Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 09-09 City Council Workshop Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL MANAGER WORKSHOP 5:00 P.M. Monday, September 09, 2013 Council Chambers, City Hall A. CALL TO ORDER B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Instruction on CPR – Fire Department (No Report) 2. Commission Interview a. Heritage Preservation Commission 3. 2014 Budget: Discussion of Capital Options for Levy F. ADJOURNMENT THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK E2 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager Sarah Burlingame, Senior Administrative Assistant DATE: September 4, 2013 SUBJECT: Commission Interview a. Heritage Preservation Commission Introduction/Background The City Council will be conducting an interview of a candidate for the Heritage Preservation Commission. The Commission has one opening due to a term expiring. Staff has advertised for this position and received one applicant. Budget Impact None. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council interview the candidate as indicated in the schedule below. The suggested questions will be submitted under separate cover to the Council. During the interview process, Council Members should fill out their ballots. Once the Interviews have concluded, Council Members should submit their ballots to staff, which will be tallied with the results brought back to the Council during the following regular meeting with recommendations for appointment. Time Candidate Commission 6:00 Question Selection 6:05 Frank Gilbertson Heritage Preservation Commission Attachments 1. Candidate Applications in order of interview schedule Workshop Packet Page Number 1 of 9 CiTY OF MAPLEW00D BOARDS AND COMMiSSiONS APPLiCANTINFORMAT10N FORM Name:Frank C.Ci:berston Datα 堕 /2013 Personal lnformation Minnesota Sfafe Stafufe Sl3.601sfafes that once an individual is appointed to a public body, the following additional items of data are public: (1) residential address; and (2) either a telephone number or electronic mait address where the appointee can be reached, or both at the reqtresl of rわ e aρ ρο′nfee. ADDRESS:city - -ziP PHONE:Home Work Ce∥ EMAIL: 1. Please check which Board and/or Commission you are interested in serving? o Housing & Economic Development Commission o Business Representalive 口 Resident tr Community Design Review Board tr Environmental & Natural Resources Commission s Heritage Preservation Commission 2. How long have you lived in Maplewood?Over 25 years Will other∞mmitments make regular attendance at meetings diracuit? Yes □ No ■ 罷需瀧騰 Rl認 鳳躍襦:嶋 X'MP酬朧瀾 i施 譜°SerVe on tHs Boaだ OrCommbdon? i beilove:know Maplewood,|ヽ e grown up a son ofa 3M Engineer,and:、eseen Maplewood grow and change tom the 1960's to today. I wantto make sure there is dialo9ue,ooversation,and aclion to keep our ttes history. Do yOu have any specific areas ofinterest within the Board's or Cogn,niss:on'ss●ope of 疇潔淵腱乱ldheb耐 d"s built h he 50ヽ and疇 鵠縦艦駆雛吉朧 胤 鵠 躍 橘槻驚hwhere we can evolve to. :=m interested in discussing preserving bl aiso interested in boking at somo ofthe iakes and 9olf COurses to see how we can teach and atact more peo:e to:eam their history. L:st any conlnunity organizat:ons or activ:ties in which you have recent:y or are now an active 硼 檄 需 te日 樹e Brothtt Ltte Siste脇 ,お nds ofthe ttdedI !vo:unteerfor Meals on Whoo:s. Please share any additional comments on why you should be selected by the City Council. Kids, are now in-college and lVe got time and energy to devote to this commitee. you may attach a resume or other summary of your background and experience for appointment to fhis Commission THE rNFORJArrON CONTArNED rN THJsハ PPLrCArfoN s「ALι BE CLASSfFfED AS PUBL′C HCEPTFOR TELEPHONE NUMBERs,HOMEハ DDRESS AND E‐MArL ADDRESS. Re""■●r"●″″IJs app′たo」on tor Cr●orJaprew...ら '330 CO“"●′Rbad B East′И●prew●oこ JAr 55100 D Human Rights Commission tr Parks & Recreation Commission tr Planning Commission tr Police & CivilService Commission 5. 6. P:\Comisiou\Comision - Gceal Info@tiodBoards & Comisiou ApPlidioD'dod Lst updated:2/13/2013 E2 Attachment 1 Workshop Packet Page Number 2 of 9 E3 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Charles Ahl, City Manager Gayle Bauman, Finance Director DATE: August 29, 2013 SUBJECT: 2014 Budget: Discussion of Capital Options for Levy Introduction This agenda item is intended to allocate time for the City Council to discuss options for the 2014 budget. At the August 12th Work Session, following a number of sessions where the Council heard presentations on the proposed budget and City Manager recommendation of a 0.0% levy increase, the Council requested additional information and time to debate some additional options for funding. Specifically, the Council requested time and information for a discussion on possible revisions to the Capital planning portion of the budget. The staff has prepared some options to facilitate this discussion. The Council will be setting a maximum levy as required by statute during the regular meeting. A State Department of Revenue interpretation of the recently passed state law on levy limits will allow for a further increase in the levy beyond the 0.0%. Any revisions to capital planning could also consider some adjustments within the allocations of the levy, as well as an increase in the maximum levy amount. Background Capital Options Discussion During the past months, the City Manager’s budget team presented the recommended budget and Capital Improvement Plan. In those recommendations, the staff proposed allocations into various funds as shown on the attachment called “Tax Levy for 2013-2014”. The recent decision by the Department of Revenue on the levy limit terms imposed by the 2013 Minnesota Legislature, the Council’s options involve moving allocations from within these funds as shown on the attachment or increasing the total levy amount in the various categories. First, options for revisions to the Capital planning should be identified. From the Council discussion, these are not limited to the projects listed below, but suggested as follows, with a corresponding staff analysis of the potential impact: 1. Lakewood / Sterling Area Streets Projects to be moved to earlier than a planned 2016 construction project. a. As background, this project was proposed to be constructed in 2014 as recently as last year within the 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Plan. However, due to concern expressed by the Council about the amount of the levy dedicated to debt service as well as the level of City debt, staff proposed within the 2014 – 2018 Capital Improvement Plan to delay this project to a 2016 construction time frame. b. Due to the limited timeframe available and the priority to implement the current projects for street reconstruction within the Arkwright-Sunrise and Beebe Road areas, the earliest that this project could be implemented would be a 2015 construction. That would provide engineering planning beginning in 2014. c. The cost of moving this project would be a one-time expense of $200,000 to be incurred in 2014 for that engineering planning. Workshop Packet Page Number 3 of 9 E3 2014 BUDGET DISCUSSION PAGE TWO 2. The addition of a Police Sub Station at the new Fire Station No. 1 at the 3M Campus. a. This is a new item that has not been presented to the City Council previously. Chief Schnell is open to considering assigning staff and resources to enhance police service in the southern leg of Maplewood. These staff and corresponding squad cars would be housed at the new Fire Station. b. The cost of adding these facilities to this project are estimated as a one-time expense of $150,000. 3. The addition of funds to enhance Park improvements. a. We currently levy $30,000 that is added to the Park Dedication Fund that can only be used for new improvements or upgrades in our parks or open space system. In addition, within the $180,000 that is levied for the CIP Fund, $100,000 is allocated to the upgrades and repairs of our existing Park facilities. b. It is a debatable item, but staff would suggest that in the short term, a higher priority exists to add additional funds into the CIP Fund for replacement items, rather than expanding new facilities. c. The cost of this allocation could be done in increments of $50,000 or $75,000 or an additional $100,000 amount. 4. The addition of funds to help replace equipment at Maplewood Community Center. a. The proposed subsidy for the MCC is proposed to increase in 2014 from $460,000 to $525,000. b. This amount is necessary due to the aging of equipment and needs for upgrades. New funds could accelerate the improvements at MCC and help reduce / eliminate the negative fund balances in the MCC that have the potential to impact our overall bond rating. c. An allocation of $50,000 to $100,000 would assist with Fund Balance or could be used to upgrade equipment at MCC. 5. The addition of funds to assist with Economic Development a. The proposed subsidy for the Economic Development Authority is proposed to have no increase in 2014 from the $89,270 amount. b. An increase could provide for additional support to expand support for new and enhanced business activity. c. An allocation of $50,000 to $100,000 would allow further enhancement of the fund necessary to move projects such as Gladstone’s redevelopment and other redevelopment efforts toward implementation. Discussion on Debt Service In a report prepared by Finance Director Gayle Bauman, dated May 29, 2013 for the June 10, 2013 Work Session as part of Capital Improvement Planning, the analysis of the City debt indicated that a majority of the new revenue from Local Government Aid should be used to hold down the levy increase for 2014 by applying the new LGA Funds to debt service for the next 3-5 years. The City’s Budget is a very complex balancing of revenues, expenditures, dedicated funding of the previous year’s un-used funds and maintaining an adequate fund balance. The attached chart on debt service indicates the reason for this allocation, as well as shows the short-term program whereby the fund balance is being reduced in the Debt Service Fund. While acceptable on a short-term basis [into 2019], this should not be extended. Workshop Packet Page Number 4 of 9 E3 2014 BUDGET DISCUSSION PAGE THREE Budget Impact The Council should discuss the various proposals and options for additional funding. The Council must establish the maximum levy on September 9th, but does not necessarily need to establish the exact programs that those additional funds would be applied toward. The following are options for the Council to consider: Option 1: Keep Maximum Levy at No increase +0.0%. This approach proposes to keep the levy at no increase and proposes that all the above capital projects to remain unfunded. There is a possibility that the City could end 2013 with some excess funds, as has occurred in 2011 and 2012. We believe that there will be some funds available at the end of 2013, probably in the amount of $150,000 to $250,000, but this is much too early in the year to speculate or plan on that amount. The staff has recommended that the Council apply some of these funds to the new Fire Station Project at 3M. If the Council were to prioritize the projects above, any excess funds would be used as funds become available. Option 2: Levy to be increased by +0.50% This approach would apply approximately $90,000 toward the proposed projects. Staff would recommend the following priorities: 1. South Police Substation: $90,000; with the remainder [$60,000] to be funded either with excess funds from the General Fund at the conclusion of 2013, or with the additional allocation in 2015 from the CIP Fund or this increased levy amount. 2. No other projects from the list would be funded. Option 3: increase levy by +1.00% This approach would apply the increased levy of $185,000 as follows: 1. South Police Substation: $150,000; 2. Accelerate Lakewood / Sterling Area Streets: $35,000; $165,000 to be funded with any excess funds from 2013 and bonding revisions. 3. No other projects would be funded. . Option 4: Levy increase of +2.00% This approach would apply $370,000 from the increased levy as follows: 1. South Police Substation: $150,000; 2. Accelerate Lakewood / Sterling Area Streets: $200,000; 3. Parks Replacement Fund: $20,000; it is likely that $100,000 could be identified to be funded with any excess funds from 2013 that are identified. This is one- time money, but could approach $150,000 to $250,000. Option 5: Other ideas with a combination of projects from above. This approach would prioritize other projects or ideas for the levy increase. Workshop Packet Page Number 5 of 9 E3 2014 BUDGET PROCESS PAGE FOUR Budget Discussion The assumptions and information presented in this report will be reviewed in detail with the City Council during this Work Session. The only decision by the Council is the maximum levy amount, not which and how to fund projects. The most critical item to add at this time would be to indicate an interest in the South Police Sub-station idea, because that project is being designed at this time. That is due to the timing of the project. The additional projects could be delayed until later this fall or at the December Budget Hearing. The information provided in the Finance Director Bauman’s report on the maximum levy indicates that a majority of homeowners in Maplewood will likely see a decrease in City taxes, even if the levy is increased by 2.0%. Further discussion is certainly warranted, if desired by the City Council. An option of the Council that we have not explored is that the levy for individual Funds [and the corresponding priority that are within those Funds] could be changed. As an example, the Council could chose to reduce a levy for a Fund, like the Fire Truck Replacement Fund or Redevelopment Fund or Recreation Program Fund and those dollars could be re- allocated to other different priorities. Those further discussions could be scheduled for October and November. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council review the preliminary assumptions for the 2014 Budget and provide input on the process for evaluation. Attachments 1. Tax Levy for 2013-2014 2. Debt Service Charts Workshop Packet Page Number 6 of 9 TAX LEVY FOR 2013-2014 Proposed 2013 2014 Change Levy Levy Amount Percent Operations: General Fund $12,500,600 $12,330,530 ($170,070) (1.4)% Ambulance Service Fund $450,000 $450,000 $0 0.0% Community Center Operations Fund $460,000 $525,000 $65,000 14.1% Recreation Programs Fund $175,000 $175,000 $0 0.0% Operations Total $13,585,600 $13,480,530 ($105,070) (0.8)% Capital Improvements: C.I.P. Fund $180,000 $180,000 $0 0.0% Fire Truck Replacement Fund $50,000 $50,000 $0 0.0% Park Development Fund $30,000 $30,000 $0 0.0% Public Safety Expansion Fund $260,000 $0 ($260,000) (100.0)% Redevelopment Fund $20,000 $40,000 $20,000 100.0% Capital Improvements Total $540,000 $300,000 ($240,000) (38.1)% Debt Service: Debt Service Fund $4,313,530 $4,658,600 $345,070 8.0% TOTALS-CITY $18,439,130 $18,439,130 $0 0.0% EDA Fund $89,270 $89,270 $0 0.0% TOTALS-ALL FUNDS $18,528,400 $18,528,400 $0 0.0% E3 Attachment 1 Workshop Packet Page Number 7 of 9 TAX LEVY HISTORY11,727,050 12,330,530 12,000,000 14,000,000 +603,48011,727,050 12,330,530 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 General Fund+603,4803,140,800 5,047,870 4,000,0006,000,000 8,000,000 General FundAmbulance ServiceMCC/Rec ProgramsDebt Service/Capital Projects+1,907,0703,140,800 5,047,870 2,000,000 4,000,000 Debt Service/Capital Projects+1,907,070The tax levy amounts have been adjusted to reflect years in which transfers were made from the General Fund to the Debt Service0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014yjyFunds.  These are being shown above as a tax levy for Debt Service instead of General Fund.The Debt Service/Capital levy has increased over three times as much as the General Fund levy during the period 2007 to 2014.E3 Attachment 2Workshop Packet Page Number 8 of 9 DEBT SERVICE FUNDSProjected Revenues and Expenditures11,000,00011,500,00010,000,00010,500,00011,000,00011,500,0008,500,0009,000,0009,500,00010,000,000RevenuesExpendituresRevenues w/ LGA7,500,0008,000,0008,500,000Revenues w/ LGAAll revenue scenarios keep the debt service levy at the 2014 amount.7,000,0007,500,0002013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019The solid lines reflect projected revenues and expenditures based on bonds issued through 2013.  It assumes no new bonds will be issued until after 2018.The dashed lines reflect bonding included in the 2014‐2018 CIP document.  As stated above, there is no assumed increase in the debt levy.The dotted line for revenue assumes the City will receive and apply $530,000 of LGA to debt service from 2014 to 2019 and issue bonds included in the 2014‐2018 CIP document.As you can see in the first few years, expenditures are exceeding revenues by over $1.5 million.  Presentations made to the Council earlier this summer talked about this issue and utilizing fund balance instead of a significant levy increase to manage the situation.  Even after we get to the point where revenues start to exceed expenditures, we will need to use those funds to build the fund balance back up to the level called for within our City policies.E3 Attachment 2Workshop Packet Page Number 9 of 9