurements
a. As shown on the attached budget sheets, the work performance measurements
relate to the various tasks within the departments.
b. Some key trends show an increase in the number of prosecution cases opened
by the legal staff; a reduction in the work-related injuries reported and days lost to
injuries; a steady number of hiring procedures, and an increase in the number of
City News articles written by the Management Staff.
4. Reductions agreed to in the City Manager meetings
a. The proposed reduction amount is listed at $24,210. This amount is anticipated
to be part of a reduction in services contracted with HR Attorney Chuck Bethel.
Mr. Bethel currently is retained on a 1020 hours per year [half-time] basis and is
provided an office for two days per week at City Hall. The proposed reduction in
this contract would continue Mr. Bethel on retainer for one day per week during
the first 6 – 8 months of 2012; increasing to two days per week during the final
four months of 2012, when Union negotiations for 2013-2014 contracts are likely
to begin, where Mr. Bethel’s service is invaluable.
b. Service levels have been limited in the Executive Department because Mr. Ahl
has served as Finance Director, for a few months, as well as is currently and
projected to continue serving as Community Development Director during 2012.
This reduces the available time for the Assistant City Manager to provide special
task and Council initiative items to be explored.
Packet Page Number 13 of 68
2012 BUDGET – EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
PAGE THREE
5. Examples of something that has been changed due to budget constraints:
a. As noted above, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl is currently serving as
Community Development Director. This reduces the ability of the City’s
Administration to provide outside exploration of shared services, shared articles
and coordination of items with outside agencies that would provide for a future
emphasis on shared-services.
b. The funds available for City-wide expenses have been limited in the past 3-5
years due to the money put to liability and judgment claims. That need to
dedicate dollars to fund legal claims has limited growth and employment
opportunities within the City. That has improved in 2011 and into 2012 with the
reduction by LMCIT to $50,000 from a high of $200,000 in the City’s deductible
requirement on employment claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the reduction of $24,210 from the Executive
Department budget for 2012.
Attachments:
1. Organization Chart
2. Administration Budget Sheets
3. Legal Services Budget Sheets
4. Safety Program Budget Sheets
5. Human Resources Budget Sheets
Packet Page Number 14 of 68
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 15 of 68
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 16 of 68
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 17 of 68
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 18 of 68
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 19 of 68
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 20 of 68
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 21 of 68
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 22 of 68
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 23 of 68
Work Session Agenda Item E1c
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: 2012 Budget Report – Legislative Department
DATE: July 26, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Legislative Department provides for the leadership of the City through a budget for the City
Council and various Commissions. The only employees who are budgeted under this
department are the City Council members. Programs include the City Council; Business and
Economic Development Commission; Police Civil Service Commission; Park and Recreation
Commission; Planning Commission; Human Rights Commission and Charitable Gambling.
Budget Information
1. Budget Request
a. The 2012 Budget Request for the Legislative Department is summarized as:
Program 2011 Original Budget 2012 Request % Change
City Council $154,770 $161,060 + 4.1%
BEDC $ 320 $ 6,520 +1937%
Police Civil Service Comm $ 2,180 $ 2,180 + 0.0%
Park & Rec Comm $ 180 $ 250 + 39.0%
Planning Commission $ 1,070 $ 1,070 + 0.0%
Human Rights Comm $ 500 $ 500 + 0.0%
Charitable Gambling $ 25,120 $ 30 120 + 19.9%
TOTALS $184,140 $201,700 + 9.5%
b. The entire department is part of the General Fund / tax support, with the
exception of the Charitable Gambling Program, which is funded entirely by a
surcharge on charitable gambling programs.
c. There are no outside revenues other than Charitable Gambling funds.
d. The trend for the department expenditures over the past five years:
1. 2008: $153,933
2. 2009: $143,029
3. 2010: $144,741
4. 2011 Budget: $159,020
5. 2012 Request: $171,580
e. Charitable Gambling Expenditures over the past five years:
1. 2008: $39,895
2. 2009: $44,756
3. 2010: $20,919
4. 2011 Budget: $25,120
5. 2012 Request: $30,120
Packet Page Number 24 of 68
2012 BUDGET – LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
PAGE TWO
2. Brief Description of Department
a. Personnel
1. City Council
b. The personnel expense in this department over the past five years has remained
steady. The expenditure for Council salary was $62,469 in 2008 and is set at
$59,860 budgeted in 2011. The 2012 request includes an estimated 1% increase
in Council salary consistent with bargaining agreement contracts.
c. Major Expenses within this department are for subscriptions and memberships for
the City which is proposed at $40,000. This is down from a high of $47,499 in
2010. The other major expense is an allocation of funds for outside consultants
and service that the Council may use for special projects during the year. This
amount is proposed to be $22,000 in 2012, which is down from the $25,000
budgeted in 2011. Council travel and training is proposed to remain at $3,000
per member, or $15,000.
3. Performance Measurements
a. As shown on the attached budget sheets, the work performance measurements
relate to the various tasks within the departments.
b. No key trends are noted in this Department.
4. Reductions agreed to in the City Manager meetings
a. The proposed reduction amount is listed at $8,850. This amount is anticipated to
reduce the requested Council subscriptions and memberships budget by $5,000
and the allocation of Council consulting and service fees by $3,850.
b. Service levels have only been limited slightly in the Legislative Department by
reducing activities of the Commissions, such as reducing the extent of the
Planning Commission tour and outside events by Commissions. In addition,
special outside consulting and special studies by the Council have been limited.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the reduction of $8,850 from the Executive
Department budget for 2012.
Attachments:
1. Organization Chart
2. City Council Budget Sheets
3. BEDC Budget Sheets
4. Police Civil Service Program Budget Sheets
5. Park & Rec Commission Budget Sheets
6. Planning Commission Program Budget Sheets
7. Human Rights Commission Program Budget Sheets
8. Charitable Gambling Program Budget Sheets
Packet Page Number 25 of 68
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 26 of 68
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 27 of 68
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 28 of 68
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 29 of 68
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 30 of 68
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 31 of 68
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 32 of 68
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 33 of 68
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 34 of 68
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 35 of 68
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 36 of 68
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 37 of 68
Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 38 of 68
Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 39 of 68
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 40 of 68
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 41 of 68
Work Session Agenda Item E1d
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: 2012 Budget Report – Community Development Department
DATE: July 26, 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Community Development Department provides for the administration of the City’s Code and
State and Federal building codes. The Community Development leadership is under the
direction of the Assistant City Manager who is serving as the Acting Community Development
Director, as a cost saving measure. Programs include the Administration of Community
Development; Planning; Building Inspections; Public Health Inspections; Code Enforcement;
Recycling and a new program that has been transferred from Public Works to Community
Development in 2012, the Environmental Planning Program.
Budget Information
1. Budget Request
a. The 2012 Budget Request for the Community Development Department is
summarized as:
Program 2011 Original Budget 2012 Request % Change
Administration $268,600 $275,530 +2.6%
Planning $264,110 $250,640 -5.1%
Building Inspections $445,510 $480,410 + 7.8%
Public Health Inspections $ 52,900 $ 44,140 -16.6%
Code Enforcement $111,000 $ 94,160 -15.2%
Recycling $665,460 $656,630 -1.3%
Environmental Planning $ 0 $260,070 N/A
TOTALS $1,807,580 $2,061,580 14.1%
NOTE: The 2012 Request from Community Development without considering the switched
program is $1,801,510, or a $6,070 decrease [-.03%] from the approved 2011 Budget.
b. The entire department is part of the General Fund / tax support, with the
exception of the Recycling Program, which is paid for the Recycling Fees and
Grants and the Environmental Planning Program, which is paid for with fees
charged to residents on the EUF charge on the utility bills.
c. Outside revenues are collected by the building and planning division through the
Building Permit and Plan Review fees as follows:
1. 2008: $1,087,454
2. 2009: $874,371
3. 2010: $794,911
4. 2011 Est: $801,000
5. 2012 Budget: $825,000
Packet Page Number 42 of 68
2012 BUDGET – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PAGE TWO
d. The trend for the department expenditures over the past five years:
1. 2008: $1,685,640
2. 2009: $1,694,092
3. 2010: $1,615,716
4. 2011 Budget: $1,807,580 [$158,000 increase in Recycling Fund]
5. 2012 Request: $2,061,580 [includes new $260,070 Enviro. Planning]
6. 2012 Request: $1,801,510 [request w/o new program shift]
2. Brief Description of Department
a. Personnel
1. Asst. City Manager serves as Acting Community Development Director
2. Building Official
3. 3 Planners
4. Assistant Building Official and 2 Inspectors
5. Environmental Health Officer
6. Administrative Assistant – Office Specialists
b. The number of personnel in this department over the past five years has
declined. Two full-time positions of Inspector and of Code Enforcement have
been eliminated and the position of Director is being filled with the Assistant City
Manager. Other than these changes, the department has remained consistent in
personnel assigned to the tasks within this area.
c. Major Expenses within this department are for contractual electrical inspections,
which is a pass-through cost. A vast majority of the Recycling Program is
contractual expenses for the recycling collection service.
3. Performance Measurements
a. As shown on the attached budget sheets, the work performance measurements
relate to the various tasks within the departments.
b. Some key trends show a decrease in the number of permits issued since 2009 by
21%. It should be noted that the type of permit is more time intensive due to
remodeling efforts. A corresponding increase in code enforcement needs is also
a trend that this department has assumed.
4. Reductions agreed to in the City Manager meetings
a. The proposed reduction amount is listed at $49,860. This amount is anticipated
to be part of a change in applications for the Assistant Building Official. Nick
Carver is leading our Green Building Code efforts. It is proposed that 20% of his
time be part of the Environmental Planning Program in 2012, as Shann Finwall
assumes more recycling and organized collection duties, with the retirement of
Bill Priefer, who will not be replaced. This will reduce the programs reliance of
the general fund by $23,500. Other miscellaneous reductions total $14,500. A
final shift of administrative and salary expenses in 2012 resulting in employee
expenses is anticipated to save $11,630.
Packet Page Number 43 of 68
2012 BUDGET – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
PAGE THREE
b. Service levels have been limited in the Community Development Department
because of the staff reductions in inspection and code enforcement. Various
personnel now assume the code enforcement duties. As building activity
increases, the plan reviews and inspection activity are lengthened. In addition,
the planning duties have changed with new activities in economic development
and a transition to environmental duties.
5. Examples of something that has been changed due to budget constraints:
a. As noted above, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl is currently serving as
Community Development Director. This reduces the ability of the City’s
Community Development Department to evolve into the new areas that are
emerging in the environmental planning, energy reduction, economic
development and code enforcement. A new director would be charged with
revising this department to post-recession; and post-development department
goals that reflect a changed or changing Maplewood.
b. The funds available for code enforcement and inspections have been reduced
over the past five years. The Code Enforcement Officer position was eliminated
in a budget saving move. All those duties are now a shared responsibility added
onto a number of staff under the direction of the Chief Building Official. This
effort has continued to evolve and needs to increase as problem properties
remain a major concern within the City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the reduction of $49,860 from the Community
Development Department budget for 2012.
Attachments:
1. Organization Chart
2. Administration Budget Sheets
3. Planning Program Budget Sheets
4. Building Inspections Program Budget Sheets
5. Public Health Inspections Program Budget Sheets
6. Code Enforcement Program Budget Sheets
7. Recycling Program Budget Sheets
8. Environmental Planning Program Budget Sheets
Packet Page Number 44 of 68
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 45 of 68
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 46 of 68
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 47 of 68
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 48 of 68
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 49 of 68
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 50 of 68
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 51 of 68
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 52 of 68
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 53 of 68
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 54 of 68
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 55 of 68
Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 56 of 68
Attachment 7
Packet Page Number 57 of 68
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 58 of 68
Attachment 8
Packet Page Number 59 of 68
Agenda Item E1.e
MEMORANDUM
To: City Manager Antonen
Assistant City Manager Ahl
From: Karen Guilfoile, Citizen Services Director
Re: 2012 City Council Budget Presentation
Date: July 26, 2011
Following is information on the 2012 operating budget for the Citizens Service Department.
2011 2012
Budget Budget
Personnel Services $ 921,850 $ 854,080
Commodities 24,510 24,800
Contractual Services 229,760 188,280
Other Charges 0 0
Total $ 1,176,120 $ 1,067,160
Percent Change 4.3% -9.30%
2012 Budget Request
The submitted 2012 Budget was $33,520 under the 2012 Guideline Amount. The decrease in
the budget is partially due to the elimination of the Administrative Assistant position for the
Administrative Division and the change of operating hours in the Deputy Registrar Division
which resulted in a reduction of total personnel hours.
The entire Department is funded by the General Fund. Department revenues for the 2012
Budget for business licenses, motor vehicle, passport processing and advertising are estimated
at approximately $937,850.
Department Revenues have remained consistently steady over the last five years. Staff does
however; anticipate an increase of approximately $65,000 in 2012 in Motor Vehicle due to
legislation passed in 2011 increasing the motor vehicle registration and title transfer fees.
Brief Description of the Department
The Department includes the following Divisions: City Clerk Administration, Deputy Registrar,
and Elections. Included in City Clerk Administration is Marketing and Advertising. Also, the
Department manages the Taste of Maplewood and serves as staff liaison to the Human Rights
Commission. Personnel and related costs are 80.03% of the total budget.
Outside of when Citizen Services included Parks & Recreation and the MCC, the Department
has remained consistent in the number of personnel. In the 2012 budget however, there is a
decrease of 1.5 full-time equivalents in personnel.
Packet Page Number 60 of 68
Performance Measurements
Citizen Services is a customer service department that responds to the needs of constituents in
requesting data, meeting related information, business licenses, miscellaneous permits, motor
vehicle related transactions, marketing projects, Maplewood Monthly, the Recreation Brochure,
etc.
Department performance is measured by response times to requests, how many transactions
are performed from year to year, and obtaining revenue goals through services provided.
Reductions Agreed to in Budget Meetings with the City Manager
Due to cuts made, staffing changes and the reduction of office hours implemented in 2011, the
2012 submitted budget came in under the guideline amount.
Where We Have Cutback – Where We Have Saved
As previously mentioned, the Department Administrative Assistant position has been eliminated
in the 2012 budget. This has already been implemented as this employee was hired to fill a
vacated full-time position in Community Development.
Further cuts were made in temporary elections staff that assisted with absentee voting and
related election duties and a consultant that assisted with the Taste of Maplewood.
Attachment 1: Department Org Chart
Attachment 2: Administrative Program Budget Sheets
Attachment 3: Deputy Registrar Program Budget Sheets
Attachment 4: Election Program Budget Sheets
Packet Page Number 61 of 68
DMV/Passport
Office
Specialists &
Staff
Reception Desk
Office
Specialists
Election Judges
Business License
Specialist 50%
Lead Motor Vehicle
Clerk
Business
License
Specialist 50%
Citizen Services
Supervisor
Marketing and
Advertising
Coordinator
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
CITIZEN SERVICES
ORGANIZATION CHART
Citizens Services Director
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 62 of 68
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
2012 BUDGET
PROGRAM: ADMINISTRATION
101-301
DEPARTMENT: CITIZEN SERVICES
PROGRAM MISSION
To maintain accurate and complete permanent city records, to manage the issuance and processing of
business licenses and permits in a timely and efficient manner, produce the Maplewood Monthly to keep
the citizenry informed and provide marketing and advertising expertise to all city departments and to
oversee the general management to all department operations.
INPUTS 2009
Actual 2010
Actual 2011
Budget 2012
Budget
Direct Expenditures
Personnel Services $354,880 $370,165 $483,130 $430,110
Commodities 19,517 13,225 23,140 23,200
Contractual Services 96,902 91,557 216,550 174,520
Other Charges 6,636 6,411 0 0
Total $477,935 $481,358 $722,820 $627,830
Percent Change -7.7% 0.7% 50.2% -13.1%
Staff Hours
No. of Employees (FTE) 4.70 4.70 5.57 4.57
BUDGET COMMENTS
Decrease in 2012 budget is due to the elimination of the Administrative Assistant position. Included in
the administration budget is an allocation for the annual update to the city code of ordinance.
It is to be noted that the increase in the 2011 budget was due to the Marketing Division being moved to
the Citizen Services Administration budget which includes costs associated with the publication of the
Maplewood Monthly.
Marketing staff works closely with businesses in the community to secure ads and sponsorships in
educational brochures, Maplewood Monthly, flat screen, wristbands, and Recreation brochures helping
to reduce the cost of the program and the cost of the publication.
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 63 of 68
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
2012 BUDGET
PROGRAM: ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT: CITIZEN SERVICES
2009
Actual 2010
Actual 2011
Estimate 2012
Estimate
OUTPUTS/WORKLOAD
Agenda reports 603 632 620 630
Pages of minutes 517 549 550 560
Number of ordinances 8 15 9 8
Number of resolutions 307 298 280 290
Business licenses / permits /
registrations 2,287 2,124 2,250 2,000
Annual marketing agreements 20 20 15 10
Number of marketing projects 300 300 300 350
Testimonial marketing 8 8 8-10 8-10
EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS
Percentage of licenses, permits issued
by deadline 99% 99% 99% 99%
Maintain revenue sources 92% 94% 99% 99%
Percentage of marketing projects
completed 98% 98% 98% 98%
Testimonials used in marketing materials 70% 70% 80% 80%
Business contacts for the purpose of ad
revenue and partnerships 60% 60% 60% 80%
EFFICIENCY MEASURES
Revenue changes from previous year -1.19% 4.22% -6.01% 20%
Projects are completed on time and in a
professional manner 100% 100% 100% 100%
Testimonial marketing increases the
effectiveness of the promotion and
brings in additional revenue
70% 70% 70% N/A
COMMENTS
Administrative workload remains steady in all areas. Business licensing and permits numbers remain
consistent. Marketing projects have increased with the partnership of North St. Paul Community Center
and MCC programs.
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 64 of 68
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
2012 BUDGET
PROGRAM: DEPUTY REGISTRAR
101-303
DEPARTMENT: CITIZEN SERVICES
PROGRAM MISSION
To present a courteous, service-oriented team providing a high level of accuracy and efficiency.
INPUTS 2009
Actual 2010
Actual 2011
Budget 2012
Budget
Direct Expenditures
Personnel Services $369,078 $372,398 $380,490 $370,140
Contractual Services 2,412 2,870 3,540 4,690
Total $371,490 $375,268 $384,030 $374,830
Percent Change 4.2% 1.0% 2.3% -2.4%
Staff Hours
No. of Employees (FTE) 6.03 6.03 6.03 5.6
BUDGET COMMENTS
Decrease in personnel is due to reducing two part-time positions to one full-time position.
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 65 of 68
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
2012 BUDGET
PROGRAM: DEPUTY REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT: CITIZEN SERVICES
2009
Actual 2010
Actual 2011
Estimate 2012
Estimate
OUTPUTS/WORKLOAD
Number of motor vehicle
transactions 49,279 50,691 51,000 51,500
Number of driver’s license
transactions 19,287 19,481 21,000 21,000
Number of passports
processed 1,962 2,200 2,000 2,100
EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS
Initial accuracy rate on motor
vehicle reports reconciled 98% 98% 98% 98%
Initial accuracy rate on
driver’s license reports
reconciled
98% 98% 98% 98%
COMMENTS
Number of transactions remains steady in all areas of motor vehicle and DNR. Passport activity is
steadily increasing.
Driver’s license transactions continue to increase along with the number of motor vehicle transactions
due to outreach to auto dealers and financial institutions performing dealer work.
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 66 of 68
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
2012 BUDGET
PROGRAM: ELECTIONS
101-304
DEPARTMENT: CITIZEN SERVICES
PROGRAM MISSION
To manage all municipal, federal and state elections focusing on legal compliance and integrity.
INPUTS 2009
Actual 2010
Actual 2011
Budget 2012
Budget
Direct Expenditures
Personnel Services $55,004 $55,470 $58,230 $53,830
Commodities 1,726 2,322 1,370 1,600
Contractual Services 11,444 8,595 9,670 9,070
Total $68,174 $66,387 $69,270 $64,500
Percent Change -14.2% -2.6% 4.3% -6.9%
Staff Hours
No. of Employees (FTE) 0 0 0 0
BUDGET COMMENTS
No significant change in the Election Division budget in 2012.
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 67 of 68
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
2012 BUDGET
PROGRAM: ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT: CITIZEN SERVICES
2009
Actual 2010
Actual 2011
Estimate 2012
Estimate
OUTPUTS/WORKLOAD
Number of registered voters 22,658 23,764 25,000 27,000
Election judges trained 189 190 200 200
Number of ballots cast 6,062 14,355 7,000 26,000
Number of absentee ballots
transmitted 462 1,022 500 2,800
Number of absentee ballots
returned by voter 382 930 400 2,600
Number of absentee ballots
rejected 10 50 15 100
EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS
Percentage of eligible voters
registered to vote 19% 62% 17% 85%
COMMENTS
Increase in 2012 Outputs/Workloads is due to the Presidential Election cycle.
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 68 of 68