HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 07-06 City Council Workshop PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
4:30 P.M. Tuesday July 6, 2010
Council Chambers, City Hall
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Review of 2011 Budget
a. Presentation on 2011 Community Development Department Budget
b. Presentation on 2011 Park & Recreation Department Budget
c. Presentation on 2011 Public Works Department Budget
E. NEW BUSINESS
F. ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLAND
Work Session Agenda Item D1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Review of 2011 Budget
1. Presentation on 2011
2. Presentation on 2011
3. Presentation on 2011
DATE: June 30, 2010
Community Development Department Budget
Public Works Department Budget
Park And Recreation Department Budget
INTRODUCTION
As part of the continuing discussion of the 2011 budget, the City staff will continue the presentation
and discussions with the Council on the various departments and specific items up for City Council
consideration.
Summary of 2011 Budget Presentations
The City staff has been presenting information on the overall budget at previous meetings. The intent
of this process is to provide the Council with a general list of items for consideration that the City
Council will consider and discuss on July 15 after all Department Heads have presented their
department goals and needs. To date, the Council has received presentations on the Capital
Improvement Plan, the overall employee compensation issues, the budget process, the IT
Department, the Finance Department, and the Executive /Administration Departments. A rough
summary of those presentations are:
1. Total Funds available with a 5% Levy increase = $500,000
Funding Needs /Options [to date]:
1. Reduce Levy from 5% increase to 2% increase =
$480,000
2. Contribution to Employee COLA and Health Care Costs =
$240,000
3. Capital Improvement Plan needs:
a. Return Street Program to 2008 -2010 levels:
i. Option A: $50,000 in new debt = $1,250,000 project
$ 50,000
ii. Option B: $100,000 in new debt = $2,500,000 project
$100,000
iii. Option C: $200,000 in new debt = $5,000,000 project
$200,000
b. Capital Infrastructure Replacement Investment
i. Fire Truck Replacement Fund:
$100,000
ii. Phone System Replacement:
$120,000
iii. Fiber Optics expansion
$100,000
iv. Park Equipment Replacement
$100,000
v. Park Facilities Expansion
$250,000
vi. Housing Replacement Program
$100,000
vii. Commercial Property Redevelopment
$200,000
viii. City Hall facilities upgrade
$ 50,000
ix. MCC Fund for facilities replacement
$250,000
x. Police Department Expansion
$500,000
A. Fire Station Rehab /Replacement Program
$500,000
4. IT Department — shared employee
$ 30,000
5. Finance Department — Debt/investment Study
$ 30,000
Packet Page Number 3 of 8
2011 BUDGET
PAGE TWO
Funding Needs /Options [to date; continued from previous page]
6. Police Department — vehicle purchase
7. Fire Department — keep 2 employees full -time versus part -time
8. Fire Department — restore cuts to expense
9. Citizen Services — Recodification
10. City Council — 100+ question Citizen Survey with Analysis
1i off
off
III
t #II
t II#
Presentation on 2011 Budget
Dewey Konewko will present the Community Development budget as well as the Parks and
Recreation program budgets. Michael Thompson will present the Public Works budget. Information
on those departments is provided under separate report.
The original intent was for the MCC Budget to be discussed at this session; however, that report will
be presented to the Council on July 12 Work Session.
At the conclusion of the presentation by Mr. Konewko and Mr. Thompson, a summary of the status of
the various funds and overall programs will be provided by Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl as time
allows. Information on the various funds will be provided at the meeting.
Action Required
The City Council should receive the presentations on the various areas within the 2010 and 2011
Budget. No action is recommended as this is presented as information on review of proposed
expenditures for 2011. Final council direction is anticipated to occur on July 15, 2010.
Packet Page Number 4 of 8
Agenda Item D 1. a. and b.
AGENDA REPORT
To: James Antonen, City Manager
From: DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Subject: Presentation on 2011 Community Development and Parks Department Budget
Date: June 29, 2010
INTRODUCTION
The items being presented are to inform the council of the budget reductions in 2010 and
proposed reductions to the 2011 budget for the Community Development and Parks
Department and Recreation Program. The presentation will also speak to the 2011 — 2015
Capital Improvement Plan. This information is being provided to council for your review and
comment.
The Community Development and Parks Department was requested to make budget
adjustments totaling $65,300 to the 2010 budget. To meet this figure, the following adjustments
were made to the 2010 budget;
• Parks — delayed hiring of the office specialist position — savings $10,300;
• Parks — delayed hiring of Rec. Program Assistant Until July (1.0 FTE) — savings
$31,500;
• Community Dev. — Eliminate Cell Tower Study — cut $9,000 (101- 702 -4490)
Planning /Carryover;
• Community Dev. — reduction in fees for service — cut $2,000 (101 - 707 -4480) Code
Enforcement;
• Community Dev. — reduction in vehicle allowance — cut $1,500 (101 - 701 -4400) Comm.
Administration;
• Community Dev. — reduction in fees /consulting — cut $6,000 (101- 702 -4490) Planning —
in addition to the $9k already identified;
• Community Dev. — reduction in temporary wages — cut $1,000 (101- 701 -4025) Comm.
Administration;
• Community Dev. — reduction in fees for service — cut $4,000 (101- 703 -4480) Buildings
Inspections.
The Recreation Program budget was requested to make budget adjustments totaling $26,000.
In order to achieve this, the following adjustment was made to the 2010 budget;
• Delay the hiring of a Recreation Program Assistant (.5 FTE) until 2011/2012 - savings
$26,057.
In addition to these 2010 budget cuts, the 2011 proposed budget will require reductions of
$49,000 to the Community Development and Parks Department. The Recreation Program
budget is proposed to be cut by $25,000.
Packet Page Number 5 of 8
These reductions to the 201012011 Community Development and Parks Department budgets
will result in changes in the way we currently operate. More specifically, personnel services
account for approximately 70% of the total budget. Contractual services account for
approximately 29% of the budget with the Recycling and Building Program areas accounting for
approximately 314 of this 29 %. In other words, the department does not have an abundance of
discretionary spending and additional cuts may result in reductions to staffing levels. With
regard to revenue, the department is on track to meet the 2010 estimate of $850,000. In 2009,
the department took in approximately $965,000 which was below the budgeted amount of
$1,160,000. In 2011, staff is looking at a revenue number close to $900,000.
The Recreation Program fund continues to experience reductions in the budget which will likely
result in cuts to programs. From my perspective, this is not sustainable and if this trend
continues, staff will be forced to look at eliminating various program opportunities for the
residents of Maplewood. Staff is currently seeking out opportunities to bring in additional monies
and resources that may bear fruit in the future. The Nature Center is also at a point where staff
may have to explore cuts to program areas including the possibility of closing the Nature Center
one additional day a week.
Review of the Draft 2011 — 2015 Capital Improvement Plan
The draft 2011 — 2015 CIP document was presented to council at a Manger Workshop on June
7, 2010. The following Community Development and Parks Department/Recreational
Programming proposed GIP projects were either reduced or moved to unfunded:
• Funding for Community Field Upgrades and Park Equipment was reduced by 50 %;
• Gethsemane Park Purchase and Improvements in 2012 was moved to unfunded;
• Improvements to Goodrich Park in 2011 — 2013 were reduced by 50 %;
• Improvements to Joy Park in 2013 — 2014 was reduced by 50 %;
• Annual Trail Improvements in 2011 — 2015 was moved to unfunded;
• Annual Improvements to Open Space areas in 2011 — 2015 was moved to unfunded;
• Annual Housing Replacement Program in 2011 — 2015 was moved to unfunded;
• Annual Commercial Property Redevelopment Program in 2011 — 2015 was moved to
unfunded;
• Hillcrest Area Redevelopment Improvements in 2013 — 2015 was moved to unfunded;
• Proposed Improvements to City Campus in 2011 — 2012 were moved to unfunded;
RECOMMENDATION
At the July 6 th Manger Workshop, staff will discuss with council the reductions to 2010 budget,
the 2011 proposed budget reductions and the Capital Improvement Plan for 2011 — 2015. No
formal action is required by council for these items.
Packet Page Number 6 of 8
Agenda Item D. 1. c.
AGENDA REPORT — COUNCIL WORKSHOP
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer/ Dep. Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Public Works Department Budget Discussion
DATE: June 30, 2010
INTRODUCTION
The Public Works Department is providing an update to the council on the impacts of the 2010 cuts in
addition to the impacts these cuts will have if carried into the 2011 budget cycle. The proposed 2011-
2015 capital improvement plan will be covered briefly with a focus on projects that were eliminated or
deferred to future years and the effects.
DISCUSSION
2010 Budget
The Public Works Department was directed to cut $52,200 from the approved 2010 budget. A large
portion of this was met through a budgeted position in 2010 that was vacated — Engineering Technician
Additional cuts are being made in each program group to meet this obligation. It is also important to
note that these cuts do not reflect previous budget reductions before the approval of the 2010 budget.
These past reductions include a loss of 2 persons in Park Maintenance, 1 person in Streets /Storm, 1
person in Sanitary Sewer, and 1 position in Building Maintenance.
2011 -2015 C I P
Regarding the 2011 -2015 capital improvement requests, a significant number of projects were either
delayed or moved onto the unfunded list as shown below:
• Improvement of streets in East Shore Drive area in 2014 -15 was moved to unfunded.
• Improvement of Lakewood — Sterling Streets in 2011 was delayed to 2012.
• Improvement of Pond — Dorland Streets in 2012 delayed to 2014.
• Annual City -wide sidewalk improvements were moved to unfunded.
• Improvement of County Road D Ct, E of TH 61 in 2014 was moved to 2015.
• Improvement of Beebe Road in 2014 was moved to 2015.
• Edgerton — Roselawn area storm sewer improvements in 2014 was moved to unfunded.
• County Road C area street improvements in 2014 were moved to unfunded.
• Signal proposed at County Road D and Hazelwood in 2014 was moved to unfunded.
• Improvement of Crestview — Highland area streets in 2012 was moved to 2013.
• Improvement of Bartelmy -Meyer area streets in 2013 was moved to 2014.
• Improvement of Farrell - Ferndale area streets in 2014 was moved to 2015
• Improvement of Ferndale -Ivy area streets in 2013 -14 was moved to unfunded.
• Improvement of Dennis - McClelland area streets in 2014 -15 was moved to unfunded
• Improvement of Montana - Nebraska area streets in 2015 was moved to unfunded.
• Pipe Lining and Sump Pump Programs in 2011 -13 were moved to unfunded.
• Various fleet equipment purchases were delayed to reduce expenditures by $150,000 per year.
Packet Page Number 7 of 8
A majority of the delayed or unfunded requests relate to the investment into neighborhoods with old
infrastructure and deteriorating streets. The council has a goal of attaining a city -wide street pavement
rating of 70 or above for 75% of the streets. However, currently only 60% of the streets meet this
criterion. The Department proposed GIP would have met the set goal in a period of 5 years but with the
delays and unfunded projects within the current document this timeline is now 8 -9 years.
Another important note regarding the revised CIP is the reduction of $150,000 per year over the five
years for fleet updates and replacement costs. This is expected to result in increased maintenance and
supply costs within the Fleet Operations budget.
The Department is already trying to implement other cuts of the sidewalk program and sewer lining
program into the street improvement projects, however this will continue to become difficult with the
overall reduction proposed to the streets CIP program.
2011 Budget
If the $52,200 cut continues into the 2011 budget this will translate into all of the positions mentioned
previously remaining vacant, in addition to cutting a portion of budgeted line items such as
maintenance materials. This could be unfortunate because the Public Works Department is taking a
strong approach in improving city parks utilizing in -house staff and the maintenance materials allocation.
For example, this year the city crews are able to put down new asphalt on the old trail systems within
Maplewood Heights, Kohlman, and Harvest Parks with a special allocation in the 2010 budget.
However with the continued stretch in staffing, projects like this and others such as
instal lationlreplacement of playground equipment may no longer be viable and routine tasks will need to
be the focus.
Even the routine day to day tasks are reflecting a reduction in service such as the slight delay in plowing
due to the vacancy in the Streets /Storm section. Also, the staff hours are not as available compared to
past years to more quickly address resident drainage and sidewalk complaints. The Sewer Division's
2010 sewer televising progress is currently under half of 2009 levels (15,000 LF this year compared to
34,000 LF at this time last year). Also flushing of sewer lines in cul -de -sacs and low velocity locations
has been significantly reduced. This year there has been a 50% increase in sewer main line backups
compared to this time last year. The Parks Maintenance division is down two people as previously
mentioned and it is taking longer to respond to vacant housing complaints, graffitiftrash cleanup, and
their ability to effectively maintain the condition of existing facilities /fields.
Looking over the past 6 years, the Public Works Department allocation has decreased by $443,045
from roughly 10% of levy in 2005 to 5.5% in 2010. In order to properly provide adequate service and
keep up with routine maintenance tasks additional resources must be considered.
It is recommended that the council consider this information while making decisions during the 2011
budget and 2011 -2015 CIP approval process.
Packet Page Number 8 of 8