HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 08-25 City Council Workshop PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
MANAGER WORKSHOP
5:00 P.M. Monday, August 25, 2014
City Hall, Council Chambers
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. ROLL CALL
C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Gateway Transit Corridor Presentation
2. 2015 Budget Discussion
3. Review and Approval of City Manager Position Description and Supplemental Questionnaire
F. ADJOURNMENT
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael Thompson, City Engineer / Director of Public Works
DATE: August 20, 2014
SUBJECT: Gateway Transit Corridor Presentation
Introduction
Washington County staff will be present to discuss the progress of the Gateway Corridor project
and next steps which will include the council considering a resolution of support for the locally
preferred alternative at a future council meeting, likely in early September. No action is required
at this time.
Background
The Gateway Corridor is a planned, approximately 12-mile, transitway located in Ramsey and
Washington Counties. The corridor runs generally parallel to I-94, connecting downtown Saint Paul
with its East Side neighborhoods and the suburbs of Maplewood, Landfall, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, and
Woodbury.
The Gateway Corridor will be a bus rapid transit line that will connect the east Twin Cities metro to
the greater regional transit network via bus and rail lines at the Union Depot multimodal hub in
downtown Saint Paul.
The Gateway Corridor will provide an efficient mode of travel, allow people to access jobs, services,
and housing that were previously unreachable without a car, and bring an amenity to the east metro
that will attract people and economic growth.
Through Maplewood, the transitway would be located between McKnight Road and Century Avenue
along the north side of I-94, with a station proposed near the 3M campus.
Budget Impact
None.
Recommendation
No action is required. This is an informational update by the lead agency, Washington County.
Attachments
1. Gateway Corridor Transit Presentation
E1
Workshop Packet Page Number 1 of 14
1
Locally Preferred Alternative Workshop
City of Maplewood
August 25, 2014
The Gateway Corridor Project will
provide:
The Purpose & Need for the Gateway
Corridor Project
The purpose of the Gateway Corridor Project is to provide transit service to meet the
existing and long‐term regional mobility and local accessibility needs for businesses and the
traveling public in the project area.
There are five factors that describe the need for the project:
•Limited existing transit serviceLimited existing transit service
•A policy shift toward travel choices and multimodal investments
•Population and employment growth in the corridor
•Needs of people who depend on transit
•Local and regional objectives for growth and prosperity
E1, Attachment
Workshop Packet Page Number 2 of 14
2
Regional Transitways (2040)
Regional Transitways (2030)
Alternatives Analysis Completed 2013
Draft EIS Underway
Current Status
Transitway Development Process
6
E1, Attachment
Workshop Packet Page Number 3 of 14
3
Public Engagement informs Project Decisions
User Friendly Materials
•Scoping Booklet and Project Fact Sheets
•Informational Video – 945 views on
YouTube
Official Scoping Meetings and
The project has actively sought community input since planning began in 2009. Most
recently, engagement efforts were focused on the Draft EIS Scoping Process, which included:
Official Scoping Meetings and
Scoping Comment Period –97
comments received
Additional Engagement Events –
over 45 held since start of DEIS
•“Pop‐up” information sessions
•Focused Interest Group (FIG’s)
Presentations
•Presentations to interested stakeholders,
community and business groups, local
government boards and commissions
Gateway Corridor Alternatives
Transit Mode
•BRT or LRT
•Managed Lane
Alignment
•Segments A, B, and C common to all alternatives
•Segments D1 vs. D2 and E1 vs. E2 vs. E3
Transit Modes Considered
Bus Rapid Transit in a
dedicated guideway
Light Rail Transit Bus Rapid Transit in a
managed lane
E1, Attachment
Workshop Packet Page Number 4 of 14
4
Scoping Decision vs. LPA
Scoping Decision
Why study transit
improvements?
Which alternatives?
LPA
Early indicator of local
preferences
General description of
li d dEvaluation methods
LPA will be one of
but not the only
alternative studied
in the Draft EIS
alignment and mode
Process is governed by
Met Council for adoption
into their Transportation
Policy Plan
Key step in pursuit of
federal funding
PAC/GCC Scoping Decision
BRT Alternatives recommended for further evaluation in the Draft EIS:
BRT A‐B‐C‐D1‐E1
BRT A‐B‐C‐D2‐E1
BRT A‐B‐C‐D2‐E2
BRT A‐B‐C‐D2‐E3
These BRT alternatives will be further refined to minimize impacts,
enhance economic development potential and reduce capital costsenhanceeconomicdevelopmentpotentialandreducecapitalcosts
Managed Lane Alternative
•Managed Lane Alternative will be further studied in the Draft EIS as
requested by FHWA/FTA.
•The PAC continues to support the findings of the AA that the Managed
Lane Alternative does not support the Purpose and Need for the project.
LRT Alternative was not recommended for study in the Draft EIS.
Summary of LPA Decision Making
Process
Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC)
Community Advisory
Committee (CAC)
Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC)
Gateway Corridor
Commission (GCC)
Resolutions of Support
from Corridor Cities &
Washington and
Ramsey RRA Boards
Metropolitan Council
E1, Attachment
Workshop Packet Page Number 5 of 14
5
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
Technical Information
BRT Alternatives under consideration for LPA.
Travel Time, Ridership, & Costs
E1, Attachment
Workshop Packet Page Number 6 of 14
6
Feeder & Express Bus Network
PAC Proposed LPA Recommendation
Mode: BRT
Alignment: A‐B‐
C‐D2‐E2 within
a dedicated
guidewayguideway
In addition to
the PAC, city
staff and the
community
advisory
committee also
supported A‐B‐
C‐D2‐E2 as the
LPA
Access to Jobs
•While A‐B‐C‐D2‐E2 provides access to slightly fewer jobs today, employment
projections account for planned growth in Lake Elmo, and the number of jobs along
each alternative will be nearly the same in 2030.
•The A‐B‐C‐D2‐E2 alternative has a slightly higher number of non‐retail jobs than other
alignments.
E1, Attachment
Workshop Packet Page Number 7 of 14
7
TOD Potential
•The BRT alternative A‐B‐C‐D2‐E2 was chosen as the LPA because of its proximity to
areas of potential transit‐oriented growth and jobs in Oakdale, Lake Elmo, and
Woodbury.
•A‐B‐C‐D2‐E2
also minimizes
impacts to
congested
roadways androadways and
traffic.
•A‐B‐C‐D2‐E2 has
a similar travel
time, ridership,
and cost to the
other BRT
alternatives.
Next Steps in the LPA process
PAC/GCC Public Hearing on Proposed LPA –
August 7
PAC Meeting (LPA recommendation tog (
WCRRA) – September 11
City resolutions of support –September
RCRRA/ WCRRA actions –by October 7
Met Council review of public input on draft
TPP ‐October
Additional Opportunities to Learn
More and Provide Input
Invite Gateway team members to meet with your organization
or community group
Contact project staff directly at pj y
GatewayCorridor@co.washington.mn.us or 651‐430‐4300
Sign up for email newsletter
Visit www.TheGatewayCorridor.com
•Videos, project updates, analysis reports, meeting
summaries
Visit/Like www.facebook.com/GatewayCorridor
Comment directly to policy makers at PAC meetings
E1, Attachment
Workshop Packet Page Number 8 of 14
8
City Resolutions of Support for the LPA
In order for the Gateway Corridor LPA to be included in the final
version of the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, a resolution of
support for the LPA must be obtained from each city and county
through which the line passes.
The project has prepared resolution language for all cities’ use
to be modified as needed.
The resolution of support is also an opportunity for each city to
formally recognize issues of importance to the city as they
relate to the Gateway Corridor.
It is important that the resolution does not make city support
for the Gateway Corridor LPA conditional upon any given
project decision.
Thank you!
Andy Gitzlaff, Washington County
andy.gitzlaff@co.washington.mn.us
651‐430‐4338
Lyssa Leitner, Washington Countyy , g y
Lyssa.leitner@co.washington.mn.us
651‐430‐4314
Jeanne Witzig, Kimley‐Horn and Associates
jeanne.witzig@kimley‐horn.com
651‐643‐0447
Beth Bartz, SRF Consulting
bbartz@srfconsulting.com
763‐249‐6792
E1, Attachment
Workshop Packet Page Number 9 of 14
E2
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Melinda Coleman, Interim City Manager
Gayle Bauman, Finance Director
DATE: August 19, 2014
SUBJECT: 2015 Budget Discussion
Introduction
The maximum tax levy for 2015 needs to be adopted and filed with the County by the end of
September 2014. The City Manager, Finance staff, and department heads have been actively
engaged in planning and preparing the 2015 budget, which funds all City operations and
functions. Like most units of local government, Maplewood is facing very challenging budget
circumstances. Some may wonder why budgets would be tight now given the generally
positive economic recovery overall. Maplewood, like many largely developed communities,
faces some unique circumstances. Maplewood has very few areas within its boundaries that
offer tax generating development opportunities. In fact, the City’s emphasis on economic
development is really an effort at redevelopment.
Background
At the City Council/Manager Workshop held on August 11, 2014, staff discussed General Fund
expenditures and the trend data from revenue other than property taxes (i.e., fees, licenses,
permits, fines, charges for services). It showed that revenues generated from sources other
than the City’s property tax levy are generally flat. It can be quickly realized that non-tax
revenues from other sources are not increasing commensurate with increases in City
expenditures. This shows that our General Fund is reliant on property tax increases to fund any
growth in the operating budget which limits the amount of tax revenue available for debt and
capital projects.
Staff also talked about bonding debt and the reasons for its increase over the past several
years. This was a strategic decision to buy needed infrastructure improvements during a time of
economic downturn, when the City could benefit from getting more for the investment because
of the competitive environment in construction. The result of this has been an increased need
for property taxes to support debt service expenditures. Operational costs and capital projects
are competing for the same tax dollars and our recent levy increases have not been able to
keep up with both. Based on requests made during the preparation of our Capital Improvement
Plan, we continue to have a need for capital projects such as street improvements, parks,
redevelopment and investment in city facilities.
Budget Planning
Priorities of the City include maintaining reasonable tax levies and user fees, a strong financial
condition, moderate debt levels and a high bond rating.
Workshop Packet Page Number 10 of 14
E2
Department Heads, along with the City Manager and Finance Director have been focused
on the following:
• The need to control and/or reduce costs
• Assessment and consideration of new sources of revenue
• Review of all existing City services for possible service delivery changes
• Analysis of inter-departmental and inter-governmental service and/or resource sharing
• Identification of critical needs in City-owned buildings and facilities
The City Manager has directed Department Heads to prepare and refine both operational and
capital budgets in a balanced manner using the philosophy of:
1. Responsible stewardship of the public’s resources
2. Providing services and programs that will reflect a commitment to excellence; and
3. Recognizing and valuing the high quality of service and innovation of city employees
through fair and equitable compensation.
Department Heads are looking at methods of addressing structural budget challenges in a way
that is sustainable and makes increases in the City property tax levy based upon need and
responsible decision-making. This is a multi-year process and not something that happens
overnight.
The tax levy increase needed to fund initial departmental requests was between 9%-10%. Staff
is still actively engaged in the budget planning process and had previously agreed on some
reductions in operating expenditures, changes to capital requests, and further deferment of
building maintenance issues. Additional budget cuts currently being recommended are:
Reduce the number of newsletters published in 2015 from 12 to 9 $30,840
PW -reduce building repair/maintenance $5,000
PW -reduce consulting $5,000
PW -reduce street maintenance materials $8,000
PW -reduce engineering temp wages $5,000
PW -reduce forestry fees for service $3,000
PW -reduce park maintenance materials $5,000
Parks-reduce Administration $2,100
Parks-reduce Nature Center $1,040
Parks-reduce Open Space $1,540
Rec Prog-eliminate Gym Jammers at Carver and staffing of warming houses $5,000
PD-No longer store forfeited vehicles $30,000
Fire-reduce staffing from 8 FF to 7 2/3 FF $35,000
Fire-add non-resident fee to ambulance runs $65,000
Proposed budget cuts
$201,520
Staff is also having discussions about adding a Gas Franchise Fee, part of which, if
implemented, could reduce certain General Fund costs. More information will be brought to the
Council regarding this subject at a later date.
Recommendation
Staff seeks Council guidance around priorities and considerations for the “maximum tax levy” for
2015. In full recognition of the range of implications, department heads will continue final
preparation of a “maximum levy” recommendation based on the framework or guidance as
Workshop Packet Page Number 11 of 14
E2
provided by the Council. With some budget cuts and deferrals already identified, the final staff
recommendation will be based upon feedback from the Council. Staff will continue to work with
Council to present a “maximum levy” recommendation and implications assessment for your
consideration and adoption on September 22, 2014.
Attachment
1. Worksheet on current budget position
Workshop Packet Page Number 12 of 14
E2, Attachment 1
2014 LEVY 18,528,400
Increases for:
Debt Service 134,220
Police vehicles and equipment 114,560
Projected decrease of other revenue sources 273,300
General Fund expenditure increases 284,660
Fund street project deficits 250,000
Decreases for:
Reduce MCC levy (25,000)
Reduce Ambulance Service levy (50,000)
Reduce Recreation Program levy (15,000)
Remove Fire Truck Fund levy (50,000)
Remove Park Development Fund levy (30,000)
Remove Redevelopment Fund levy (40,000)
Reduce CIP Fund levy (15,000)
Position as of 8/11/14 19,360,140
4.5%
Additional cuts/revenue
Reduce number of newsletters (30,840)
PW cuts (31,000)
Parks & Rec cuts (9,680)
Police cuts to vehicle storage fee (30,000)
Reduce fire staffing (35,000)
Add non-resident fee to ambulance runs (65,000)
Current position with above changes 19,158,620
3.4%
Workshop Packet Page Number 13 of 14
E3
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Chuck Bethel, City Attorney for HR/Labor Relations
SUBJECT: Review and Approval of City Manager Position Description and Supplemental
Questionnaire
DATE: August 19, 2014
Introduction / Summary
Pursuant to direction the HR Department received from the City Council, we have met with the
City Manager Hiring Subcommittee twice to review and approve a revised City Manager Job
Description. At the most recent of those meetings, the Subcommittee agreed in principle to a
draft of a job description and decided that the proposed job description should then be provided
to the remaining members of the Council for any final input and/or approval of the proposed job
description.
Therefore, at this workshop I will provide each member with a draft of that proposed job
description for you each to mark up with any comments and/or suggestions you may have and
then I will collect those copies back at the end of the meeting. Additionally, the Subcommittee
reviewed proposed questions that will be included in a supplemental questionnaire to be
provided to prospective applicants. I will also provide each member with a draft of those
proposed questions for your review/comments/suggestions and approval.
However, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13.34 this is nonpublic data and so this material will not
be available for the general public and should be returned to me at the end of the workshop.
Once agreement is reached on the final form for the job description and the supplemental
questions, then that job description and supplemental questionnaire will be used in conjunction
with the normal posting process used in hiring by our HR Department.
Workshop Packet Page Number 14 of 14