HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 08-29 City Council Workshop packetAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:15 P.M. Monday, August 29, 2011
Council Chambers, City Hall
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Trash Collection System Analysis – Review of Existing Open Trash Collection System
2. 2012 Budget - Final Levy Discussion
E. NEW BUSINESS
F. ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item D.1
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner on Behalf of the Trash Hauling
Working Group
SUBJECT: Trash Collection System Analysis – Review of Existing Open Trash
Collection System
DATE: August 24, 2011 for the August 29 City Council Workshop
BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2011, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to Organize Trash
Collection. The adoption of this resolution is required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 115A.94,
Subdivision 4 to begin the planning process for organized trash collection.
On April 25, 2011, the City Council approved a scope of work for the Trash Collection System
Analysis. The scope included the formation of a Trash Hauling Working Group to analyze trash
collection systems and update the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The Trash Hauling Working Group has been analyzing two areas of collection systems including
a contractual (organized) system and improvements to the city’s subscription (open) system.
Both systems will be reviewed by the City Council later this year prior to a decision on which
system would meet the City’s trash collection goals.
Contractual System
The analysis of a contractual system included the creation of a request for proposal (RFP) for
residential trash collection. The City Council authorized the release of the RFP on July 11,
2011. Proposals were due on August 19, 2011. The City has received six responses to the
RFP from the following trash haulers:
1. Allied Waste Services
2. Dick's Sanitation, Inc.
3. Highland Sanitation and Recycling
4. Tennis Sanitation, LLC
5. Walters Recycling and Refuse, Inc.
6. Waste Management
The Trash Hauling Working Group is analyzing and evaluating the proposals. The Working
Group will present a summary of the proposals and their recommendations to the City Council
on September 26, 2011.
Subscription System
The analysis of the subscription system includes reviewing the city’s solid waste management
ordinance and trash hauling licensing requirements.
Packet Page Number 1 of 33
2
Solid Waste Management Ordinance and Licensing Requirements
In 1995 and 1996 the City of Maplewood considered organized trash collection. Instead of
organizing trash collection, the City agreed to a counterproposal from the trash haulers to
institute restrictions within an open hauling system. On June 6, 1997, the City Council amended
the solid waste management ordinance and licensing requirements (Attachment 1). New
restrictions were added to the ordinance intended to help the City meet the trash collection
goals at the time. Following are the highlights the changes made:
Ordinance Highlights
• Residents must have trash collected from their property at least once a week from a
licensed trash hauler.
• Trash must be stored in a rodent-proof container.
• Recyclables must be placed on the curb for collection.
• Trash collection is limited to the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
Licensing Highlights
• All trash haulers are required to be licensed by the City.
• The yearly license fee is set by the City Council. The fee is currently $129 per year.
• The license runs from September to August of each year.
• The license application must include the following:
• Name and address
• A statement that the trash hauler will follow a long-range plan of disposal in
conformity with state pollution control agency regulations.
• Provide maps of service routes configured so that customers on load-sensitive
streets are among the first served on such routes.
• Haulers must comply with the following:
• Carry general and auto liability insurance.
• Pick up trash on day-certain trash pick-up routes (Attachment 2).
• Use tandem axels or flotation tires to reduce the per-axle weight of all trucks
used for collection.
• Provide collection carts or bins.
• Volume-based rates (30 gallon being the minimum).
• Provide collection of yard waste to customers upon their request.
• Provide special collection services within 24 hours of customer’s request.
• Provide special service collection for physical concerns.
• File all residential customer rates effective for the following year with the City.
• Amended rates must be filed within two weeks of any change.
• Penalty for noncompliance of ordinance and licensing requirements are as follows:
• Failure to comply with the ordinance and licensing requirements is grounds for
revocation of the license by the City Council.
Licensing Process
The City’s business licensing specialist processes license applications yearly. The licensing
specialist mails the license applications in August. Trash haulers then submit their license
applications, insurance information, and fee to the City for issuance of a license on September 1
of each year (Attachment 3).
Packet Page Number 2 of 33
3
In November, the licensing specialist mails a rate request letter to each hauler (Attachment 4).
The letter states that haulers are required to provide their volume-based rates to the City Clerk
on an annual basis for publication to the City’s residents (Attachment 5). The letter further
clarifies that the haulers should not include new customer rates or promotional rates.
It takes approximately two to four hours per year, per license to process each license based on
the current system. The license fee of $129 would cover City costs only if it took two hours or
less to process each license (using staff salary x three as a gauge).
Enforcement
There are several trash hauler licensing requirements that the City does not actively review and
enforce. As an example, the City does not verify that the rates submitted by the trash haulers is
the actual rate charged to the residents. Over the last few months Councilmember Nephew has
conducted his own independent study on trash hauling rates (Attachment 6). For base rates,
Councilmember Nephew found that on average Maplewood households are paying 11.03%
higher than the haulers’ reported rates to the City. If extra surcharges and fees applied to the
base rate by some haulers are included, Councilmember Nephew found that Maplewood
residents pay 25.59% more on average than the haulers’ reported rates. Councilmember
Nephew will present his findings during the August 29 workshop.
There are other requirements that are not currently being reviewed by the City including truck
axels, service route maps, offering of yard waste, offering of special collections, etc. The Trash
Hauling Working Group estimated that it would take an additional staff person one to four hours
per license to review all requirements of the ordinance prior to issuance of a license. It would
take an additional 24 to 96 hours per year for the City to enforce all requirements of the
ordinance including following up on rates, ensuring all trucks comply with requirements, and
processing hauler license revocations for noncompliance of the ordinance or licensing
requirements.
If the City did review and enforce the ordinance as described above, costs to the City over the
current $129 license fee is estimated to be an additional $15 to $303 per license for review, and
an additional $2,322 to $11,232 overall to enforce. The cost estimate is based on staff salary x
three as a gauge.
Surrounding Open Hauling Cities
The Trash Hauling Working Group reviewed the licensing requirements of Maplewood’s
adjacent open hauling cities including St. Paul, Oakdale, Woodbury, Newport, and Roseville. A
summary of all requirements follows:
• Require trash haulers to have a license - All
• Require residents to have their trash picked up by a licensed hauler - Oakdale,
Woodbury, Newport, Roseville
• Require day-certain trash pick-up routes – Oakdale, Woodbury, Newport, Roseville
• Require trash haulers to report rates to the city - All
• Require trash haulers to report rate changes throughout the year – St. Paul, Oakdale,
Roseville
• Trash hauling times vary for all cities (6 a.m. to 6 p.m., 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., 6 a.m. to 10
p.m., 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
• Violation of trash hauling ordinance and licensing requirements – all have some form of
license revocation process
Packet Page Number 3 of 33
4
Possible Improvements to Existing Trash Collection System
Following is a list of improvements that could be made to the City’s open hauling system to
meet the City’s trash collection goals and objectives:
• Increased review and enforcement of existing ordinance and licensing requirements to
include:
– monitoring rates
– enforcement of truck equipment and weight requirements
– enforcement of trash hauling pick-up times
– enforcement of noise and litter caused by haulers
– monitor yard waste and bulky item requirements
– monitor route maps
– other
• Increase licensing fee to cover increased review and enforcement as described above.
• Incremental fines and enforcement for violations of ordinance and licensing
requirements.
• Limit the number of trash hauling licenses issued in the City.
• Implement a pay as you throw trash collection system.
• Financial incentives to residents for reducing waste, similar to recycle banks.
• Education
Summary
Improvements to the City’s open trash collection system hoped for with the changes made to
the ordinance in 1997 were not fully realized. This is due in part because the trash haulers did
not comply or did not know the requirements prior to licensing. It is also a failure on the City’s
part not to have educated the trash haulers and residents on the requirements, and not to have
enforced the requirements. Therefore, in order to meet the current trash collection system goals
with changes to our existing ordinance and licensing requirements, the City would need to follow
through with an educational campaign on the changes and closely monitor and enforce the new
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Trash Hauling Working Group’s report on the City’s open (subscription) trash
collection system and offer comments and feedback.
Attachments
1. Maplewood Solid Waste Management Ordinance and Licensing Requirements
2. City Day-Certain Trash and Recycling Pick-Up Routes
3. Sample City Trash Hauling License Renewal Notice
4. Sample City Volume Based Rate Request
5. Maplewood’s Published Trash Hauler Rates
6. Resident Trash Bills in Current Open Hauling System (Report by Councilmember Nephew)
Packet Page Number 4 of 33
Attachment 1
Packet Page Number 5 of 33
Packet Page Number 6 of 33
Packet Page Number 7 of 33
Packet Page Number 8 of 33
Packet Page Number 9 of 33
Packet Page Number 10 of 33
Packet Page Number 11 of 33
Packet Page Number 12 of 33
Packet Page Number 13 of 33
\
\
S i l v e rL a k e
B e a v e rL a k e
3
M
L
a
k
e
L a k eP h a l e n
K e l l e rL a k e
G e r v a i sL a k e K o h l m a nL a k e
R
o
u
n
d
L
a
k
e
C
a
r
v
e
r
L
a
k
eTa n n e r ' sL a k e
456730
456768
456765
456725
456719 4567109
456723
456768
456768
456749 456727
456725
456743
4567107
456762
456772
456768
456722
456729
456725
456730
456758
456725
456719
456768
456728
456734
456730
456765
456723
456739
456731
456772
456725
£¤61
Æ%120
Æ%120
Æ%120
Æ%5
Æ%36
§¨¦494
§¨¦94
§¨¦35E
§¨¦694§¨¦694 §¨¦35E
Maplewood's Weekly Recycling
and Trash Pick Up Schedule
February, 2011
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Ensure recycle and trash are at curb by 7 a.m.
Questions regarding RECYCLING - contact Tennis Sanitation at 651.459.1887
Questions regarding TRASH - contact your Licensed Trash Hauler
Bill Priefer
Recycling Coordinator
651.249.2406
Larpenteur Ave
Attachment 2
Packet Page Number 14 of 33
Attachment 3
Packet Page Number 15 of 33
Attachment 4
Packet Page Number 16 of 33
\\mw-remote\mwdfsys\Pri_Data\WORKS\ENVIRONMENTAL\Trash Hauling\2011 Maplewood Trash Hauling Rates
(Revised).doc
City of Maplewood
Rubbish Haulers
January to December 2011
Residential Volume Based Rates
As stated in Maplewood Ordinance No. 771, Section 30.48, Garbage, Refuse and Other Solid
Wastes, haulers are required to provide their rates to the City Clerk on an annual basis. In the event
rates change during the calendar year, the City Clerk is to be notified by the Hauler within two weeks
prior to any change.
RUBBISH HAULER
Container Sizes May Vary by Company
30 Gallons 60 Gallons 90 Gallons
Less than 30
Gallons
Allied Waste Services (BFI) 14.75 (35 gal.) 15.00 (68 gal.) 16.00 (95 gal.) Not Available
Gene’s Disposal Service 12.31 (38 gal.) 13.85 (65 gal) 15.39 (95 gal) Call in
Highland Sanitation 13.00 15.00 17.00 Call in
Maroney’s Sanitation, Inc. 15.63 (38 gal.)20.29 21.53 Call in
Tennis Sanitation, LLC
(updated 5-27-11)
12.55 13.55 15.55 4.50
Veolia Environmental
Services
12.25 (35 gal.) 14.25 (64 gal.) 16.25 (96 gal.) Not Available
Waste Management of
Minnesota
15.00 (32 gal.) 16.00 (64 gal.) 17.00 (96 gal.) Not Available
Walters Recycling &
Transfer Station
16.00 17.00 18.00 Call in
Price per month does not include additional surcharges or taxes.
Attachment 5
Packet Page Number 17 of 33
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
FROM: John Nephew, Councilmember
SUBJECT: Resident Trash Bills in Current Open Hauling System
DATE: August 24, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Maplewood's solid waste ordinance requires licensed haulers to report their rates to the city on an
annual basis, and to notify the city in advance of rate increases. I have found that the actual rates paid
by residents vary quite a bit, and are in some cases considerably higher than hauler-reported rates. In
addition, many haulers apply additional surcharges and fees. Current city policy and ordinances do not
ask haulers to report these added charges, which may be introduced or changed at a hauler's discretion.
On April 25th, I made a council presentation on the topic of trash bills and surcharges. In the same
presentation, I asked residents to send me copies of their recent trash bills, so that I could get a better
handle on what residents are actually paying. I also sent a request by e-mail to every resident who had
contacted me on this subject, including hundreds of residents who had sent NSWMA-paid postcards to
the city last year and included a legible e-mail address in their contact information.
This report is intended to share and analyze the information I have gathered, to provide the city council
with a more accurate picture of the fees actually paid by Maplewood residents for trash hauling service.
Note: In the digital (PDF) version of this report, underlined text indicates a
hyperlink to a web page for citation or further information.
RAW DATA
A total of 55 individual bills/invoices or sets of bills have been provided to me so far. I have digitized
all of these bills, blacked out personally identifying information, and placed them in a publicly
accessible directory on my personal website. (If I receive more example bills, I will upload them here
as well.) To view all of the individual bills, use this URL:
http://www.johnnephew.com/garbage/bills/
In most cases these are single-family homes with individual trash arrangements. In some cases a
household provided me with multiple example bills spanning a period of months or years. I also have
included a couple of examples of bills from homeowner associations. Though such associations may
not be covered if we adopt organized collection, I think it may still be interesting to compare their
arrangements to the single-family homes.
I obtained examples of bills from seven of the eight licensed haulers that serve residential customers in
general in Maplewood. In addition, I obtained one example of a bill from an unlicensed hauler serving
a Maplewood household.
The table on the following page presents a summary of all 55 sets of bills.
Report on Maplewood Trash Bills, page 1
Attachment 6
Packet Page Number 18 of 33
Report on Maplewood Trash Bills, page 2
Summary of All Bills
All figures are adjusted to a per-month basis regardless of billing period
Hauler Date/Period
1 Hauler A 02/11-04/11 90 gal $16.25 $28.00 $4.24 $0.98 $33.23 72.31% 104.47%
2 Hauler B 04/11-05/11 90 gal $17.00 $28.10 $7.03 $1.50 $36.63 65.29% 115.44%
3 Hauler C 04/11-05/11 60 gal $15.00 $25.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25.00 66.67% 66.67%
4 Hauler D 03/11-04/11 90 gal $15.05 $15.55 $0.85 $0.00 $16.40 3.32% 8.97%
5 Hauler B 03/11-05/11 90 gal $17.00 $14.00 $2.66 $0.00 $16.66 -17.65% -2.02%
6 Hauler C 05/11-07/11 60 gal $15.00 $12.50 $0.00 $0.00 $12.50 -16.67% -16.67%*
7 Hauler E 05/11-06/11 90 gal $16.00 $20.50 $4.93 $0.00 $25.43 28.13% 58.91%
8 Hauler B 05/11-07/11 60 gal $16.00 $18.50 $4.81 $1.00 $24.31 15.63% 51.96%
9 Hauler D 03/11-04/11 60 gal $13.05 $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40 3.83% 10.34%
10 Hauler D 02/11-03/11 30 gal $12.05 $12.55 $0.85 $0.00 $13.40 4.15% 11.20%
11 Hauler D 04/11-05/11 60 gal $13.05 $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40 3.83% 10.34%
12 Hauler D 03/11-04/11 30 gal $12.05 $12.05 $0.85 $0.00 $12.90 0.00% 7.05%
13 Hauler C 05/11-07/11 60 gal $15.00 $17.25 $0.00 $0.00 $17.25 15.00% 15.00%
14 Hauler B 03/11-05/11 90 gal $17.00 $16.00 $4.17 $0.00 $20.17 -5.88% 18.65%*
15 Hauler D 03/11/04/11 90 gal $15.05 $15.55 $0.85 $0.00 $16.40 3.32% 8.97%
16 Hauler D 04/01/11 30 gal $12.05 $12.05 $0.85 $0.00 $12.90 0.00% 7.05%
17 Hauler C 05/11-07/11 90 gal $17.00 $18.50 $0.00 $0.00 $18.50 8.82% 8.82%
18 Hauler C 04/11-05/11 60 gal $15.00 $10.50 $0.00 $0.00 $10.50 -30.00% -30.00%
19 Hauler D 10/10-11/10 60 gal $13.05 $13.05 $0.85 $0.00 $13.90 0.00% 6.51%
20 Hauler A 05/11-07/11 90 gal $16.25 $30.00 $5.24 $0.98 $36.22 84.62% 122.91%
21 Hauler D 12/10-01/11 60 gal $13.05 $13.05 $0.85 $0.00 $13.90 0.00% 6.51%
22 Hauler D 03/11-04/11 90 gal $15.05 $14.55 $0.00 $0.00 $14.55 -3.32% -3.32%*
23 Hauler D 01/11-02/11 90 gal $15.05 $14.55 $0.85 $0.00 $15.40 -3.32% 2.33%
24 Hauler E 04/11-05/11 30 gal $14.75 $16.50 $7.53 $0.00 $24.03 11.86% 62.92%
25 Hauler C 04/11-05/11 30 gal $13.00 $15.25 $0.00 $0.00 $15.25 17.31% 17.31%
26 Hauler E March 2011 60 gal $15.00 $15.84 $3.80 $0.15 $19.79 5.63% 31.96%*
27 Hauler E 05/11-06/11 60 gal $15.00 $17.00 $4.09 $0.00 $21.09 13.33% 40.57%
28 Hauler D 04/11-05/11 60 gal $13.05 $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40 3.83% 10.34%
29 Hauler D 03/11-04/11 60 gal $13.05 $12.55 $0.00 $0.00 $12.55 -3.83% -3.83%
30 Hauler D 03/11-04/11 60 gal $13.05 $13.05 $0.85 $0.00 $13.90 0.00% 6.51%
31 Hauler A 02/11-04/11 90 gal $16.25 $14.00 $2.12 $0.98 $17.10 -13.85% 5.25%
32 Hauler D 03/11-04/11 60 gal $13.05 $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40 3.83% 10.34%
33 Hauler E 05/11-06/11 90 gal $16.00 $17.75 $4.26 $0.00 $22.01 10.94% 37.56%
34 Hauler A 05/11-07/11 30 gal $12.25 $14.00 $2.45 $0.98 $17.43 14.29% 42.29%
35 Hauler E 05/11-06/11 60 gal $15.00 $28.38 $6.81 $0.00 $35.19 89.17% 134.57%
36 Hauler E 04/11-05/11 90 gal $16.00 $15.75 $3.60 $0.00 $19.35 -1.56% 20.94%
37 Hauler B 05/11-06/11 90 gal $17.00 $18.48 $4.81 $0.00 $23.29 8.71% 36.97%
38 Hauler E 04/11-05/11 60 gal $15.00 $19.50 $4.45 $0.00 $23.95 30.00% 59.67%
39 Hauler D 04/11-05/11 30 gal $12.05 $12.55 $0.85 $0.00 $13.40 4.15% 11.20%
40 Hauler E 05/11-06/11 90 gal $16.00 $17.00 $4.09 $0.00 $21.09 6.25% 31.78%
41 Hauler F 01/11-03/11 30 gal $12.31 $17.37 $0.00 $0.00 $17.37 41.08% 41.08%
42 Hauler D 05/11-06/11 60 gal $13.05 $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40 3.83% 10.34%
43 Hauler D 04/11-05/11 60 gal $13.05 $11.52 $0.72 $0.00 $12.24 -11.76% -6.25%
44 Hauler B 06/01/11 60 gal $16.00 $13.81 $3.58 $0.00 $17.39 -13.69% 8.67%
45 Hauler D 05/11-06/11 90 gal $15.05 $15.50 $0.85 $0.00 $16.35 2.99% 8.64%
46 Hauler E 10/15/10 30 gal $14.75 $12.00 $2.26 $0.00 $14.26 -18.64% -3.32%
47 Hauler A 03/11-05/11 60 gal $14.25 $19.00 $2.99 $0.98 $22.97 33.33% 61.22%
48 Hauler G 07/11-08/11 30 gal $15.63 $15.63 $0.63 $0.00 $16.26 0.00% 4.00%
49 Hauler F 07/01/11 30 gal $12.31 $18.06 $0.00 $0.00 $18.06 46.71% 46.71%
50 Hauler G 03/11-04/11 30 gal $15.63 $15.63 $0.63 $0.00 $16.26 0.00% 4.00%
51 Hauler D 05/11-06/11 60 gal $13.05 $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40 3.83% 10.34%
52 OTHER 12/01/10 60 gal n/a $15.50 $0.00 $0.00 $15.50 n/a n/a*
53 Hauler E 05/11-06/11 90 gal $16.00 $17.00 $5.91 $0.00 $22.91 6.25% 43.16%
54 Hauler A 7/11-9/11 90 gal $16.25 $14.20 $0.00 $0.00 $14.20 -12.62% -12.62%
55 Hauler F April 2011 unknown unknown $10.71 $0.00 $0.00 $10.71 n/a n/a*
11.03% 25.59%
NOTES:
6 Self-organized neighborhood
14
22 New Customer w/2yr contract
26
52
55
Inv #
Container
Class
Hauler
Reported
Base Rate
Actual Bill
Base Rate
Fuel and/or
Enviro.
Surcharge
Admin
Fee
Total
Excluding
Tax
Actual Base
Versus
Reported
Base
Total Versus
Reported
Base
AVERAGE – excluding unlicensed and townhomes
Online bill, gets every third month free
Townhome Ass'n, 13 homes
Hauler is not licensed in Maplewood
Townhome Ass'n, per household
Packet Page Number 19 of 33
•Haulers are identified by letter (“Hauler A,” etc.). I assigned letters simply based on the order
in which I obtained examples of their bills.
•When I received multiple examples from the same household, the bill I include in the table is
the most recent.
•Actual container sizes vary among haulers; the “30 gallon” class of container, for example, may
have an actual volume of 30 to 38 gallons.
•In addition to their base charge for service, some but not all haulers have a fuel surcharge line
item. Some have a line that is both for fuel and “environmental” surcharges or fees. Some have
an additional line for an administrative fee, which appears to be charged to some customers who
receive paper bills. These surcharges and fees are not always applied to all customers.
•For this table, I omit any special or one-time charges (late fees, yard waste, bulky items, extra
bags, etc.). Later in this report I summarize the limited examples I have of these charges.
•I have not included taxes on this table. Taxes should be applied to the total of hauler fees (their
base charge, any fuel and/or environmental surcharges, and any administrative fee), and consist
of the 28% Ramsey County Environmental Charge and the 9.75% Minnesota Solid Waste
Management Tax. Exceptions appear to be errors. (Examples: on Invoice 28, the customer's
extra trash bags appear to have been mistakenly coded as subject to Washington County's CEC;
Invoice 46 includes the state tax but omits the county.)
•I calculate each customer's total monthly trash bill, excluding tax.
•“Actual Base Versus Reported Base” is a calculation of the percentage difference between what
this customer is paying and what their hauler reported to the city at the start of 2011 as their
official basic rate for service of this size container. (Note that one hauler, Hauler D, updated
their rate report mid-year to reflect a 50-cent-per-month increase that took affect early in the
year. I am, however, using their original reported rates, because when most of these bills were
issued those were the rates still on file at the city.)
•The next column, “Total Versus Reported Base,” tells us the percentage difference between all
the hauler's charges combined and that basic rate reported to the city.
•At the bottom of the table, I calculate the average percentage difference between what people
pay and what the haulers report. The calculation excludes the two townhome associations, and
the one unlicensed hauler (since there's no reported rate to compare to). It does include non-
association neighborhood groups that have banded together to negotiate a lower rate for a
number of households, since that is in theory a strategy available to any home in Maplewood.
(A resident who chooses not to work with their neighbors to find a lower price is going to pay
more just like a resident who chooses not to monitor their bills, compare rates, negotiate, and
frequently change haulers to obtain the best current rate.)
For base rates, I found that on average, Maplewood households are paying 11.03% higher rates than
what the haulers report to the city. The difference ranges from 30% less than the reported rate on one
extreme, to 89% more on the other.
If you add in the extra surcharges and fees applied to basic trash service by some haulers, Maplewood
residents pay 25.59% more on average than the rates their haulers reported to the city at the beginning
of the year. Individual bills range from 30% less than the reported rate to, on the other end, a resident
who is charged 135% more than the rate his hauler reports to the city.
Report on Maplewood Trash Bills, page 3
Packet Page Number 20 of 33
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: RATE REPORTING
As we consider the current open hauling system and potential improvements, one question we should
ask is whether haulers comply with the current ordinance and, if not, what are the consequences.
Before investigating, my assumption was that the rates reported to the city were the basic rates
available to anyone, and that individual consumers might negotiate a better rate (for example, to match
a competitor's offer). I found this not to be the case; in a majority of bills, the resident is paying a
higher base rate (not including fuel surcharges, etc.) than was reported as the official rate to the city.
I obtained example bills from seven of the eight residential haulers that serve Maplewood residents at
large. (A ninth only serves a couple of specific homeowner associations). Six of the seven haulers
were not in compliance with the rate reporting ordinance , in that either the base rate reported to the
city did not correspond to the higher base rate actually charged to some customers; or they
implemented a rate increase without the advance notice to the city required by ordinance; or both.
As staff has explained, there is no significant effort to enforce our ordinance with respect to rates.
Under current ordinance, the only penalty available to the city council is to revoke a hauler's license.
RATES BY CONTAINER SIZE
The following tables summarize prices paid for the three standard container sizes, with bills sorted
from least to greatest total monthly cost. I have omitted the townhome associations.
Report on Maplewood Trash Bills, page 4
Rates by Container Size: 30-38 Gallon
Inv # Hauler
12 Hauler D 30 gal $12.05 $0.85 $0.00 $12.90
16 Hauler D 30 gal $12.05 $0.85 $0.00 $12.90
10 Hauler D 30 gal $12.55 $0.85 $0.00 $13.40
39 Hauler D 30 gal $12.55 $0.85 $0.00 $13.40
46 Hauler E 30 gal $12.00 $2.26 $0.00 $14.26
25 Hauler C 30 gal $15.25 $0.00 $0.00 $15.25
48 Hauler G 30 gal $15.63 $0.63 $0.00 $16.26
50 Hauler G 30 gal $15.63 $0.63 $0.00 $16.26
41 Hauler F 30 gal $17.37 $0.00 $0.00 $17.37
34 Hauler A 30 gal $14.00 $2.45 $0.98 $17.43
49 Hauler F 30 gal $18.06 $0.00 $0.00 $18.06
24 Hauler E 30 gal $16.50 $7.53 $0.00 $24.03
AVERAGE $14.47 $1.41 $0.08 $15.96
Container
Class
Actual Bill
Base Rate
Fuel and/or
Enviro.
Surcharge
Admin
Fee
Total
Excluding
Tax
Packet Page Number 21 of 33
Report on Maplewood Trash Bills, page 5
Rates by Container Size: 60-68 Gallon
Inv # Hauler
18 Hauler C 60 gal $10.50 $0.00 $0.00 $10.50
43 Hauler D 60 gal $11.52 $0.72 $0.00 $12.24
6 Hauler C 60 gal $12.50 $0.00 $0.00 $12.50
29 Hauler D 60 gal $12.55 $0.00 $0.00 $12.55
19 Hauler D 60 gal $13.05 $0.85 $0.00 $13.90
21 Hauler D 60 gal $13.05 $0.85 $0.00 $13.90
30 Hauler D 60 gal $13.05 $0.85 $0.00 $13.90
9 Hauler D 60 gal $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40
11 Hauler D 60 gal $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40
28 Hauler D 60 gal $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40
32 Hauler D 60 gal $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40
42 Hauler D 60 gal $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40
51 Hauler D 60 gal $13.55 $0.85 $0.00 $14.40
52 OTHER 60 gal $15.50 $0.00 $0.00 $15.50
13 Hauler C 60 gal $17.25 $0.00 $0.00 $17.25
44 Hauler B 60 gal $13.81 $3.58 $0.00 $17.39
27 Hauler E 60 gal $17.00 $4.09 $0.00 $21.09
47 Hauler A 60 gal $19.00 $2.99 $0.98 $22.97
38 Hauler E 60 gal $19.50 $4.45 $0.00 $23.95
8 Hauler B 60 gal $18.50 $4.81 $1.00 $24.31
3 Hauler C 60 gal $25.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25.00
35 Hauler E 60 gal $28.38 $6.81 $0.00 $35.19
AVERAGE $15.52 $1.60 $0.09 $17.21
Container
Class
Actual Bill
Base Rate
Fuel and/or
Enviro.
Surcharge
Admin
Fee
Total
Excluding
Tax
Rates by Container Size: 90-98 Gallon
Hauler
54 Hauler A 90 gal $14.20 $0.00 $0.00 $14.20
22 Hauler D 90 gal $14.55 $0.00 $0.00 $14.55
23 Hauler D 90 gal $14.55 $0.85 $0.00 $15.40
45 Hauler D 90 gal $15.50 $0.85 $0.00 $16.35
4 Hauler D 90 gal $15.55 $0.85 $0.00 $16.40
15 Hauler D 90 gal $15.55 $0.85 $0.00 $16.40
5 Hauler B 90 gal $14.00 $2.66 $0.00 $16.66
31 Hauler A 90 gal $14.00 $2.12 $0.98 $17.10
17 Hauler C 90 gal $18.50 $0.00 $0.00 $18.50
36 Hauler E 90 gal $15.75 $3.60 $0.00 $19.35
14 Hauler B 90 gal $16.00 $4.17 $0.00 $20.17
40 Hauler E 90 gal $17.00 $4.09 $0.00 $21.09
33 Hauler E 90 gal $17.75 $4.26 $0.00 $22.01
53 Hauler E 90 gal $17.00 $5.91 $0.00 $22.91
37 Hauler B 90 gal $18.48 $4.81 $0.00 $23.29
7 Hauler E 90 gal $20.50 $4.93 $0.00 $25.43
1 Hauler A 90 gal $28.00 $4.24 $0.98 $33.23
20 Hauler A 90 gal $30.00 $5.24 $0.98 $36.22
2 Hauler B 90 gal $28.10 $7.03 $1.50 $36.63
AVERAGE $18.16 $2.97 $0.23 $21.36
Inv #
Container
Class
Actual Bill
Base Rate
Fuel and/or
Enviro.
Surcharge
Admin
Fee
Total
Excluding
Tax
Packet Page Number 22 of 33
As can easily be seen in these tables, different customers of the same hauler can pay wildly different
amounts for the same service under the present system.
ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE: VOLUME-BASED PRICING
Our current ordinance mandates volume-based pricing: “That part of the price for service based on the
disposal charge shall be proportionately different for the three volumes of waste collection service.”
Looking at the rates, it's true that the average (mean) increases with the larger volume containers.
However, when you look at the range of prices, they overlap.
Even more striking, the median rate actually paid for 60-gallon containers is lower than the median rate
for 30-gallon containers! The sample is small enough that this may just be statistical noise. However,
anecdotally, some residents have told me that when they asked their hauler about a smaller container,
they were offered a lower price and the same container.
Take a look at several bills of Hauler E: On Invoice 24, a resident with this hauler is paying $24.03 per
month for a 30-gallon container; on Invoice 27, another resident is paying the same hauler $21.09 per
month for a 60-gallon container; and on Invoice 36, a third resident with the very same hauler is paying
even less, $19.35 per month, for a 90-gallon container.
The rates reported to the city by the haulers comply with our ordinance on volume-based pricing.
However, it appears that the rates actually charged to Maplewood residents do not.
HAULER RATE INCREASES IN THE OPEN SYSTEM
A frequent comment I've heard from people opposed to organized collection is the claim that prices will
increase if the government gets involved. Of course, prices can and do increase under the current
system. The pricing formula set out in our RFP does allow for annual price changes over the term of a
contract, but those changes are tied to specific objective data: the consumer price index, a diesel fuel
index, and the actual cost of tipping fees. In contrast, prices at the present time are set entirely at the
discretion of the hauler, who may or may not link them in some way to objective economic data or
actual costs in providing the service, or may cloak them in deceptive terms (as I discussed in my April
25th presentation) so as to throw off the scent of bargain-hunting consumers.
To illustrate how it works in the current system, let me refer you to a set of bills from a single
Maplewood household (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). This household has used the same hauler and the
same container size (35 gallons), so it gives us an apples-to-apples comparison across four years. It's
also notable that their hauler, “Hauler D,” appears to have relatively little pricing variation across their
customer base.
Here is a table of the per-month prices charged to this customer by “Hauler D” across four years,
excluding taxes:
Year Base Charge Fuel Surcharge Total Total Increase
2008 $9.55 n/a $9.55
2009 $10.55 $0.65 $11.20 17.28%
2010 $12.05 $0.85 $12.90 15.18%
2011 $12.55 $0.85 $13.40 3.88%
Report on Maplewood Trash Bills, page 6
Packet Page Number 23 of 33
Perhaps it's coincidence, but I find it interesting that after Maplewood began seriously discussing
organized collection in late 2010, the next year's price increase was single-digit rather than double-
digit.
To put these hauler price increases in context, consider what inflation has been like over these years in
general terms and also specific to diesel fuel. Here is a table comparing those increases to the CPI1 and
average diesel prices2.
Year Hauler Price
Increase Inflation (CPI)Diesel
Price/Gallon
Diesel Price
Change
2008 0.00%4.10%$2.89
2009 17.28%0.10%$3.80 31.82%
2010 15.18%2.70%$2.47 -35.13%
2011 3.88%1.50%$2.99 21.28%
Diesel prices rocketed up almost 32% across 2008, leading this hauler to impose a fuel surcharge of 65
cents per month in 2009. The following year, when diesel prices dropped more 35% – and in fact
averaged about 15% less than before the fuel surcharge was imposed – “Hauler D” did not reduce or
eliminate their fuel surcharge. On the contrary, they increased the fuel surcharge by 20 cents a month,
or nearly 31%! Last year diesel prices rebounded (ending up slightly higher than they were before the
fuel surcharge was imposed), and the fuel surcharge was held flat.
Looking at general inflation, the difference between the hauler price increases and the consumer is
breathtaking: They've increased prices by 2.6 to 173 times the rate of inflation each year. If the total
price had increased only in line with inflation, the customer would be paying around $10.02 today, not
$13.403.
In evaluating Maplewood's current open hauling system and comparing it to an organized system in
economic terms, we should be aware of not only the current costs but also the prospect of shielding
residents from arbitrary future price increases that may, as in the past, far exceed the changes in general
inflation or the cost of fuel.
FEES FOR EXTRA SERVICES
Finally, several of the bills include additional charges for various added or one-time services. This is
obviously a very limited sample, but may be helpful as points of reference:
•Bulky Item: As an example charge for an additional bulky item, Invoice 50b includes a $10
charge for a carpet that the customer threw away.
•Extra Bags: The customer on Invoice 28 was charged $18.00 for nine extra bags of trash in the
previous month.
1 Using December-to-December comparisons for the period just ended; i.e., the 2011 number is the inflation figure for
December 2010 over December 2009.
2 Using the U.S. Energy Information Administration's annual average prices per gallon for “Diesel (On Highway) – All
Types” for the previous year, so the prices listed were the averages in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
3 According to the BLS Inflation Calculator, $9.55 in 2008 dollars is equivalent to $10.02 in 2011.
Report on Maplewood Trash Bills, page 7
Packet Page Number 24 of 33
•Finance Charge: Invoice 4 has a 1.5% finance charge applied on a late/missed payment.
•Yard Waste: Three example bills include yard waste, giving us some idea of the current range
of prices for this service. Invoice 27c has a $95 charge for the season; a handwritten note on
Invoice 53 indicates that the household paid $112.34 for 7 months of yard waste pick-up on
their previous bill; and Invoice 54c shows a yard waste charge of $159.57 for the season.
RECOMMENDATION
If we do not adopt an organized collection plan, I believe we should amend our ordinance to more
effectively implement rate reporting and volume-based pricing.
I suggest that rates should be required to include any surcharges or added fees that are applied to basic
service, such as fuel surcharges. These charges are ultimately just another hauler revenue source, and
can represent a significant portion of a trash bill (especially since they are subject to the same taxes as
the base rate). If the point of rate reporting is to enable our residents to easily compare their choices, we
should require this information to be submitted.
The current rate reporting forms clearly request standard rates, not special or introductory rates.
However, many residents are charged substantially more, and in at least one instance a resident told me
that when he inquired about the rates on the city website, he was told that those were only for new
customers. Similarly, the ordinance is clear about volume-based pricing, because of the public interest
and need to reduce the volume of trash, yet there is a disconnect between price and volume out in the
marketplace.
If we have an interest in effectively enforcing the ordinance, I think we need a range of incremental
penalties short of the suspension and revocation of license that is now the only remedy at hand. If the
council wishes to retain the open hauling system, I recommend that we direct staff and legal counsel to
research and report back to us on what other penalties we might write into the ordinance so that there
would be actual consequences to breaking the city's rules, and better compliance.
Report on Maplewood Trash Bills, page 8
Packet Page Number 25 of 33
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Packet Page Number 26 of 33
Work Session Agenda Item D2
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jim Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Gayle Bauman, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: 2012 Budget – Review of Final Levy Spreadsheet
DATE: August 23, 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 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 began on August 1st and continued through August as follows:
Review of 2012 Budget Requests
Specific budgets were presented and reviewed by Departments Heads:
o Aug 1: IT; Executive; Legislative; Community Development; Citizen Services
o Aug 8: Police; Fire; Finance
o Aug 22: Park/Recreation/MCC; Public Works
2012 Budget Review Spreadsheet
An updated Budget Review Spreadsheet [the infamous “Page 10”] was provided to the Council
prior to the August 22nd Council Meeting and is reviewed below with the recommendations from
staff as originally recommended and then the first revision, which reflects the current staff
recommendation. An explanation of the staff rationale is included for Council consideration. It is
suggested that the Council jointly complete the suggested adjustments within the open column as
each area is addressed.
Budget Area – Consideration Staff Recommend First Revision Council Decide
2011 Levy:
• General Fund $12,980,351
• Ambulance Service Fund $ 0
• Community Center Fund $ 340,000
• Recreation Programs Fund $ 225,000
• Cap. Improve Projects Fund $ 0
• Fire Truck Fund $ 0
• Park Development Fund $ 0
• Redevelopment Fund $ 0
• Debt Service Fund $ 3,958,103
• TOTAL 2011 LEVY $ 17,503,454 $17,503,454 $17,503,454
Staff Explanation: The basis of each year’s budget begins with the previous year’s levy.
Adjustments in both dollar amounts and percentage are based on that amount. The above
numbers reflect the values certified for collection to Ramsey County and provided to the
State of Minnesota as the Maplewood Certified Levy.
Packet Page Number 27 of 33
2011/2012 BUDGET DISCUSSION
PAGE TWO
• Market Value Credit $ 0 $ (525,000) ___________
Staff Explanation: As part of the state budget compromise that ended the shutdown, the
2012 Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) program was eliminated. During the
previous years, Maplewood has calculated that the MVHC program was part of the
collection rate for property taxes. For example, in years that the MVHC program was likely
to be reduced or payments not made by the state, the City assumed that our collection rate
for taxes would be reduced. Because the program has been eliminated, it will eliminate that
collection rate calculation and provide a certainty that the previous MVHC amount will be
collected. [As a note: staff assumed a collection rate of 92.5% in previous years when it
was highly likely that a MVHC payment was not forthcoming from the state of Minnesota.
We are assuming a 96.0% collection rate for 2012.] The final impacts of the elimination of
the MVHC are still being determined. The League of Minnesota Cities, in a webinar on
August 19th, provided information on the likely impacts. While the information is preliminary,
it appears that the average home on a state-wide basis with a value of $76,000 or less will
receive a credit such that the MVHC elimination shift will have no impact on their taxes.
Conversely, homes with a property value in excess of $413,000 could see a 3.0 – 4.5%
increase in their taxes, even if the City levy increase is 0.0%. Similar impacts to non-
homestead property, such as Commercial, Industrial and Apartments will occur as part of
that shift. It is noted that this shift will also occur for both School District and County levies
and results in an increase of over $250 million on a state-wide basis [$23.5 million for the
County and $2.1 million in Maplewood] through this shift. It is the staff recommendation that
the Council assume this full value for collection at this time and assume/understand the
impacts of the property tax shift. As the final levy information is prepared, additional reports
will be provided in October and November before the City Council holds the budget hearing
in December 2011.
2012 Proposed Budget
From Capital Improvement Plan:
• Decrease Rec Program Levy ($ 25,000) ($ 25,000) ____________
Staff Explanation: The City Manager’s Finance Team recommended this amount that will
likely require a 5 percent across the board increase in fees and elimination of four
programs. The $25,000 decrease is a 12 percent reduction from 2011. The proposed
expenditures in this program are increasing by 10.4%.
• Increase Comm Center Levy $ 120,000 $ 120,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: The City Manager’s Finance Team recommended this increase in
funding based upon numerous discussions with the City Council early this year. Park and
Recreation Director DuWayne Konewko reported that the operating loss at MCC will be
reduced from the estimated $349,020 in 2011 [which was down from the operating loss of
$423,271 in 2010] to a projected operating loss of $226,900 in 2012. This increase
provides for the operating loss plus an expenditure of approximately $225,000 for capital
projects in 2012, some of which have already been awarded for pool improvements in 2011,
in advance of this budget approval.
• New Public Safety Levy $ 350,040 $ 350,040 ____________
Staff Explanation: The City Manager’s Finance Team recommends that the Council
dedicate a portion of the levy to the Ambulance Fund, which ended 2010 with an operating
loss for the year in excess of $685,000. This is mainly due to reduced collections for
Medicare calls. Further discussions of this item are listed below under Fire Department.
Packet Page Number 28 of 33
2011/2012 BUDGET DISCUSSION
PAGE THREE
• Debt Service Levy $ 250,000 $ 250,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: The Finance Manager has analyzed the Debt Service Fund and has
reported that the Fund is in good shape. This increase will provide for continuing a reduced
Street Reconstruction Program in 2012. The new levy amount for Debt Service will be
$4,208,103, which, if the staff recommended levy of $18,041,034 is approved, will mean
that 23.33% of the levy is dedicated to the debt payment fund. Good fiscal policy and
Maplewood financial policy limit the debt payment amount to the 15-25% range, which
means this increase will continue to move the debt payment into the higher, but acceptable,
range. The Finance Manager has also reported that a decrease in debt service payments
does not begin until 2015-2016, so this payment amount needs to be continued to be
monitored, although the recent bonding required an analysis by our debt rating agency,
which re-affirmed Maplewood’s very good to excellent bond rating.
• CIP for Police Expansion $ 150,000 $ 150,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: This fund allocation is a result of reductions in expenditures in the
Police Department that are being prioritized to the expansion project. The Police Space
Needs Study found that a major expansion is needed to meet the overall department needs.
A more detailed report on the capital investment plan is being prepared for later this fall for
Council review. This allocation, plus an additional amount for the Public Safety CIP Bonds,
will be needed to meet the major investment. Monitoring of this debt, along with the debt for
Fire Station Improvements, East Metro Training Fire Training Facility and Street
Improvement Projects will need to be monitored as noted above to maintain the very good
to excellent bond rating.
• CIP for Park Replacement $ 95,000 $ 95,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: This allocation of funds is an expansion of the amount dedicated in
2011 by $50,000 from $45,000 to $95,000. The additional $50,000 was cut from the Park
and Recreation funds dedicated from the levy [see the reduction in the Recreation Program
Fund as a partial reduction]. This has been a goal of the Council to provide for funds to
replace our aging park infrastructure.
• CIP for Other Capital Improv. $ 45,000 $ 45,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: This allocation is actually combined with the Park Replacement
expenditure listed above, however, is listed separately because the $45,000 for Park
Replacement was funded with reserve funds in 2011. Those reserve funds have been
depleted and this fund now needs levy expenditures to remain solvent.
• Fire Truck Replacement Levy $ 100,000 $ 100,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: This allocation of the levy provides for replacement of fire trucks. The
fund has a balance of $426,136, which is designated for a truck replacement in 2013. This
$100,000 allocation is proposed to be placed into this fund beginning in 2012 for a five-year
period so that adequate dollars are available in 2016 for a second truck replacement.
• Public Safety CIP Bonds $ 0 $ 50,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: This allocation is explained as part of the CIP for Police Expansion
along with an allocation for new Fire Stations in future years. While actual bonds may not
be sold in 2012, it is proposed to begin allocating a portion of the levy in preparation.
Packet Page Number 29 of 33
2011/2012 BUDGET DISCUSSION
PAGE FOUR
General Fund Issues:
• Fund Balance at 38.5% $ 100,000 $ 100,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: This allocation is a holding category that is tied to the 2011 revenue
and expenditure items and how the General Fund ends 2011, and thus has a balance to
begin 2012. The Council approved the increase from 36.7% to 38.5% in the Fund Balance
when the 2010 final expenditures and revenue review revealed an approximately $800,000
available balance. The staff is recommending this amount as a conservative estimate that
assumes the 2011 budget will end the year at lower levels and will need a dedication of the
levy to return the Fund Balance percentage from 36.7% within the 2011 Budget to a level of
38.5% of revenues in the 2012 Budget. The difference between the 38.5% and the 36.7%
is 1.8%. The 1.8% of the $18.4 Million General Fund budget is $331,200, which is a one-
time increase in the levy. This $100,000 will be added to the staff estimate of funds that will
not be spent in 2011 that will be remaining available to reach the $331,200 amount. A
better estimate of the funds needed for this expenditure will not be known more accurately
until mid-November 2011.
• Employee Benefit Fund $ 126,000 $ 126,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: This allocation is proposed as a cash transfer into the Employee
Benefits Fund to cover the increase cost for employee health care benefits. All employee
contracts are settled for 2012 and the increase in health care costs will be borne
approximately +80% by the City under those contracts. Based on current information, the
health care costs for 2012 could increase as much as 10%, with a cap of 15%. A 10%
increase would impact the City by approximately $160,000, while the current budget
assumed an increase of only $60,000. Staff is working with the employee groups on
methods to consider alternatives that would save these funds, however, the outcome of
those efforts will not be known until October or November. This is more critical in 2012,
because this fund has a negative balance after a number of years of mandatory leave.
Similar to the above explanation, the finance team will not know specific numbers
necessary for this expense until later in the year, so this is a conservative estimate for the
setting of the levy.
• 2012 department budget requests:
o Citizen Services $ 0 $ 0 ____________
Staff Explanation: No reductions to the request by Citizen Services Director Karen
Guilfoile and the City Manager’s Finance Team are required.
o Comm Development $ (49,860) $ (49,860) ____________
Staff Explanation: The reductions within the Community Development Department
call for a revision in assignment of time for the Assistant Building Official, reductions
in expenses for supplies and consultant costs, and a staffing assignment revision.
o Executive Department $ (24,210) $ (30,000) ____________
Staff Explanation: The reductions within the Executive Department are proposed
to reduce the contractual time of the HR Attorney for the first half of 2012.
o Finance Department $ 0 $ 0 ____________
Staff Explanation: No reductions to the request by Finance Manager Gayle
Bauman and the City Manager’s Finance Team are required.
Packet Page Number 30 of 33
2011/2012 BUDGET DISCUSSION
PAGE FIVE
o Fire Department $ (114,520) $ (86,640) ____________
Staff Explanation: The Fire Department expenditure reductions are part of the plan
to control costs and dedicate funds to capital expenditures. The EMS/Ambulance
Fund has operated significantly negative over the past years. The proposed
reductions as well as a dedication of the proposed $350,040 of levy are the most
critical component of this budget proposal. The dedication of this amount, which is
approximately 2.0% of the levy is similar to the current method that we have a levy
for the MCC Fund. The City Manager’s Finance Team recommends this special
levy, rather than pursuing a specific levy for Public Safety, because levy limits are
not in force, and there are no provisions for a specific levy for just Public Safety.
The proposed budget for the Fire Department is proposed to be decreased from
$3,975,320 in 2011 to $3,825,130 in 2012. It needs to be noted that without the
Special Public Safety Levy, there will need to be a major change in the proposed
budget to reduce the Administrative Charge to the EMS Fund from $320,000 to $0.
This would reduce the General Fund by $320,000. Thus, the actual Fire
Department expenditures increase by $30,040 [$350,040 - $320,000] after all the
reductions and revisions. Thus, the City Manager’s Finance Team recommended a
reduction of $114,520 from this increased expenditure. After meetings with Fire
Chief Lukin, it was determined that a more reasonable reduction would be $86,640.
This reduction will mean that the department will not be able to continue the
expansion of the force in 2012, but does not reflect a reduction in the department
staffing levels, except the Department Administrative Assistant will be reduced from
full-time to 80% time. In addition, the dedication of the $350,040 from the general
levy, along with the other revisions provides the necessary changes to begin a 5-
year to 7-year process to refund the dollars borrowed from other sources for the
EMS expenditures in the past 5-6 years.
o IT Department $ 0 $ 0 ____________
Staff Explanation: No reductions to the request by IT Director Mychal Fowlds and
the City Manager’s Finance Team are required.
o Legislative Dept $ (8,850) $ (8,850) ____________
Staff Explanation: This reduction is proposed from the allocation of funds set aside
for the council to use for outside studies and advice.
o Parks Department $ 0 $ 0 ____________
Staff Explanation: No reductions to the request by Park and Recreation Director
DuWayne Konekwo and the City Manager’s Finance Team are required.
o Police Department $ (179,250) $ (179,250) ____________
Squad Cars $ 0 $ 84,000 ____________
Liaison revenue$ 0 $ 62,000 ____________
Staff Explanation: The proposed reductions in the Police Department are
proposed to keep the department levels at 53 sworn officers as provided in the 2011
Budget as well. Approximately $24,000 in various supplies and contracts are
proposed for reductions. The squad car and liaison revenue items are part of the
original reductions. The squad cars may be funded from extra 2011 funds, however,
as noted by Chief Thomalla, that is a gamble. The revised staff proposal is to show
the expenditure. Similarly, the Liaison revenue is shown as not being received to
set the maximum levy, but may be available and can be cut from the final budget
approved. Again, this is a conservative approach to set the maximum levy.
Packet Page Number 31 of 33
2011/2012 BUDGET DISCUSSION
PAGE SIX
o Public Works Dept $ (129,860) $ (89,860) ____________
Staff Explanation: The proposed reductions in the Public Works Department are
substantial and will impact delivery of critical services. A realignment of staff within
the engineering division will result in fewer personnel in public works. This is due to
the reduced allocation of funds for Street Reconstruction as the budget focus is
shifted toward Public Safety facilities. The original proposal for reductions by Public
Works called for a reduction of $129,860. That expenditure was met by reducing
costs toward the Debt Service expense by $40,000, so the actual expenditure
reduction for Public Works is recommended at $89,860. At this time, the Debt
Service Levy may be reduced by the $40,000 amount, but a final determination is
not available as to the fund analysis until October – November 2011.
• Tartan Arena Fund $ 50,000 $ 0 ____________
Staff Explanation: The proposed expenditure for Tartan Arena depreciation was
originally thought necessary to meet the arena needs. However, after the original
explanation was provided, the school district and Oakdale officials agreed that
improvements can be scheduled to coincide with the expiration of the original bonds
for the construction of the facility such that the annual costs should not be
increased. At this point, it does not appear that additional funds are necessary for
this program.
• $20,000 Taste of Maplewood $ 0 $ 0 ____________
Staff Explanation: The proposal from the City Manager’s Finance Team is to
continue funding the Taste of Maplewood with $20,000. No changes are
recommended. A more detailed report on the 2011 Taste of Maplewood will not be
available until September – October, when a final report will be provided.
TOTAL 2012 MAXIMUM LEVY $ 18,357,944 $18,041,034 ____________
• 2012 Percentage Increase 4.88% 3.07% ____________
Future Action
• September 12, 2011 - City Council adopts a resolution setting Maximum Levy
• September 26, 2011 – Work Session on Capital costs - Police Expansion and Fire Stations
• October 24, 2011 – Work Session updating Council on 2011 Expenditures/Revenues
• November 7 or 14, 2011 – Work Session discussion on Final 2012 Budget Issues
• December 5, 2011 – City Council holds 2012 Budget Hearing
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council complete the attached spreadsheet and provide direction
on the final levy amounts.
Attachment
1. 2012 Budget Review Spreadsheet [“Page 10”]
Packet Page Number 32 of 33
2012 Budget Review Spreadsheet
Budget Area – Consideration Staff Recommend First Revision Council Decide
2011 Levy:
• General Fund $12,980,351
• Ambulance Service Fund $ 0
• Community Center Fund $ 340,000
• Recreation Programs Fund $ 225,000
• Cap. Improve Projects Fund $ 0
• Fire Truck Fund $ 0
• Park Development Fund $ 0
• Redevelopment Fund $ 0
• Debt Service Fund $ 3,958,103
• TOTAL 2011 LEVY $ 17,503,454 $17,503,454 $17,503,454
• Market Value Credit $ 0 $ (525,000) ___________
2012 Proposed Budget
From Capital Improvement Plan:
• Decrease Rec Program Levy ($ 25,000) ($ 25,000) ____________
• Increase Comm Center Levy $ 120,000 $ 120,000 ____________
• New Public Safety Levy $ 350,040 $ 350,040 ____________
• Debt Service Levy $ 250,000 $ 250,000 ____________
• CIP for Police Expansion $ 150,000 $ 150,000 ____________
• CIP for Park Replacement $ 95,000 $ 95,000 ____________
• CIP for Other Capital Improv. $ 45,000 $ 45,000 ____________
• Fire Truck Replacement Levy $ 100,000 $ 100,000 ____________
• Public Safety CIP Bonds $ 0 $ 50,000 ____________
General Fund Issues:
• Fund Balance at 38.5% $ 100,000 $ 100,000 ____________
• Employee Benefit Fund $ 126,000 $ 126,000 ____________
• Reduce 2012 department budget requests:
o Citizen Services $ 0 $ 0 ____________
o Comm Development $ (49,860) $ (49,860) ____________
o Executive Department $ (24,210) $ (30,000) ____________
o Finance Department $ 0 $ 0 ____________
o Fire Department $ (114,520) $ (86,640) ____________
o Legislative Dept $ (8,850) $ (8,850) ____________
o Parks Department $ 0 $ 0 ____________
o Police Department $ (179,250) $ (179,250) ____________
Squad Cars $ 0 $ 84,000 ____________
Liaison revenue$ 0 $ 62,000 ____________
o Public Works Dept $ (129,860) $ (89,860) ____________
• Tartan Arena Fund $ 50,000 $ 0 ____________
• $20,000 Taste of Maplewood $ 0 $ 0 ____________
TOTAL 2012 MAXIMUM LEVY $ 18,357,944 $18,041,034 ____________
• 2012 Percentage Increase 4.88% 3.07% ____________
Workshop Agenda Item D2
Attachment
Packet Page Number 33 of 33