HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 24 2015 2016 Preliminary Budget & Tax Levy gP�O
(60)
4646 Dakota Street SE
` INNEso'tt` Prior Lake,MN 55372
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 24,2015
PREPARED BY: DON URAM, FINANCE DIRECTOR
CATHY ERICKSON, ACCOUNTING MANAGER
PRESENTER: FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER
DON URAM, FINANCE DIRECTOR
CATHY ERICKSON, ACCOUNTING MANAGER
WORKSESSION 2016 PRELIMINARY BUDGET &TAX LEVY
TOPIC:
DISCUSSION: Introduction
The Truth in Taxation statutes require that each taxing authority adopt a
preliminary budget and certify a preliminary tax levy for payable 2016 to
the County Department of Taxation on or before September 30, 2015.
The preliminary tax levy establishes the maximum that the City can levy
against properties in 2016. It should not be considered the final tax levy
as the budgeting process has just begun.
The Council will consider the final tax levy in December at which time the
levy can be either reduced or maintained at the amount established in
September. The Council will not be able to increase the tax levy.
The purpose of today's workshop is to discuss and receive direction on
the preliminary 2016 budget and tax levy.
The following meetings/workshops are currently scheduled to discuss
and adopt 2016 property tax levies and budgets. The workshops could
change if the Council determines that additional meetings are needed.
August 24, 5:00 pm Worksession to discuss maximum tax
levy and preliminary budget
September 14 or 28, Adopt maximum tax levy and
7:00 pm preliminary budget
November 9, 5:00 pm Budget worksession
November 23, 7:00 pm Public budget meeting
December 14, 7:00 pm Adopt final budget and tax levy
History
In June and July, 2015, Staff presented the draft 2016-2020 CIP. The
impact of these updated and new plans on the debt balance, tax levy,
fund balance reserves and utility rates were a part of the Council and
Staff discussion.
The Council held a public hearing and adopted the 2016-2020 CIP on
August 10, 2015.
Current
Preliminary Budget Requests
Department managers have been preparing their 2016 budget requests
over the past month. They have included capital expenditures that are
part of the adopted 2016-2020 CIP.
The City Manager and Finance staff have not thoroughly reviewed the
requests. The information is being provided to Council with the caveat
that it is "preliminary and will change" between now and the November
budget work session.
What the information does provide is a basis for discussion for the
following:
• Work program for 2016
• Service delivery challenges / personnel requests
• Staff versus consultants
• Future tax levies
A budget overview has been attached to this agenda report. It reflects
preliminary figures for the 2016 budget for the following funds:
• General Fund
• Debt Service Funds —includes all debt
• Cable Fund
• Capital Park Fund
• Revolving Equipment Fund
• Facilities Management Fund
• Economic Development Authority
• Water Fund
• Sewer Fund
• Water Quality Fund
The second page shows tax levy and budgetary comparisons from the
2015 adopted budget to the preliminary 2016 figures.
Summaries for revenues and expenditures are also included with this
report. The summaries reflect two years of actuals, current year original
and amended budgets, and the preliminary 2016 budget. The primary
drivers of the change in expenditure levels from the 2105 original budget
to the preliminary 2016 General Fund budget are:
Page 2
Expenditures Totals
Personnel: 421,700
Wage 329,600
Health Insurance 28,200
WC Insurance 19,600
Other(PERA, FICA, MC, etc) 44,300
Current: (35,400)
Street Maintenance 40,100
Professional Services 34,400
Memberships and subscriptions 22,600
Personnel Testing&Recruitment 14,200
Utilities (98,000)
Other GESP operational savings (32,000)
Other (16,700)
Capital Outlay 162,200
Debt Transfers 48,900
Contingency
Total 597,400
The following chart illustrates General Fund operating expenditures on a
per household basis:
General Fund Total Operating
$2,000 r Expenditures Per--Household-
$1,900 —$1,800
$1,700$1,600 -"A
$1,500
$1,400
$1,300
$1,200
$1,100 - — —$1,000
00 Off' 01' 0)) C O) O\ 64) e) ,y0 yy yL y5 y0 e� tc
LO 'LO 'O O 'O LO O 'O LO LO `O 'O O et%� &\
.OQc
h
--�—Expected Op. Expenditures/HH —s—Op. Expendittites/3IH
Includes 2015 Amended Budget and 2016 Preliminary Budget
The City Council adopted this metric in the most recent amendment to
the CFMP . . . "Maintain a level of General Fund operational expenditures
on a per household basis which takes into account the cost of inflation
and community growth."
As reflected in the chart, the preliminary 2016 budget/household is
significantly less than the level which reflects the cost of inflation and
growth.
Page 3
Service Delivery Challenges
Staff has had ongoing discussions about service delivery challenges.
These challenges are triggered by:
• City growth (i.e. increased street miles, parks, utility customers,
etc.),
• Level of activity (i.e. building permits, plats, projects, etc.); or
• Other factors such as vacancies from employee illness, accidents,
or turnover.
Staff is in the process of developing a Personnel Plan which address
these triggering events as well as succession planning. A timetable has
not been established for bringing this information back to the City Council
for their input.
The 2016 preliminary budget does not include any additional staff
positions. Personnel change requests were received from the following
departments and included in this packet. Staff will would like input from
the Council on adding a position(s) to the 2016 budget.
• Engineering
o Engineer in Training (EIT)
• Public Works
o Maintenance Worker 5
• Public Safety
o Patrol Officer
There are other areas in the organization that have challenges, as well.
These personnel resource needs will be incorporated into the Personnel
Plan.
Staff versus Consultants
Based on the discussion during current and previous CIP workshops,
council members seemed to support hiring staff versus using consultants
when it made financial sense to do so. This especially makes sense
where the level of activity is expected to be ongoing and, potentially,
increasing. The key is to determine how much savings and productivity is
achieved by such a modification. Following are some examples.
Engineering
The 2016-2020 CIP reflects an increase in the number of transportation
projects. Some of the projects involve complexities that necessitate the
use of specialized engineering consultants. Those projects still require
staff oversight. Other projects are more routine and would need minimal,
if any, use of consultants. It is our expectation that a combination of staff
and consultants will be needed. A new concern has arisen however.
Increasingly, the staff finds itself taking additional customer service steps
on each project. Based upon this year's direction, we are to seek out
grants for improvement projects. In other cases, more than one
neighborhood meeting is required and public hearings are becoming
multi-meeting efforts. All together, these added steps impact staff's
capacity to oversee public improvement projects.
Page 4
Public Works
The City has not historically used consultants for providing resources to
the water operations. In 2014, the City Council authorized an additional
water plant operator. Last winter, we contracted for water main break
repairs as the number of snow events (-30) precluded our ability to get
snow and ice control done and complete water main repairs in an
expeditious fashion. Each water main repair is about $6,000.
Staff is requested the addition of a maintenance worker to be included in
the 2016 budget.
Use of General Fund Reserves
The 2015 budget included an amount intended to replace a portion of
fund balance previously used with a tax levy in 2015. This was
necessary to stay in compliance with the Comprehensive Financial
Management Policy (40-50% fund balance range). Going forward it will
be important to maintain this level.
Using reserves as a funding source for items other than one-time events
creates pressure on future years to replace that funding source with
property tax levy. Combine that challenge with growth and inflationary
pressures, this creates an unsustainable funding situation for current and
future councils to handle. Raising taxes, generating new revenues, or
cutting services (reducing expenditures) are options cities have used to
address this issue.
The 2016 preliminary budget does not include the use of general fund
balance to fund operations.
Estimated Tax Levy
The 2016 preliminary budget presents some serious funding constraints
due to the historical spending increases to provide community services
coupled with current and prior actions to keep property tax adjustments
artificially low (despite inflationary pressures and growth of the
community) during the past six years.
The following chart shows the change in the property tax levy based on
the preliminary budgets which contain no new personnel:
2016 Property Tax Levy Comparison
Change 15-16
Property Taxes 2016 2016 Amount Percent
Levy-Tax Capacity
General Fund-Operating $ 7,071,730 $ 7,609,706 $ 537,976 7.61%
General Fund-Debt - n/a
Debt Service Funds 1,877,863 2,340,850 462,987 24.65%
Revolving Equipment Fund 250,000 400,000 150,000 60.00%
Faciities Management Fund - - - n/a
$ 9,199,593 $10,350,556 $1,150,963 12.51%
Levy-Market Value-General Fund 1,035,493 1,084,719 49,226 4.75%
Levy-Economic Dev Authority 159,000 155,000 (4,000) -2.52%
Total Levy $10,394,086 $11,590,275 $1,196,189 11.51%
Page 5
The following chart shows the total tax levy for the period 2011 -
estimated 2016:
2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016 Prelim
Total Tax Levy $10,114,124 $9,414,124 $9,414,124 $9,448,918 $10,394,086 $11,590,275
Change from prior year($) 34,938 (700,000) - 34,794 945,168 1,196,189
Change from prior year($) 0.35% -6.92% 0.00% 0.37% 10.00% 11.51%
Approximately 2.5% of the 6.92% reduction in 2012 was due to the
legislative change from a market value homestead credit aid program to
a market value exclusion program. The net change from 2011 to 2012
was (4.42%).
The following table shows the breakdown of the levy change:
Change in Expenditures: 597,400 5.75%
Personnel 421,700
Other Net Expenditures 175,700
Net Decrease in Other Non-Property Tax Revenues 10,245 (59,424) -0.57%
Subtotal-GF Operating Change 537,976 5.18%
Other Levies 658,213 6.33%
Total Tax Levy 1,196,189 11.51%
The following chart illustrates the total property tax levy on a per
household basis:
Property Tax Levy Per Household
$1,500 —
$1,400
$1,300
$1,200
$1,100 *11111.11V
$1,000 1111.11.11.
$900
$800
$700
60 6y 6`L 6')) OR Oh Or° 61 04' 60 y0 ,�1 c-v �y3 tia e�
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Qo \�
'L L L L L 'L L L L L L 'L L o <2,o 4,2
to
ti ti
A Property Tax Levy/HH —4----Expected Property Tax Levy/HH
The City Council adopted this metric in the most recent amendment to
the CFMP . . . "Maintain a level of property taxes on a per household
basis which takes into account the cost of inflation and community
growth."
Page 6
As reflected in the chart, the preliminary 2016 total tax levy/household is
slightly higher than the level which reflects the cost of inflation and
growth.
Future Tax Levies
Assuming general fund reserves remain between 40% and 50% in
accordance with the CFMP, tax pressures from the projects and capital
replacements included in the 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Program
and growth in general fund operations will continue. It will be important to
keep this in mind as we develop a strategy to manage the property tax
levy and reserves.
During our most recent bond rating analysis, S&P made a comment
about the city's high net direct debt burden. The analysts did however
react positively to the rapid amortization of debt within 10 years.
Change in Valuations
Based on preliminary payable 2016 figures from Scott County, the
estimated market value for all properties in the city of Prior Lake has
increased 6.69%.
New construction added $53,036,900 to the market value.
Conclusion
Staff is seeking direction on the preliminary 2016 budgets and property
tax levies in order to prepare the resolutions for September 14, 2015.
Attachments:
1) Budget Overview (2 pages)
2) Revenue Summary (all funds)
3) Expenditure Summary (all funds)
4) Budget Requests for Personnel
Page 7
Of FR/04.
City of Prior Lake
2016 PreliminaryBud
get
tBudgeted Funds
M,NN6sos'
Debt Capital Revolving Facilities Total
General Service Cable Park Equipment Management EDA Governmental
Fund Funds Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds
Revenues/Sources
Property Taxes
Levy-Tax Capacity $ 7,609,706 $ 2,340,850 $ - $ - $ 400,000 $ - $ 155,000 $ 10,505,556
Levy-Market Value 1,084,719 - - - - - - 1,084,719
Special Assessments - 762,605 - - - - - 762,605
Licenses&Permits 485,190 - - - - - - 485,190
Fines&Forfeits - - - - - - - -
Intergovernmental 1,522,735 - - - - - - 1,522,735
Charges for Services 1,650,852 - 34,000 23,400 - - 11,686 1,719,938
Other Revenues 275,550 24,244 - 7,000 91,500 12,000 1,000 411,294
Bond Proceeds - - - - - - - -
Lease Proceeds - - - - - - -
Transfers From Other Funds
General Fund - 1,084,719 - - - - - 1,084,719
Water Fund 181,320 542,144 - - 60,000 45,000 - 828,464
Sewer Fund 181,320 - - - 60,000 45,000 - 286,320
Water Quality Fund - - - - 21,000 - - 21,000
TIF Fund - 25,520 - - - - - 25,520
Facilities Management Fund - 45,614 - - - - - 45,614
Capital Park Fund 170,000 170,000
Total Revenues/Sources $ 13,161,392 $ 4,825,696 $ 34,000 $ 30,400 $ 632,500 $ 102,000 $ 167,686 $ 18,953,674
Expenditures/Uses
Employee Services $ 8,203,457 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 122,853 $ 8,326,310
Current Expenditures 3,466,549 - - - - - 55,950 3,522,499
Capital Outlay 406,667 - 6,360 170,000 1,200,955 700,792 2,000 2,486,774
Capital Improvements - - - - - - - -
Subtotal $ 12,076,673 $ - $ 6,360 $ 170,000 $ 1,200,955 $ 700,792 $ 180,803 $ 14,335,583
Transfers To Other Funds
General Fund $ - $ - $ - $ 170,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 170,000
Treatment Plant(Debt) - - - - - - - -
Equipment Fund - - - - - - - -
Park Equipment Fund - - - - - - - -
Debt Service Funds 1,084,719 - - - - 45,614 - 1,130,333
Facilities Management Fund - - - - - - - -
EDA Fund - - - - - - - -
Debt Service - 5,110,172 - - - - - 5,110,172
Subtotal $ 1,084,719 $ 5,110,172 $ - $ 170,000 $ - $ 45,614 $ - $ 6,410,505
Total Expenditures/Uses $ 13,161,392 $ 5,110,172 $ 6,360 $ 340,000 $ 1,200,955 $ 746,406 $ 180,803 $ 20,746,088
Change in Fund Balance $ - $ (284,476) $ 27,640 $ (309,600) $ (568,455) $ (644,406) $ (13,117) $ (1,792,414)
12
Preliminary 8.24.2015
Total
Water Sewer Water Quality Enterprise Budgeted
Fund Fund Fund Funds Funds
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,505,556
- - - - 1,084,719
- - - - 762,605
- - - - 485,190
- - - - 1,522,735
3,966,256 2,791,510 838,537 7,596,303 9,316,241
60,000 40,000 10,000 110,000 521,294
- - - - 1,084,719
- - - - 828,464
- - - - 286,320
- - - - 21,000
- - - - 25,520
- - - - 45,614
170,000
$ 4,026,256 $ 2,831,510 $ 848,537 $ 7,706,303 $ 26,659,977
$ 735,696 $ 682,564 $ 300,629 $ 1,718,889 $ 10,045,199
1,418,473 1,634,790 230,765 3,284,028 6,806,527
118,035 75,251 - 193,286 2,680,060
2,000,000 300,000 385,000 2,685,000 2,685,000
$ 4,272,204 $ 2,692,605 $ 916,394 $ 7,881,203 $ 22,216,786
$ 181,320 $ 181,320 $ - $ 362,640 $ 532,640
542,144 - - 542,144 542,144
60,000 60,000 21,000 141,000 141,000
- - - 1,130,333
45,000 45,000 - 90,000 90,000
- - - 5,110,172
$ 828,464 $ 286,320 $ 21,000 $ 1,135,784 $ 7,546,289
$ 5,100,668 $ 2,978,925 $ 937,394 $ 9,016,987 $ 29,763,075
$ (1,074,412) $ (147,415) $ (88,857) $ (1,310,684) $ (3,103,098)
13
2016 Property Tax Levy Comparison
Change 15-16
Property Taxes 2015 2016 Amount Percent
Levy-Tax Capacity
General Fund-Operating $ 7,071,730 $ 7,609,706 $ 537,976 7.61%
Debt Service Funds 1,877,863 2,340,850 462,987 24.65%
Revolving Equipment Fund 250,000 400,000 150,000 60.00%
Facilities Management Fund - - - n/a
$ 9,199,593 $ 10,350,556 $ 1,150,963 12.51%
Levy-Market Value-General Fund 1,035,493 1,084,719 49,226 4.75%
Levy-Economic Dev Authority 159,000 155,000 (4,000) -2.52%
Total Levy $ 10,394,086 $ 11,590,275 $ 1,196,189 11.51%
2016 Budget Expenditure Comparisons(2015 Original Budgets)
Capital Revolving Facilities Total
General Debt Service Cable Park Equipment Management EDA Governmental
Fund Funds Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds
2016 Total Expenditures/Uses $ 13,161,392 $ 5,110,172 $ 6,360 $ 340,000 $ 1,200,955 $ 746,406 $ 180,803 $ 20,746,088
2015 Total Expenditures/Uses $ 12,563,945 $ 4,256,609 $ 7,000 $ 50,000 $ 818,550 $ 3,546,418 $ 188,595 $ 21,431,117
Change 2015 to 2016($) $ 597,447 $ 853,563 $ (640) $ 290,000 $ 382,405 $ (2,800,012) $ (7,792) $ (685,029)
Change 2015 to 2016(%) 4.76% 20.05% n/a 580.00% 46.72% -78.95% -4.13% -3.20%
2016 Budget Expenditure Comparisons(2015 Amended Budgets)
Capital Revolving Facilities Total
General Debt Service Cable Park Equipment Management EDA Governmental
Fund Funds Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds
2016 Total Expenditures/Uses $ 13,161,392 $ 5,110,172 $ 6,360 $ 340,000 $ 1,200,955 $ 746,406 $ 180,803 $ 20,746,088
2015 Total Expenditures/Uses $ 12,874,822 $ 4,256,609 $ 7,000 $ 220,000 $ 927,905 $ 3,546,418 $ 188,595 $ 22,021,349
Change 2015 to 2016($) $ 286,570 $ 853,563 $ (640) $ 120,000 $ 273,050 $ (2,800,012) $ (7,792) $ (1,275,261)
Change 2015 to 2016(%) 2.23% 20.05% n/a 54.55% 29.43% -78.95% -4.13% -5.79%
Expenditure Comparison(All Funds;2015 Original Budget)
Change 15-16
Original Budget 2015 2016 Amount Percent
Total All Funds $ 31,602,687 $ 29,763,075 $ (1,839,612) -5.82%
Less: Bond Refunding - - - n/a
Less: Transit Fund - - - n/a
Net Total Budgets $ 31,602,687 $ 29,763,075 $ (1,839,612) -5.82%
Expenditure Comparison(General Fund; 2015 Original Budget)
Change 15-16
Original Budget 2015 2016 Amount Percent
Total General Fund Budget $ 12,563,945 $ 13,161,392 $ 597,447 4.76%
Less: EDA Staff Allocation - - - n/a
Less: ERP Software - - - n/a
Less: Election Equipment (75,000) - 75,000 n/a
Less: SJPA - - - n/a
Less: Transfers - - - n/a
Net General Fund Budget $ 12,488,945 $ 13,161,392 $ 672,447 5.38%
14
Preliminary 8.24.2015
Total
Water Sewer Water Quality Enterprise Budgeted
Fund Fund Fund Funds Funds
$ 5,100,668 $ 2,978,925 $ 937,394 $ 9,016,987 $ 29,763,075
$ 5,728,336 $ 3,317,936 $ 1,125,299 $10,171,571 $ 31,602,687
$ (627,668) $ (339,011) $ (187,905) $ (1,154,584) $ (1,839,612)
-10.96% -10.22% -16.70% -11.35% -5.82%
Total
Water Sewer Water Quality Enterprise Budgeted
Fund Fund Fund Funds Funds
$ 5,100,668 $ 2,978,925 $ 937,394 $ 9,016,987 $ 29,763,075
$ 5,742,106 $ 3,372,936 $ 1,165,299 $10,280,341 $ 32,301,689
$ (641,438) $ (394,011) $ (227,905) $ (1,263,354) $ (2,538,614)
-11.17% -11.68% -19.56% -12.29% -7.86%
Expenditure Comparison(All Funds; 2015 Amended Budget)
Change 15-16
Amended Budget 2015 2016 Amount Percent
Total All Funds $32,301,689 $29,763,075 $ (2,538,614) -7.86%
Less: Bond Refunding - - - n/a
Less: Transit Fund - - - n/a
Net Total Budgets $32,301,689 $29,763,075 $ (2,538,614) -7.86%
Expenditure Comparison(General Fund; 2015 Amended Budget)
Change 15-16
Amended Budget 2015 2016 Amount Percent
Total General Fund Budget $ 12,874,822 $13,161,392 $ 286,570 2.23%
Less: EDA Staff Allocation - - - n/a
Less: ERP Software - - - n/a
Less: Election Equipment (75,000) - 75,000 n/a
Less: SJPA - - - n/a
Less: Transfers - - - n/a
Net General Fund Budget $ 12,799,822 $13,161,392 $ 361,570 2.82%
15
08/21/2015 BUDGET REPORT FOR CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
City of Prior Lake
2016 Dept Requested Budget
Expenditures
Change from Amended Budget
2013 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016
ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ORIGINAL AMENDED DEPT REQUESTED Dept Requested Dept Requested
DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET %CHANGE AMT CHANGE
Fund 101-GENERAL FUND
41110.00 MAYOR&COUNCIL 54,827 52,011 55,390 55,390 55,398 0.0 8
41130.00 ORDINANCE 8,097 8,497 7,500 7,500 7,500
41320.00 ADMINISTRATION 404,419 376,260 384,759 384,759 403,193 4.8 18,434
41330.00 BOARDS&COMMISSIONS 9,559 9,389 10,339 10,339 10,539 1.9 200
41410.00 ELECTIONS 0 15,160 75,000 75,000 29,640 (60.5) (45,360)
41520.00 FINANCE 393,855 426,598 434,684 434,684 447,138 2.9 12,454
41540.00 INTERNAL AUDITING 24,890 25,115 29,950 29,950 28,150 (6.0) (1,800)
41550.00 ASSESSING 126,203 134,621 152,250 152,250 169,750 11.5 17,500
41610.00 LEGAL 336,047 384,657 215,000 215,000 225,000 4.7 10,000
41820.00 HUMAN RESOURCES 133,751 152,328 160,221 160,221 140,912 (12.1) (19,309)
41830.00 COMMUNICATIONS 115,053 122,494 122,301 122,301 116,849 (4.5) (5,452)
41910.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 355,590 265,663 307,993 307,993 368,475 19.6 60,482
41920.00 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 271,003 620,208 263,996 306,891 336,855 9.8 29,964
41940.00 FACILITIES-CITY HALL 490,244 495,211 513,457 513,457 447,142 (12.9) (66,315)
42100.00 POLICE 3,244,389 3,385,779 3,364,784 3,364,784 3,593,826 6.8 229,042
42200.00 FIRE 902,226 831,960 883,855 883,855 930,083 5.2 46,228
42400.00 BUILDING INSPECTION 501,025 533,841 577,443 577,443 601,677 4.2 24,234
42500.00 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 3,533 4,746 10,025 10,025 9,750 (2.7) (275)
42700.00 ANIMAL CONTROL 26,612 25,200 25,257 25,257 26,448 4.7 1,191
43050.00 ENGINEERING 337,289 337,700 380,147 380,147 388,717 2.3 8,570
43100.00 STREET 1,191,125 1,139,848 1,346,321 1,462,660 1,393,267 (4.7) (69,393)
43400.00 CENTRAL GARAGE 376,867 396,876 369,791 369,791 381,538 3.2 11,747
45100.00 RECREATION 375,180 405,626 359,377 366,576 406,603 10.9 40,027
45200.00 PARKS 1,248,887 1,423,193 1,331,676 1,553,251 1,511,932 (2.7) (41,319)
45500.00 LIBRARIES 67,471 71,877 66,760 66,760 46,290 (30.7) (20,470)
46100.00 NATURAL RESOURCES 75,325 66,013 79,824
49999.00 CONTINGENT RESERVE 207,174 8,500 (100.0) (8,500)
80000.00 Transfers to other Funds 1,200,070 1,091,655 1,035,845 1,035,845 1,084,719 4.7 48,874
TOTAL-FUND 101 (12,273,536) (13,009,699) (12,563,945) (12,880,629) (13,161,392) 2.2 280,763
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
47000.00 DEBT SERVICE (5,145,835) (8,120,404) (4,256,609) (4,256,609) (5,110,172) 20.1 853,563
80000.00 Transfers to other Funds (250,694)
TOTAL-ALL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS (5,145,835) (8,371,098) (4,256,609) (4,256,609) (5,110,172) 20.1 853,563
Fund 210-CABLE FRANCHISE FUND
41340.00 PUBLIC CABLE ACCESS 14,490 7,000 7,000 6,360 (9.1) (640)
TOTAL-FUND 210 (14,490) (7,000) (7,000) (6,360) (9.1) (640)
08/21/2015 BUDGET REPORT FOR CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
City of Prior Lake
2016 Dept Requested Budget
Expenditures
Change from Amended Budget
2013 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016
ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ORIGINAL AMENDED DEPT REQUESTED Dept Requested Dept Requested
DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET %CHANGE AMT CHANGE
Fund 225-CAPITAL PARK FUND
45040.00 PIKE LAKE PARK 7,212
45143.00 NORTHWOOD MEADOWS (160)
45144.00 THE ENCLAVE @ CLEARY LKPK 45,457
45200.00 PARKS 10,602 18,265 50,000 220,000 170,000 (22.7) (50,000)
80000.00 Transfers to other Funds 170,000 170,000
TOTAL-FUND 225 (63,110) (18,265) (50,000) (220,000) (340,000) 54.6 120,000
Fund 240-EDA Special Revenue Fund
46500.00 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (73,483) (107,444) (148,595) (148,595) (148,803) 0.14 208.00
46503.00 TECH VILLAGE INCUBATOR (35,245) (8,145) (40,000) (40,000) (32,000) (20.0) (8,000)
TOTAL-FUND 240 (108,727) (115,589) (188,595) (188,595) (180,803) 0.0 (7,792)
Fund 410-REVOLVING EQUIPMENT FUND
42100.00 POLICE 69,644 53,602 115,600 115,600 98,116 (15.1) (17,484)
42100.06 POLICE FORFEITURES 21,320 27,018
42200.00 FIRE 175 108,098 150,950 150,950 103,000 (31.8) (47,950)
43050.00 ENGINEERING 43,288
43100.00 STREET 56,780 67,256 310,500 419,855 435,690 3.8 15,835
43400.00 CENTRAL GARAGE 19,160 72,073 20,000 20,000 20,000
45200.00 PARKS 104,934 121,574 108,000 108,000 544,149 403.8 436,149
49400.00 WATER 40,000 (100.0) (40,000)
49420.00 WATER QUALITY 73,500 73,500 (100.0) (73,500)
49450.00 SEWER 48,997 175,101 40,000
TOTAL-FUND 410 (321,010) (668,010) (818,550) (927,905) (1,200,955) 29.4 273,050
Fund 440-FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FND
41960.00 GESP 24,150 2,667,924 2,667,924 (100.0) (2,667,924)
1 42100.00 POLICE 44,558 44,558
42200.00 FIRE 87,056 87,056 36,284 (58.3) (50,772)
43400.00 CENTRAL GARAGE 598,933 598,933 (100.0) (598,933)
45100.00 RECREATION 69,612 55,562 55,562 (100.0) (55,562)
45500.00 LIBRARIES 69,715 55,562 55,562 (100.0) (55,562)
49400.00 WATER 619,950 619,950
80000.00 Transfers to other Funds 81,381 81,381 45,614 (44.0) (35,767)
TOTAL-FUND 440 (139,327) (24,150) (3,546,418) (3,546,418) (746,406) (79.0) (2,800,012)
Fund 601-WATER FUND
41520.00 FINANCE 80,333 81,622 86,090 86,090 86,952 1.0 862
49400.00 WATER 2,108,214 2,215,576 4,837,551 4,851,321 4,185,252 (13.7) (666,069)
80000.00 Transfers to other Funds 1,556,856 1,306,350 804,695 804,695 828,464 3.0 23,769
TOTAL-FUND 601 (3,745,402) (3,603,548) (5,728,336) (5,742,106) (5,100,668) (11.2) (641,438)
08/21/2015 BUDGET REPORT FOR CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
City of Prior Lake
2016 Dept Requested Budget
Revenue
Change from Amended Budget
2013 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016
ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ORIGINAL AMENDED DEPT REQUESTED Dept Requested Dept Requested
DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET %CHANGE AMT CHANGE
Fund 101-GENERAL FUND
Taxes 7,131,097 7,364,122 8,107,223 8,107,223 8,694,425 7.2 587,202
Charges for Services 1,749,484 1,642,197 1,644,615 1,644,615 1,650,852 0.4 6,237
Intergovernmental 1,513,761 1,625,739 1,483,842 1,567,171 1,522,735 (2.8) (44,436)
Miscellaneous Revenues 92,024 531,321 330,000 330,000 275,550 (16.5) (54,450)
Transfers in 341,700 481,763 355,520 355,520 532,640 49.8 177,120
Licenses and Permits 766,835 583,151 642,745 642,745 485,190 (24.5) (157,555)
Fines and Forfeitures 137,529 127,226
TOTAL GENERAL FUND-FUND 101 11,732,432 12,355,518 12,563,945 12,647,274 13,161,392 4.1 514,118
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
Transfers in 1,876,875 1,867,777 1,670,085 1,670,085 1,697,997 1.67 27,912
Taxes 1,828,979 1,744,716 1,877,863 1,877,863 2,340,850 24.65 462,987
Miscellaneous Revenues 1,058,039 698,681 496,799 496,799 786,852 58.38 290,053
Debt Issued 59,200 528,078
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 4,823,092 4,839,251 4,044,747 4,044,747 4,825,699 0.2 780,952
Fund 210-CABLE FRANCHISE FUND
Charges for Services 3,208 25,670 5,133 5,133 34,000 562.4 28,867
TOTAL CABLE -FUND 210 3,208 25,670 5,133 5,133 34,000 562.4 28,867
Fund 225-CAPITAL PARK FUND
Charges for Services 203,887 257,835 162,150 162,150 23,400 (85.6) (138,750)
Miscellaneous Revenues (10,886) 26,662 7,000 7,000 7,000
TOTAL CAPITAL PARK-FUND 225 193,001 284,497 169,150 169,150 30,400 (82.0) (138,750)
Fund 240-EDA Special Revenue Fund
Taxes 147,940 149,950 159,000 159,000 155,000 (3) (4,000)
Charges for Services 2,711 5,639 7,000 7,000 11,686 67 4,686
Miscellaneous Revenues (508) 3,108 500 500 1,000 100 500
Transfers in 32,599 34,600
TOTAL EDA SPECIAL REVENUE-FUND 240 182,742 193,296 166,500 166,500 167,686 0.0 1,186
08/21/2015 BUDGET REPORT FOR CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
City of Prior Lake
2016 Dept Requested Budget
Revenue
Change from Amended Budget
2013 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016
ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ORIGINAL AMENDED DEPT REQUESTED Dept Requested Dept Requested
DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET %CHANGE AMT CHANGE
Fund 410-REVOLVING EQUIPMENT FUND
Taxes 279,595 199,888 250,000 250,000 400,000 60.0 150,000
Intergovernmental 24,585
Miscellaneous Revenues (36,916) 62,907 20,151 20,151 17,500 (13.2) (2,651)
Sale of assets 3,510 13,694 31,000 31,000 24,000 (22.6) (7,000)
Transfers in 110,000 131,000 141,000 141,000 141,000
Other 36,832 57,141 31,827 31,827 50,000 57.1 18,173
TOTAL REVOVLING EQUIPMENT-FUND 410 393,020 489,216 473,978 473,978 632,500 33.5 158,522
Fund 440-FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FND
Miscellaneous Revenues (14,084) 26,898 11,458 11,458 12,000 4.7 542
Transfers in 40,000 45,000 50,000 50,000 90,000 80.0 40,000
Debt Issued 600,000 600,000 (100.0) (600,000)
Energy lease issued 2,667,924
25,916 2,739,822 661,458 661,458 102,000 (84.6) (559,458)
Fund 601-WATER FUND
Charges for Services 3,777,850 3,890,869 3,625,980 3,625,980 3,966,256 9.4 340,276
Intergovernmental 9,757 574
Miscellaneous Revenues (69,749) 155,130 60,000 60,000 60,000
TOTAL WATER-FUND 601 3,717,858 4,046,573 3,685,980 3,685,980 4,026,256 9.2 340,276
Fund 602-STORM WATER UTILITY
Charges for Services 856,392 1,067,703 817,652 817,652 838,537 2.6 20,885
Intergovernmental 75,487 162,041 95,000 107,212 (100.0) (107,212)
Miscellaneous Revenues (8,955) 21,101 5,560 5,560 10,000 79.9 4,440
TOTAL WATER QUALITY-FUND 602 922,924 1,250,845 918,212 930,424 848,537 (8.8) (81,887)
Fund 604-SEWER FUND
Charges for Services 2,674,584 3,320,317 3,227,732 3,227,732 2,791,510 (13.5) (436,222)
Intergovernmental 1,667
Miscellaneous Revenues (60,504) 108,825 52,000 52,000 40,000 (23.1) (12,000)
TOTAL SEWER-FUND 604 2,615,747 3,429,142 3,279,732 3,279,732 2,831,510 (13.7) (448,222)
GRAND TOTAL-ALL FUNDS 24,609,940 29,653,831 25,968,835 26,064,376 26,659,981 2% 595,605
08/21/2015 BUDGET REPORT FOR CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
City of Prior Lake
2016 Dept Requested Budget
Expenditures
Change from Amended Budget
2013 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016
ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ORIGINAL AMENDED DEPT REQUESTED Dept Requested Dept Requested
DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET %CHANGE AMT CHANGE
Fund 602-STORM WATER UTILITY
49420.00 WATER QUALITY 532,509 638,571 1,104,299 1,144,299 916,394 (19.9) (227,905)
80000.00 Transfers to other Funds 207,000 81,000 21,000 21,000 21,000
TOTAL-FUND 602 (739,509) (719,571) (1,125,299) (1,165,299) (937,394) (19.6) (227,905)
Fund 604-SEWER FUND
41520.00 FINANCE 80,261 81,595 86,040 86,040 86,952 1.1 912
49450.00 SEWER 2,264,906 2,366,023 2,984,136 3,039,136 2,605,653 (14.3) (433,483)
80000.00 Transfers to other Funds 355,268 502,086 247,760 247,760 286,320 15.6 38,560
TOTAL-FUND 604 (2,700,435) (2,949,704) (3,317,936) (3,372,936) (2,978,925) (11.7) (394,011)
GRAND TOTAL-ALL FUNDS (25,251,381) (29,479,633) (31,602,688) (32,307,497) (29,763,075) (24) (2,544,422)
700xto t
Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2016
POSITION REQUESTED: Engineering In Training
REQUESTED BY: Larry Poppler
DEPARTMENT BUDGET CODE(S): 101-43050-101
Analysis
Provide a Brief Overview of the Responsibilities of the Position Requested:
Engineering In Training: Capital Improvement Project Delivery,(Design and Inspection)
Identify the Budget Year of the Last Position Added Within the Department:
The engineering department currently consists of 4.5 FTE. When the department was separated from Public Works in 2011,
several of the positions and duties stayed with public works. The graph below shows the staffing level comparison by year. To
properly compare years,the graph depicts staffmg within both engineering and public works to fulfill the duties and roles
which had historically been covered under engineering(GIS position and Water Resources).
10 Employees - _
• `• • • • •
• •
4
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
In 2012,the City hired a project engineer to assist in the area of water resources. Since that hire was made,the project
engineer position has had more of a role in the review of development and City projects than the water resource functions
originally contemplated with the hiring. Turnover in the Engineering Department has been low. This has led to an efficient
team of individuals which understand the City,429 process,City processes,and project delivery.
Provide Any Metrics that Support the Need for Additional Staff:(This could include miles of streets,acres of parks
added since last position was added;number of rooftops added;number of staff in similar cities providing similar services,
or trends in number of permits,number of service calls)
DEVELOPMENT
The trend on the creation of new lots through the platting process has seen an increase over the last three years. When a new
plat is evaluated,City Staff must review the engineering for the project. The amount of time involved depends on the
complexity of the project,completeness of the development application,and willingness of the developer to make changes. In
recent years a number of complicated projects have been reviewed.
• 1
61(0,
Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2016. A"" acro.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
LOTS PLATTED 2009 2015
150 _ ... �.
113 03 .
1
100
0 70 72 61
S, O 49
w 50
CO 0
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
YEAR
In addition to the already platted lots in 2015,City staff are also working on additional development projects below:
Cardinal Addition 9 lots
Carriage Hills 5th 3 lots
Jeffers Pond 8th 30 lots
TOTAL 42 lots
Several other commercial and multi-family projects are also underway or under review:
Dominium(Gateway Redevelopment) 170 Units
Pike Lake Marsh 65 Units
Kwik Trip
Superamerica
Captain Jacks
Welcome Avenue Warehouse
The City has also met with other developers or property owners who have interest in additional properties within the City.
During the economic slowdown,the City experienced little new lot development. However,building still occurred at a
reduced level. This period of time dwindled available lot inventory to today's level of approximately 200 available lots.
Considering the currently available land for development,approximately 1300 new lots could potentially be created within the
City limits. If the Stemmer Ridge project moves forward,the 3000 acre annexation area can begin to develop which will open
up additional area for development.
ROAD PROJECTS
The City has also been active in City or County projects that require study,design,and inspection. The City has utilized both
City Staff and consultants to handle the workload.The trend of City projects can be evaluated based on the valuation of the city
participation in both City and County projects. This yearly comparison is shown below:
2
Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2016 SOs`
HISTORIC AND PROJECTED CIP
EXPENDITURES
$14.00 $12.80
o $12.00 10.30
$10.00 $$.5e,$�'10
$7.80
N $8.00
LU $5.68
-
z $6.00 '
z $4.00 $2.07 $3.32 ], 0
n. $1.46
LI $2.00
a
O $0.00
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
YEAR
The dashed trend line on the graph above shows that CIP expenditures and corresponding work to deliver these projects will
more than quadruple over this 10 year timeline! The spike in 2015,is due to delays on some 2014 as well as completion of
several partnership projects. Managing these projects have been a significant challenge in 2015.
It is typical for the City to use consultants for work involving County or State roadways,signal projects,or due to workload.
Current City Staff is able to handle one typical 1.5 mile standard neighborhood reconstruction project. When a project
involves a first time improvement to City utilities or street,the more complicated project reduces the amount of mileage able to
be completed in-house or delays the bid opening. When City projects involve multiple neighborhoods,mileage able to be
completed in-house is reduced because separate designs,surveys,budgets,429 processes,notices,and management is needed
to deliver these projects. The proposed CIP includes many smaller scale projects which will involve more time to deliver
because the neighborhoods are separated and will require separate processes.
Discuss Any Services the Department or Division is Currently Unable to Provide Without the Requested Position:
State Aid-In addition to the development and CIP workload,the City's Engineering Department manages the City State Aid
responsibilities. State Aid is a significant funding source for City projects,but requires work to manage. The City performs
the minimum work needed to operate the State Aid system. If time were available,the City could dedicate time toward a more
efficient operation of our State Aid system
Studies- Every year new initiatives or studies are explored. Many times these studies are not planned. Some of these
initiatives are detailed below:
2011—Pavement Degradation Study
2011—CSAH 21 Realignment
2012—Downtown South Study
2012—Highway 13 Trail Study
2013—CSAH 42 Comprehensive Plan Study
2014—Sanitary Sewer Study
2014—Stemmer Ridge Feasibility Study and EAW
2014—TH 13/150x'Study
Many times these studies are led by consultants,however,a great deal of City Staff input is necessary. Considering the
controversial nature of some of these studies,City Staff time is critical in steering the study toward the appropriate community
3
0)001004Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2016
conclusion or to communicate with the community at large. Other studies discussed which will require staff time in the future
include the development fee study,other sanitary sewer studies,and ADA study and plan. When these studies are introduced
into the workload,other work is delayed.
Grants or Funding Opportunities—The City has been successful in several grant or programming applications. In 2013 the
City was successful in securing$225,000 in grant dollars from the Public Facilities Authority for the CSAH 12 and Sunset
Avenue projects. The City also received an additional$600,000 through the Cooperative Agreement Program for the
Main/Ridgemont/TH 13 project. While these dollars are useful in offsetting City costs,they require a tremendous amount of
time to manage. Other opportunities exist,but workload may restrict the amount the City can feasibly pursue. In 2014,the
City Council directed that City Staff pursue grants for the Mushtown Road and Rolling Oaks projects. It is clear that the
Council wishes to pursue these opportunities,however time is simply not available to properly manage grants.
Other Work—The engineering department manages the as-built drawing database,City specifications,Public Works Design
Manual,easements,benchmarks,traffic safety issues,transportation planning,and permits. The Public Works Design Manual
and City Specifications have not been updated since 2007 and could use an update. The City as-built drawings are several
years behind. A number of City Ordinances could also be improved if more time were available.
Standard of Care—The engineering field needs individuals that are detail orientated to perform complex calculations and
engineering decisions. The workload needs to be at a level that doesn't sacrifice standard of care. Since Prior Lake is a
developing City,strategic thinking is necessary to assure that expensive infrastructure is planned at appropriate locations.
Discuss the Alternative Solutions You've Researched or Implemented to Meet Current Service Shortfalls. (This could
include consultants,contracted work,seasonal or temporary employees,schedule adjustments,eliminating the service,
overtime)
Below is.a table of previous and anticipated consultant expenditures to deliver CIP projects. As you can see with the projects
proposed,significant consultant expenditures can be expected. It should be noted that significant consultant assistance was
used in 2014 for 2015 projects:
Projects Year Consultant Expenditures
(2013-2014 Actual,2015-2019 Projected)
Welcome Avenue,Ridgemont/Main,CSAH 2013 $600,000
12,Sunset Avenue
Crest Avenue,Maplewood,CSAH 44 2014 $130,000
Highland/Grainwood,150"'/TH 13, 2015 $1,500,000
Mushtown,Credit River
Albany/Park,Manitou/Raspberry,Duluth, 2016 $1,000,000
Stemmer Ridge,Franklin Trail,Rolling
Oaks
Balsam,CSAH 42,CSAR 83,Green Hts, 2017 $900,000
Franklin Tr,Sycamore
Arcadia,Huron,Franklin Tr. 2018 $600,000
Fish Pt,Hidden Oaks,Millers,CSAH 21 2019 $1,500,000
/TH 13,Arcadia
Roadway projects programmed in the CIP will require additional assistance. The City could consider hiring one Engineering
FTE. If this person is dedicated to the delivery of City projects,reduction in consultant expenditures can be anticipated in the
amount of at least$200,000 per year.
4
Budget Request for Personnel m
For Budget Year 2016 44 NES Olt.
Estimated Budget Impact: (Itemize Costs for Wages,Benefits,uniforms,training,etc. as well as reductions estimated in
consultant fees, overtime,etc.)
A permanent full time Engineering EIT would add approximately$90,000 to the engineering depattment budget. Additional
workstation modifications and IT purchases will be necessary. The project support costs programmed through the Capital
Improvement Plan would be used to fund the position. Each project includes costs for project delivery. The funding sources
for each project vary as funding is provided by:MSA, Street Oversizing Fund,Tax Levy,Assessments,Water Quality Fund,
Water Operating Fund,Sewer Operating Fund,and Trunk Fund. Development projects are funded by the developer through
the Development Fund.
It is recommended that if authorized,the position is hired in September of 2015 to begin project delivery of 2016 projects. If
the hire is delayed into 2016,additional consulting would be needed to deliver 2016 projects.
Summarize"Pros" by bullet points for adding Requested Position
• More projects can be delivered by"in house"staff and less consultant expenses.
• Provides for succession planning.
• City management has better control over daily project design decisions.
Summarize"Cons"by bullet points for adding Requested Position
• While the trend shows increase in CLP projects and development,if the projects are reduced and development slows
down,the position may not be needed.
• New person will require a workspace and Autocad capable computer.
Discuss any alternate plan you will implement if the request is not approved?
Consultants would be used to deliver projects.
Submit Completed Form to Kelly in Administration by JULY 26th.
To Be Completed By City Manager:
Recommended for Inclusion in Budget
Deferred to Future Year
OTHER COMMENTS:
•
5
e
Budget Request for Personnel u
For Budget Year 2015 "roiNEedr
POSITION REQUESTED:Maintenance V—Streets and Utilities
REQUESTED BY: Public Works
DEPARTMENT BUDGET CODE(S): 101-43100.00
Analysis
Provide a Brief Overview of the Responsibilities of the Position Requested:
Construction,maintenance,repair of streets,utilities and public buildings including the performance of a variety of heavy and
light duties and tasks. Assignments may include the use of standard or specialized hand tools,power-operated devices or other
department equipment. Assignments also include the operation of trucks and other automotive or department construction
equipment.
Identify the Budget Year of the Last Position Added Within the Department/Division:Water Operator added in 2014.
Provide Any Metrics that Support the Need for Additional Staff: (This could include miles of streets,acres of parks
added since last position was added;number of rooftops added;number of staff in similar cities providing similar services,
or trends in number of permits,number of service calls,etc.)
Over the last ten years the City has seen the addition of infrastructure including 19.0 miles of streets,32.3 miles of watermain,
28.7 miles of Sanitary Sewer,and 5.9 miles of storm sewer. In addition the Water Treatment Facility(WTF)was constructed
and began operation in March 2009 and the City made facilities management a priority with the 158,000 square feet of building
space to manage. Prior to 2011,facilities management was managed through the Building Department as time allowed.
This is critical as the City has constructed a significant amount of infrastructure over the last ten years without adding
maintenance staff or significant equipment. Below is a table showing the growth from 2003-2015. Many cities will consider
adding staff resources when the length added infrastructure equals the length of an average plow route The City's average plow
route is about 13.5 miles considering only the long line routes. We have added about 1.4 plow routes without adding
maintenance staffing.
Miles of Streets Added 19.0
Miles of Sanitary Sewer Added 28.7
Miles of Watermain Added 32.3
Miles of Storm Sewer Added 5.9
Acres of Parkland Added 193.2
New Lift Stations 5.0
Miles of Trail 11.7
Miles of Sidewalk 13.8
Acres of ROW Added 167.2
Discuss Any Services the Department or Division is Currently Unable to Provide Without the Requested Position:
To address some of the Department needs the City brought back a Water Operator position in 2014 that had previously been
eliminated in 2012 and converted a seasonal facilities position to a full time Facilities Technician in 2015. Although these
positions relieve some of the pressures staff have been experiencing,they do not address all of the needs. Due to staffing
1
60i
Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2015 l'NlvEster
shortages,operation of the Street and Utilities Divisions have become more reactive in nature addressing problems or
maintenance activities as they arise as oppose to being out front of the issues and completing timely preventative maintenance.
In practice,municipalities that manage infrastructure complete regular operations and maintenance to ensure safe and efficient
delivery of services to the public. Below is a list of typical practices that we could provide with additional staffing and other
services that are impacting the balance of work within the Department.
WATER
Locates&Meter Installs
The Water Division is influenced by development fluctuations as it manages new meter installations and locates. Although we
did see a moderate reduction of this type of work with the economic downturn,over the last three years we have seen
development related work bounce back in line with the building permit application rates. We have dedicated two maintenance
staff to these tasks over the last ten plus years.In addition we have staff assigned to coordinate water connections and shut-offs
related to new developments and street projects. As these projects increase,so does the time needed to manage them. In 2014
PW dedicated 0.75 FTE for locates up from 0.5 FTE in 2013 and 0.5 FTE for meter installations. During the construction
season we can receive up to 90 locate tickets a day which we dedicate at least 1 FTE per day to handle the work load.
Water Restrictions
The City has adopted an odd/even water restriction to help manage water use for irrigation in the summer. However,without
more strict enforcement the restrictions are not as influential on water use as they could be. As we have stared water shortages
in the face over the last five year,it is key to not only provide additional enforcement of the restrictions,but also provide
education about water use. If we can reduce water use we can potentially prolong the time before additional wells,treatment
and storage facilities are needed.
Water Treatment Facility
1. Filter analysis should be completed to optimize efficiency of the filters,preserve the media and maximize the life of
the filters. Core testing should be completed on the media annually and gradation and chemical testing completed to
identify any abnormalities.
2. Daily inspection and analysis should be completed on the chemical feed systems including pumps,injectors,tanks and
feed lines. This should include daily lab work(-1 hr per day)ensuring adequacy of the chemical and feed rates.
Currently visual inspections are being completed as work occurs in the building,but there is not a structure inspection
and analysis program. Due to the corrosive nature of the chemicals we have started to see more issues with these
systems causing more frequent after hours call-ins and overtime. In addition the only chemical analysis that is
completed is weekly to meet the minimum regulatory standards.
3. We should be completing maintenance on the treatment equipment as per the manufactures'recommendations. For
example,the aerators should be inspected and power washed on a regular basis. We have been completing
inspections,but time has not allowed to power wash the units. Preventative maintenance will maximize the life of the
equipment and ensure warranty coverage.
4. General housekeeping should be completed including regular cleanings of all surfaces and painting as necessary. We
currently complete cleaning as a rainy day activity.
Distribution system
1. Over the last few years we have had several failed curb boxes identified. This becomes an issue if a service
connection needs to be shut off for any reason whether there is a leak in the home,repair to the service line,or
delinquent account. In these situations we would need to use the nearest isolation valves in our distribution system
impacting several homes. We currently have a backlog of 200+repairs.
2. It is standard practice for municipal water supplies to complete regular valve exercising to ensure proper operation.
Without exercising,valves can seize up and become inoperable. Valves are generally used to isolate portions of the
2
Goi Iwo.?
Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2015
distribution system during repairs to minimize the impact to users. If a valve does not function,larger areas will be
without water. We have some larger valves in our system that would cause a large area of impact if they are
inoperable during a repair situation. In addition,a larger repair could cause the isolated portion of the system to be
down for several days(note the 2011 CR 21 watermain repair took three days).
3. Hydrant painting should be completed on a regular basis to extend the life of the hydrants.
4. Regular maintenance should be completed on the mechanical systems in at the City's booster station. This is work
that was completed prior to the construction of the WTF.
5. Mapping of the system and verification of the location of valves,hydrants,and other key infrastructure should be
completed. Although much of our system does exist in GIS,it was gathered from various sources and is more
schematic in nature. Field verification should be completed to confirm existing infrastructure location so that key
components can be easily found during emergency situations.
6. As part of the mapping process condition ratings should be assigned system wide to help identify and prioritize repair
and replacement projects prior to system failures.
Towers
1. Repair projects should be completed as they are identified. We currently have two projects that need to be completed
but there has not been time to plan and execute. These include the replacement of the isolation valves at the south
tower and upgrades to the overflow pipes as provided by the American Water Works Association(AWWA)standards.
2. The tower sites are currently mowed,however more attention should be given to these sites to ensure upkeep of
hardscapes and landscapes.
Wells and Well houses
1. We should be completing general maintenance including inspection and preventative maintenance of pumps and
mechanical systems and calibration of our flow monitoring systems.This would include lab work to monitor water
quality of the source water and provide early detection of issues(i.e.sand pumping problems).
2. General housekeeping should be completed at each of the well houses including cleaning,painting,and tree/brush
trimming. This should occur on an annual basis. We currently complete this type of work as time allows which is
about every 2 years.
SANITARY SEWER
The Sewer Division manages over 125 miles of sewer collection lines and 43 lift stations. The number of lift stations required
to move sewage through the city is relatively high for a municipality of our size due to the unique nature of the topography of
Prior Lake. Each lift station is equipped with at least two pumps and is controlled with an electronic system. This system
informs staff of the key operational aspects and sends alerts if there is equipment malfunction or failure. Staff completes
inspections of the lift stations twice a week to inspect and record information about the operation. Failure of one of these
systems can be inconvenient at best and catastrophic if sewage were to back up into several homes.
Lift Stations
General housekeeping should be completed at each of the lift stations including cleaning,landscaping,and tree/brush
trimming. This should occur on an annual basis. We currently complete this type of work as time allows which is about every
2 years.
Sanitary Sewer
1. The City has started a baseline televising program of all sanitary sewer lines. In order to manage inflow and
infiltration(I/I)at a higher lever regular inspections should be completed to identify projects and prioritize projects
and repairs. Any I/I increases the amount we have to pay to MCES without a corresponding revenue.
3
C+4 PRip%
Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2015 '"^,1i1E5°lr
2. Mapping of the system and verification of the location of pipes,manholes,and other key infrastructure should be
completed. Especially in easement areas to ensure that access to the city's infrastructure is maintained.
STORM SEWER
Over the last 15 years there has been an industry shift acknowledging the impacts urbanization has on water quality and the
importance of managing stormwater runoff to a higher level. Within this 15 year period we have seen the addition of federal
regulations most notably the MS4 and TMDL programs. With these programs the City has had to focus not only on conveying
storm water appropriately,but adding treatment or infiltration measures. These measures generally have a higher degree of
maintenance than traditional stormwater infrastructure. For example,a rain garden generally takes five years to establish to a
low maintenance condition. Within that time period,regular weeding and cleaning have to occur to allow the rain garden
vegetation to establish. In addition,rain gardens can become clogged over time and are required to be cleaned and
reestablished. The Stormwater/Water Quality Division now manages over 88 miles of storm sewer lines, 142 treatment ponds,
66 BMPs and 91 acres of other natural wetland areas.
1. Inspection of the storm sewer system should be completed to establish a baseline and identify areas that are
susceptible to blockages or sedimentation. Once identified these areas should be placed on a regular routine of
maintenance so that major failures do not occur.
2. Mapping of the system and verification of the location of pipes,manholes,and other key infrastructure should be
completed. Although much of our system does exist in GIS,it was gathered from various sources and is more
schematic in nature. Field verification should be completed to confirm existing infrastructure location so that key
components can be easily found during emergency situations. For example,staff recently found a valve on Little
Prior that was open during the 2014 flooding.
STREETS
Over the last 10 years we have added about 19 miles of new streets which the city maintains. As these additions have occured
we have seen an impact to the service levels we can provide given the current staffing and resources.
1. We have historically completed much of our crack sealing in-house. With the additional stresses within the
department,we are starting to see an impact in the amount we can accomplish in-house each summer. We either need
additional staffing to complete this work or we should consider contracting this work out.
2. In 2014 we had to extend the plowing standard by two hours across the board for plowing. Prior to that we shifted
parks staff priorities to street routes which has impacted our standard of service on our trail routes.
3. Maintenance Supervisors and key staff are plowing snow on a regular basis pulling them away from other critical
tasks within the City. This equated to 0.4 FTE of time in 2014.
4. We have always hauled snow from cul-de-sacs as time allows. However,snow used to be hauled about every other
snow event. Currently we are only able to complete this task once or twice per year system wide. Smaller cul-de-sacs
may be cleared more frequently due to safety concerns.
5. We do not have enough staff to provide shifts to aid in pre-treatment of the roads and longer snow events.
6. Sign management could be completed to a higher level to comply with the intent of the federal requirement to
inventory and have a replacement program for retro-reflectivity.
Discuss the Alternative Solutions You've Researched or Implemented to Meet Current Service Shortfalls.(This could include
consultants, contracted work,seasonal or temporary employees,schedule adjustments, eliminating the service, overtime)
Most of the service areas noted above are best completed by in-house staff. Staff has tried the use of temporary employees and
has not been successful in making this work due to the specialty nature of most of what we do. Staff has also explored
contracting of some of these services such as snow plowing and utility repairs. Generally we can complete this work in-house
cheaper than contracting it out since we are not paying a profit margin.
4
(01°41
Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2015
Estimated Budget Impact:(Itemize Costs for Wages,Benefits, uniforms, training, etc. as well as reductions estimated in
consultant fees,overtime, etc.)(Contact HR for Wage/Benefit estimates)
Wages/Benefits $77,000(grade 6,step 4 plus family benefits)
Uniforms:$110
Boot Allowance: $75
Training/Certifications:$700 every other year
Winter Attire: $70
Summarize"Pros"by bullet points for adding Requested Position
• The City has over$400 million in assets which primarily are maintained by the Public Works Department. These
assets are most efficiently maintained using proven methods that ward off more costly and unplanned failures.
Additional staff will allow us to complete preventative maintenance of some of the systems that currently are below
an acceptable standard.
• The public has an expectation for standards of operation of these systems. Additional staff will allow us to maintain
the current standard.
• Additional staffing will allow us to refine our mapping and inventory systems to more accurately evaluate and
prioritize infrastructure projects.
Summarize"Cons"by bullet points for adding Requested Position
• Additional expenditure in the General Fund Streets budget.
Discuss any alternate plan you will implement if the request is not approved?
Without additional resources,staffing or otherwise,the level of service will continue to degrade as additional infrastructure is
added.
Submit Completed Form to Cathy in Finance by JULY 10, 2015
To Be Completed By City Manager:
Recommended for Inclusion in Budget
Deferred to Future Year
OTHER COMMENTS:
5
OQ PRI04
Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2016
POSITION REQUESTED: Police Officer
REQUESTED BY: Mark Elliott,Police Chief
DEPARTMENT BUDGET CODE(S): 101-42100.00-511.01
Analysis
Provide a Brief Overview of the Responsibilities of the Position Requested:
Police Officer. Handle calls for service and enforce the laws of the state and city ordinances. Provide for the safety and
security of the city residents and visitors. Provide emergency response to public safety threats and community social work
issues. Provide investigation into crimes and disturbances and provide emergency medical response within the community.
Identify the Budget Year of the Last Position Added Within the Department: 2012
Provide Any Metrics that Support the Need for Additional Staff: (This could include miles of streets, acres of parks added
since last position was added;number of rooftops added;number of staff in similar cities providing similar services, or trends
in number of permits, number of service calls)
Additional officer needed to catch up to population growth that has occurred and to keep up with scheduled growth in the
future. The police department is understaffed in comparison to other cities of similar size. Using FBI UCR standards for a city
of 10,000-24,999 a ratio of 1.8 officers per 1,000 population,or the Minnesota average ratio of 1.32 compared with the Prior
Lake current ratio of.99. The Minnesota average is the average of 53 cities with a population of 10,000 to 25,000 residents.
Additionally 9 other similar size cities with populations of 23-27,000 have an average ratio of 1.21 (Table 1)
Very few cities this size also have a venue that attracts up to 20,000 people per day to the city like Mystic Lake casino does.
With the volume of visitors drawn to the city for the casino and the lake the ratio should be closer to 1.5 officers per 1,000
residents to provide a comparable level of service as our peer communities.
As a comparison to these other 9 cities not only does Prior lake have the lowest officer ratio,it has the second highest arrest
ratio per officer.(Table 2)The officers are extremely busy handling priority calls and do not have the time to handle prevention
activities,traffic concerns,and community policing strategies;all of which are effective in reducing the overall crime rate and
increasing the quality of life for residents.
The Met council population forecast estimate the growth of another 3,000 residents in the next 4 years as well. Based on the
building permit process so far this year that seems like a reasonable estimate.The department needs to start planning for that
growth and increase the number of officers to keep up with the growth as well. I estimate the need to hire 8 officers in the next
5 years.
1
Budget Request for Personnel u O
For Budget Year 2016
Officers per 1000 Residents Arrests by Department
U�i 1C1 R 12.111 \RR).tF"
rr ,
1 ' u
Itk
'fables I
Discuss Any Services the Department or Division is Currently Unable to Provide Without the Requested Position:
The community survey,and 2040 Vision both indicate that the community feels strongly about reducing incidents of drunk
driving,distracted driving,and drug use. The number one complaint called in to the police department is enforcement of speed
laws. The way to accomplish these things is through enforcement and education. We currently are not able to significantly
impact these concerns due to not having staff time to dedicate to these issues. The call load keeps officers busy handling calls
and does not leave enough time for additional enforcement in these community priority areas. Routinely neighboring agencies
are called on to assist us on handling calls due to being short staffed. While it is normal to request assistance from a
neighboring agency when there is an unusually high call load,or several emergency calls at one time,it is not normal to call for
assistance multiple times each week. That fact alone shows that the department is not adequately staffed to handle the volume
of work the department has.
Discuss the Alternative Solutions You've Researched or Implemented to Meet Current Service Shortfalls: (This could
include consultants, contracted work,seasonal or temporary employees,schedule adjustments, eliminating the service,
overtime)
Officers work overtime to fill shift shortages,we routinely operate short staffed and need to rely on neighboring agencies to
assist on calls. We do not spend enough time addressing the communities concerns in their priority areas due to not having the
staffing. We have cut programs like DARE and reduced investigative follow up. We have adjusted scheduled shift times to
provide maximum overlaps in order to create maximum staffmg during the busiest times of the day. We may have to stop
offering services like lockouts,and vacation checks as they take additional time.
Estimated Budget Impact: (Itemize Costs for Wages,Benefits, uniforms, training, etc. as well as reductions estimated in
consultant fees, overtime, etc.) (Contact Kelly for Wage/Benefit estimates)
$79,392Wages and benefits per LELS contract. On the job training through FTO process.
$1000 uniforms
Slight reduction in overtime costs once the officer is trained and fully functional.
2
0„t ",04,
Budget Request for Personnel
For Budget Year 2016 4,NNE5O
Summarize"Pros"by bullet points for adding Requested Position:
• Additional officer to handle calls and respond to emergencies requiring a police response.
• Increased officer presence in community and better community relations
• Incremental increase to provide for ability to respond to community safety goals as outlined in the 2040 Vision and
community survey.
• Reduction in response times for calls for service.
• Increased effectiveness in police service
Summarize"Cons"by bullet points for adding Requested Position:
• Increase to the budget
Discuss any alternate plan you will implement if the request is not approved?
Reduction in services currently offered
Submit Completed Form to Cathy in Finance by JULY 10, 2015.
To Be Completed By City Manager:
Recommended for Inclusion in Budget
Deferred to Future Year
OTHER COMMENTS:
3