Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-08-2010AGENDA REGULARMEETING–MONTICELLOCITYCOUNCIL Monday,November8,2010–7p.m. Mayor:ClintHerbst CouncilMembers:TomPerrault,GlenPosusta,BrianStumpf,SusieWojchouski 1.CalltoOrderandPledgeofAllegiance 2A.ApprovalofMinutes–October25,2010SpecialMeeting 2B.ApprovalofMinutes–October25,2010RegularMeeting 3.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda 4.Citizencomments,publicserviceannouncementsandstaffupdates a.CitizenComments: b.PublicServiceAnnouncements: 1)Veteran’sHolidayHours(11/11) 2)LeafPickup(11/13) c.StaffUpdates: 1)PresentationofOutstandingCitizenRecognitionAwards-MayorHerbst 2)Walgreen’s/SemperDevelopment 5.ConsentAgenda: A.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments B.ConsiderationofamendingCityHealthInsuranceBenefitPlan C.Considerationofaccepting3rd QuarterFinancialReports D.Considerationofapprovingpurchaseofausedmainlinesewercamerasystem 6.Considerationofitemsremovedfromtheconsentagendafordiscussion 7.ConsiderationofcanvassingthereturnsandadoptingResolution#2010-68declaringthe resultsofthe2010GeneralElection 8.ConsiderationofapprovingguidelinesforuseofCity-ownedilluminatedpylonsign 9.ConsiderationofamendingcontracthoursforWrightCountySheriff’sOfficeforpolice protectionin2011 SPECIALMEETING 5p.m.–JointPlanning/CC–ZoningRevisionUpdate PotentialLandPurchase–CLOSEDSessionatendofregularmeeting 10.ConsiderationofreducingtheSewerAccessCharge(SAC)feesfortheMonticelloPizza Ranch 11.PersonnelCommitteeRequest–ConsiderationofeliminatingIceRinkmaintenanceat WestBridgePark 12.AddedItems 13.ApprovepaymentofbillsforNovember8th 14.Adjournment *Note:ClosedSessionfollowsmeeting CityCouncilAgenda:11/08/10 1 5A.ConsiderationofapprovingnewhiresanddeparturesforCitydepartments (TE) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCouncilisaskedtoratifythehiringanddeparturesofemployeesthathaveoccurred recentlyinthedepartmentslisted.ItisrecommendedthattheCouncilofficiallyratifythe hiring/departureofalllistedemployeesincludingpart-timeandseasonalworkers. A1.BudgetImpact:(positionsaregenerallyincludedinbudget) A2.StaffWorkLoadImpact:Ifnewpositions,theremaybesometraining involved.Ifterminatedpositions,existingstaffwouldpickupthosehours,as needed,untilreplaced. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoratifythehire/departuresoftheemployeesasidentifiedontheattached list. 2.Motiontodenytherecommendedhiresanddepartures. C.RECOMMENDATION: BystatutetheCityCouncilhastheauthoritytoapproveallhires/departures.Citystaff recommendsAlternative#1,fortheCounciltoapprovethehiresand/ordeparturesas listed. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Listofnew/terminatedemployees Name Title Department Hire Date Class Name Reason Department Last Day Class Herb Schoenborn Voluntary Parks 10/29 Seasonal Frank Robinson Voluntary Parks 10/29 Seasonal Clarence Maanum Voluntary Parks 10/29 Seasonal NEW EMPLOYEES TERMINATING EMPLOYEES Book1: 11/5/2010 CityCouncilAgenda:11/08/10 1 5B.ConsiderationofamendingCityHealthInsuranceBenefitPlan (JO,TE,TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCity’sinsurancebenefitsarerenewedeachNovember/Decemberwithaplanyearof JanuarythroughDecember.Aspartofthebudgetprocess,staffestimatesthepremium increases,whichisusedtoestimatetheCityandemployeecostforthenextyear.Forthe 2011budget,staffuseda10%increaseinhealthinsurancepremiumsandleftthe City/employeecostsharingcalculationatcurrentsplit.ThiswouldresultinaCitycostof $671,088.However,theactualpremiumincreaseis15%iftheCityoffersthesameplan. Ifwemaintainthecurrentcostsharingformula,thiswouldcosttheCity$697,128and wouldcreateabudgetshortfallof$26,040.TheCitydoeshaveseveraloptionstodeal withthisissue,whichthepersonnelcommitteediscussedatitsmeetingonNovember3rd. Option1wouldbetoofferthesamehealthinsuranceplanandcontinuethesamecost sharingformula.Thiswouldrequirestafftocut$26,040outofotherareasofthe2011 budgettofundtheCity’sshare.Option1ofAttachment#2showsthebreakdownofthe premiumsunderthisoption.Thebenefitofthisoptionisitisstatusquoandemployees wouldpay$20morepermonthforfamilycoverageandemployeesarefamiliarwiththeir healthinsuranceplan.ThedownsideistheCitybudgetwouldneedtobecutinother areastomaintainabalancebudget. Option2wouldbetoofferthesamehealthinsuranceplanbuttochangethecostshare formulatoreflectthe10%premiumincreaseintheCity’scontributionandhavethe employeespickuptheremainingcosts.Thisisoption2onAttachment#2.Benefitsof thisoptionwouldbeemployeesarestillfamiliarwiththeinsurancebenefitandthecost sharingformulawouldbewithinCitybudgetamountsfor2011.Thedownsidewouldbe employeeswouldpayalargershareofpremiumcostinayearwhenwagesarefrozen. Option3wouldbetooffermultipleinsuranceplanswithacostsharingformulabasedon theplantheemployeechooses.Underthisoption,thebaseplan theCitywouldoffer wouldbesimilartotheplancurrentlybeingofferedonlythedeductiblewouldincrease $100to$300andthecopaywouldincreasefrom$10to$25.Thisisshownin Attachment1incolumn2.Usingthisplan,thepremiumwouldincrease6.42%andthe Citywouldmaintainthecurrentcostsharingformula,whichwouldhavetheCitypaying $462.17forsinglecoverageand$1,038.95forfamily.Theemployeewouldpay$0for singleand$144.20forfamilycoverage,whichisan$8.70increaseforfamilycoverage butnotasfavorableofaplan.Howevertheemployeecouldchooseasecondoption to stayonthecurrentplanandpaythedifferenceinpremiumbetweenthebaseplanandthe currentplan(currentplanisonAttachment1,column1).Foremployeeschoosingthis option,onamonthlybasistheCitywouldpay$477.73forsinglyand$1,038.95for family,buttheemployeewouldnowpay$37.28forsingleand$239.63forfamily coverage.Thethirdoption thatemployeeswouldhavewouldbetochoosea$1,500 deductibleplaninahealthcaresavingsaccount(HSA),whichisshownoncolumn3of Attachment1.Becauseofthehighdeductible,thepremiumsaremuchlowerandsince theCitywouldfundatthebaseplanlevel,theemployeewouldnotpayamonthly CityCouncilAgenda:11/08/10 2 premiumforsingleorfamilyandtheCitywouldpay100%ofbothsingleandfamily premiumsandcontribute$91.70permonthforsinglecoverageand$85.72permonthfor familycoverageintoaHSA,whichtheemployeecouldusetopaydeductiblesorcopays. Overall,theCitywouldstillbepaying$477.73and$1,073.94forsingleandfamily coveragerespectively.Thiscostsharingformulaisoption3ofAttachment2. A1.BudgetImpact:The2011budgetimpactwoulddependontheplanoptionthat Councilchoosestoofferemployees.Option1wouldresultinabudgetshortfall. Whileoption2resultsinemployeespickingupalargershareofpremiumcosts, thisiswhatwasbudgetedforCitycosts.Option3wouldsavetheCity$20,717 fromthe2011budgetandwouldprovideemployeesmultiplehealthinsurance options. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffworkloadwouldagaindependonwhichoption waschosen.Option1and2wouldhavenoimpactonstaffworkloadwhileoption 3wouldrequireasmallamountoftimetoeducateemployeesontheHSAoption andhowitworks. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapproveofferingemployeesachoiceofinsuranceplansandauthorize stafftoimplementOption3,withtheCityfundingabaseplanatcurrentcost- sharingformulas,employeespayingmoreofthepremiumiftheychoosethe currentplan,ortheemployeepayingnothingandtheCitycontributingfundsinto anemployee’sHSAiftheychoosethehighdeductibleplan. 2.Motiontoleavethecurrenthealthinsuranceplansandfundingformulainplaceas theyare(Option1). 3.Motiontomaintainthecurrenthealthinsuranceplan,buthavetheemployeespay alargershareofthemonthlypremiums(Option2). 4.Motiontooffersomeotherplanorcostsharingformuladirectstaffaccordingly. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CityStaffandPersonnelCommitteesupportAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Attachment1-RenewalComparisons Attachment2-CostSharingFormulas Attachment2 Total Monthly Monthly Monthly City Employee Premium Share Share Current Single 434.30 434.30 0.00 Family 1,111.81 976.31 135.50 Option1-15%PremiumIncreasewithSameCostShare Single 499.45 499.45 0.00 Family 1,278.58 1,122.75 155.83 Option2-10%PremiumIncreasewithEmployeePayingIncrease Single 499.45 477.73 21.72 Family 1,278.58 1,073.94 204.64 Option3-3OptionPlanwithBasePlanCalculatedatCurrentCostSharing BasePlan(Column2) Single 462.17 462.17 0.00 Family 1,183.15 1,038.95 144.20 CurrentPlan(Column1) Single 499.45 462.17 37.28 Family 1,278.58 1,038.95 239.63 DeductiblePlanwithHealthSavingsAccount(Column3)H.S.A.contribution Single 386.03 462.17 0.00 76.14 Family 988.22 1,038.95 0.00 50.73 CityCouncilAgenda:11/08/10 1 5C.Considerationofaccepting3rd QuarterFinancialReports (TK) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: Attachedisthe20103rd quarterfinancialstatusreport.Thereporthasseenactivitypick up,asmoreactivityoccursduringthe2nd and3rd quartersoftheyearthaninthefirst quarter.Throughthe3rd quartertheCityisingoodshapecomparedtobudgetandisvery similartolastyear’srevenueandexpenditureactivity. Theconcernthroughthe3rd quarteroftheyearisbuildingpermitrevenue,whichwillbe fallingshortcomparedtobudget.Also,interestearningsmaybebelowbudgetasinterest ratesremainverylowandsomeoftheCity’sgovernmentsecuritieswithinterestratesat 3%orabovecontinuetobecalled,whichforcesustoreinvestatlowerratesorextendthe lengthofmaturitiestoachievesimilarrates.Thegoodnewsisthatrevenuesare beginningtobereceivedforFiberNet. Ontheexpendituresideoftheledger,lineitemsappeartobecominginbelowbudgets andappearthattheyshouldbebelowrevenuesreceived. Allotherrevenueandexpendituresappeartobeinlinewithbudgetamounts. A1.BudgetImpact:Thequarterlyreportshaveverylittlebudgetimpactotherthan stafftimetopreparethereport. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Thereporttakesstaffacoupleofhourstoprepare,but thehopeisthenewsoftwaresystemwillreducethistimeinthefuture. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoacceptthe20103rd quarterfinancialstatusreport. 2.Motiontonotacceptthe20103rd quarterfinancialstatusreport. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: 20103rd QuarterFinancialStatusReport SeptemberInvestmentSchedule 1 20103rd QuarterFinancialStatusReport Welltheyear2010isthreequartersoveralready,asistheCity’sfiscalyear.Thefinance staffhasusedthesloweconomyanditslevelofexpertisetocleanupandproperly accountforsomeofitsrevenuesandexpenditures.Thisprocesswillcontinueinthe futuresothatwhentheeconomystartstorollagain,staffispreparedtoreportand maintainrecordsin-houseinsteadofcontractingservicestofiscalconsultantsand auditors.Oneitemistheproperrecordingofpropertytaxesandrelatedrevenues.Inthe pastthesewererecordedasrevenuewhentheCityreceivedthetaxsettlementsinJuly andDecember.Nowtheyarebeingrecordedasrevenuerightawayandsetuponthe booksasareceivable,asrequiredbyGenerallyAcceptedAccountingPrinciples(GAAP). Thisshouldeliminatesomeyear-endauditadjustmentsandauditwork.Staffisalso tryingtoreconcileaccountsonaregularbasisinsteadofjustduringauditpreparation, whichagainshouldsavesometimeatyear-endandmaintainrecordsmoreaccurately. Overall BecauseoftheeconomytheCityreduceditsrevenuebudgets(GeneralFundandSpecial RevenueFunds)forfundingoperationsin2010and,becauseofthis,revenuesasa percentagereceivedareverysimilarto2009.Thechartbelowshowseachfundtype comparedtobudgetforyears2009and2010throughtheendofthe3rd quarter (September30th). Revenues:2009 2009 %2010 2010 % Budget 3rdQTRYTD Received Budget 3rdQTRYTD Received GeneralFund7,157,601 4,036,274 56.39%6,329,450 6,033,125 95.32% SpecialRevenueFunds6,632,144 6,963,283 104.99%6,110,647 3,705,254 60.64% DebtServiceFunds6,192,140 3,149,539 50.86%6,064,497 5,014,176 82.68% CapitalImprovementFunds4,495,643 27,266 0.61%5,602,320 2,731,710 48.76% EnterpriseFunds6,257,325 4,387,303 70.11%8,620,167 4,745,976 55.06% TotalRevenues30,734,853 18,563,665 60.40%32,727,081 22,230,241 67.93% Expenditures:2009 2009 %2010 2010 % Budget 3rdQTRYTD Spent Budget 3rdQTRYTD Spent GeneralFund7,157,601 5,716,703 79.87%6,329,450 4,594,887 72.60% SpecialRevenueFunds9,065,958 6,842,662 75.48%7,521,339 5,377,884 71.50% DebtServiceFunds9,134,080 9,059,586 99.18%6,845,275 7,394,918 108.03% CapitalImprovementFunds4,715,000 -13,209 -0.28%4,289,220 1,681,842 39.21% EnterpriseFunds7,960,546 5,523,282 69.38%9,909,830 9,434,993 95.21% TotalExpenditures38,033,185 27,129,024 71.33%34,895,114 28,484,524 81.63% Thebigdifferenceintherevenueistherecordingoftaxrelatedrevenuesasrevenuesand asareceivableonthebooksinsteadoflastyearwhenonlythefirsthalftaxsettlement wouldhavebeenrecordedin2009atthistime.Alsothe2010bondsalewasrecordedin theDebtServiceandCapitalImprovementFunds,whereas2009therewerenobondsales 2 recorded.OntheexpendituresideofthingstheCityhasthe2010streetreconstruction projectandtheconstructionofFiberNetMonticellocausinganincreaseinexpenditures over2009. GeneralFund TheCityhasrecorded95.3%ofitsbudgetedrevenuessofarwhichcomparesto56.4% lastyear,buthasspent72.6%ofitsbudgetedexpenditurescomparedto79.9%lastyear. Ifyourecordedpropertytaxrevenuesaswedidin2009,GeneralFundrevenueswould be$3,242,024or51.2%ofbudgetwhichwouldhigherthan2009propertytaxrevenue collections.Thebiggestareaofconcernwouldbebuildingpermitrevenues.Through SeptembertheCityhascollected$95,154inbuildingpermitrevenuescomparedtoa budgetof$235,000.Aswinterapproaches,permitactivitygenerallyslowsdown.Ifthis isthecase,thereisnodoubtthatbuildingpermitswillbebelowbudgetfortheyear. Investmentearningsarealsobelowbudget.However,overallrevenuesshouldendthe yearatorslightlyabovebudgetamounts.Thetablebelowcompares2009and2010 budgetsand3rd quarterrevenuesfortheGeneralFund. 2009 2009 %20102010 % Budget 3rdQTRYTD Received Budget3rdQTRYTD Received PropertyTaxes5,272,397 2,471,757 46.88%5,297,0655,274,662 99.58% Licenses&Permits 591,900 236,440 39.95%296,650 160,978 54.27% Intergovernmental Revenues498,056 283,965 57.01%114,801203,177 176.98% ChargesforServices383,950 531,374 138.40%306,023187,253 61.19% Fines&Forfeits750 120 16.00%300165 55.00% Miscellaneous291,452 162,618 55.80%269,611206,890 76.74% TransfersfromOtherFunds119,114 350,000 293.84%45,0000 0.00% TotalGeneralFund Revenues7,157,619 4,036,274 56.39%6,329,4506,033,125 95.32% OntheexpendituresidetheCityhasspent72.6%ofitsbudgetthroughSeptember.The tablebelowcompares2009and2010budgettoactualexpendituresbydepartment. 2009 2009 %2010 2010 % Budget 3rdQTRYTD Spent Budget 3rdQTRYTD Spent GeneralGovernment1,441,244 1,163,015 80.70%1,372,973 1,106,547 80.59% PublicSafety1,977,997 1,823,474 92.19%1,697,794 1,270,012 74.80% PublicWorks 2,524,089 1,793,665 71.06%2,275,156 1,518,551 66.74% Miscellaneous345,601 473,367 136.97%165,593 205,584 124.15% Parks793,974 407,638 51.34%744,590 448,823 60.28% EconomicDevelopment74,714 55,544 74.34%73,344 45,370 61.86% TotalGeneralFdExpenditures7,157,619 5,716,703 79.87%6,329,450 4,594,887 72.60% 3 GeneralFundhasspent72.6%oftheirbudget,whichislowerthan2009forspending throughthe3rd quarter.Havingspentonly72.6%ofthebudgetwhenweare75%ofthe waythroughtheyearisgoodconsidering,thenumberoflargeone-timecapital expendituresandoperatingtransfersouttootherfundswhichweremadeearlierinthe year.TheCityshouldbeabletoendtheyearbelowtheGeneralFundbudget. The generalgovernmentdepartment iscurrentlyabovebudgetamounts,butshouldend theyearslightlybelowbudget.ThemainreasonistheCityspent$68,280forthe lobbyistrelatedtoYuccaMountainClosure,whichwasunbudgeted.Theother unbudgeteditemswereoperatingcostsoftheWestPrairieBuilding.ThroughSeptember theCityhasspent$24,065tomaintain(electric,gas,repairs,cleaning,etc.)thisfacility. Ifyouremovedthesetwoexpenditureitemsthegeneralgovernmentdepartmenthasspent 73.9%ofitsbudget.Oneactivitywhichwillbeoverbudgetistheelectionactivity.The budgetof$14,531wasbasedontwoyearsagowhenthereweretwoelections(primary& general).However,throughSeptember,theCityhasspent$14,237ofthisbudgetwith themajorityoftheactivitytotakeplaceinOctoberandNovember,sothiswillbeover budget.Somereasonscontributingtotheincreasedcostsforelectionsare:morecitystaff workingwithelectionsandaccountingforthattimeunderelections,majorchangesinthe absenteevotingrulesandmethodswhichrequiredmoreresourcesandstafftimeandnew equipment,changesinHealthCareFacility(HCF)voting(whichfallsunderthenew absenteevoting),expansionofHCFvotingtoSt.Benedict’sCenter(inwhichtheyare qualifiedtoparticipate),newrequirementsinabsenteevotinghoursforthepublic,and morerequiredtrainingfromtheStateunderthenewelectionrules. The publicsafetydepartment isonly74.8%spentandallactivitiesarenearorslightly belowbudgetsofar.Howthisdepartmentfinishestheyearcomparedtobudgetwill dependlargelyonthenumberoffiredepartmentcallsinthe4th quarteroftheyear.So fartheCityhaspaidout86%ofbudgetedfirewages.Atthecurrentaveragerate,thefire wageswouldbealmost$12,000overbudgetandcouldcausetheactivityandpublic safetydepartmenttobeoverbudget.Ifcallsslowdownandthuslessispaidoutin wages,boththedepartmentandactivitycouldfinishtheyearatbudgetorslightlybelow budget. The publicworksdepartment hasspent66.7%oftheirbudgetsofarandshouldendthe yearunderbudget.OneofthereasonsthisdepartmentisunderbudgetistheCityhas spent$37,195ofthe$90,000budgetedforgeneralconsultingengineering.Asecond reasonwouldbethetimechargedtothe2010streetreconstructionprojectforthe constructioninspectors,which100%oftheirtimewasbudgetedinthisdepartment. Finally,thesnowandiceactivitywillbepurchasingsaltandsandfortheearlysnow seasonshortlyanddependingonsnowcouldhavesomeovertimeexpenses,whichcould pushthisactivityoverbudget. Thebudgetforthe miscellaneousdepartment appearstobeoverbudget(124%spent) butitshouldbeontargettofinishtheyearalittleabovebudget.TheCityhaspaidits 2010insurancepoliciesoutoftheunallocatedinsuranceactivityandwillbeallocating thecoststothevariousdepartmentsandfundsinthe4th quarteroftheyear.Oncethat 4 allocationiscompletedthemiscellaneousdepartmentwillbeontracktofinishtheyeara littleabovebudget. The parksdepartment isbelowbudgetduetopathwaymaintenanceexpenditureswhich willbepaidlaterthisyear,butthedepartmentshouldendtheyearbelowbudget. Finally,the economicdevelopmentdepartment isalsobelowbudgetsofarthisyear andshouldcompletetheyearbelowbudgetbyyear-end. Insummary,IbelievetheGeneralFundrevenueswillfinishtheyearatorslightlybelow budgetandexpenditureswillbebelowbudget.Lookingatthingsrightnowmy expectationwouldbethatexpenditureswillfinishtheyearbelowrevenuesforthe reasonsdescribedabove. SpecialRevenueFunds SpecialRevenueFundsarefundswhichtheusesoftheirrevenuesarerestrictedfor specificpurposesbyagoverningbody.TheCitycurrentlyoperates17specialrevenue funds,eachwiththeirownbudgets.FundssuchastheLibrary,ShadeTree,and CommunityCenteralldependonapropertytaxlevytosupporttheiractivities.Belowis thechartcomparingeachSpecialRevenueFund’sbudgettoactualthroughSeptember 30th. 5 ThetotalrevenuebudgetforallSpecialRevenueFundsis$6,110,647andtheCityhas collected60.6%ofthesesofar.Thosefundswhichcollectpropertytaxesortax incrementshaveonlyreceivedtheirfirsthalftaxsettlement,withthebalancetobe receivedinDecember.SimilartotheGeneralFund,therevenuesfortheentireyearhave beenrecorded,sothesefundsappeartobeabovebudgetforrevenues. TheCity’sthreeaccessfundsandparkandpathwaydedicationfund,whichdependon newdevelopmentsandpermitfees,arestrugglingwiththeeconomy.TheSanitarySewer AccessFundhascollectedonly16.6%oftheirbudgetincludingover$19,185inaccess andtrunkfees.TheStormWaterAccessFundhasonly14.4%collectedmainlyfrom interestearnings.TheWaterAccessFundhasonlycollected12.2%oftheirbudgeted revenues,whiletheparkandpathwaydedicationfundhascollected3.1%.Thesefour fundsrevenueswillfallshortofbudgetamounts. Ontheexpenditureside,thefundsasagrouphavespent71.5%oftheirbudgeted expenditures.ThemajorityoftheSpecialRevenueFundsexpendituresaretransfersto otherfundsfordebtserviceorcapitalprojects.ExpendituresfortheEDAFundarefor thefirsthalfpay-as-you-goobligations(thesecondhalfwillbepaidinDecember).The chartbelowshowstheSpecialRevenueFundsbudgettoexpenditures. DebtServiceFunds TheCityhasmadeitsdebtpaymentfortheyear,soexpendituresshouldbecompletedfor theyearastheyare108.0%spentduetopayingoffthe2002Improvementbondandthe 6 2004taxincrementbondearly.Ontherevenueside,mostofthetransfersofCityfunds fortheCityshareofdebtpaymenthavebeenmadeandthefirsthalfspecialassessments havebeencollected.SecondhalfspecialassessmentswillbereceivedinDecemberand thesefundsstillhavetheir3rd and4th quarterinterestearningstobereceived. OveralltheCityhasoutstandingdebtof$64,964,000asof9/30/10,ofwhich$26,445,000 isfortheFiberNetbondissueandisheldinescrow.Theamountofdebtoutstandingis veryhighforaCityofoursize,butithasalottoduewiththefinancingofthe interchangeproject,whichstillhasbondsoutstandingof$18,065,000asof12/31/10and theFiberNetbond.IsaythisbecausethecommontoolforcomparingdebtfromoneCity toanotherisdebtpercapitaandIoftenseetheserangingfrom$700to$1,500,butifwe usedapopulationof12,000forMonticello,ourdebtpercapitawouldbeover$5,413.67, whichis$225.08lowerthanlastyearatthistime.Againyoucanpointtothefiber project,interchangeproject,wastewatertreatmentplantandcommunitycenterprojects asgoodreasonstobehighanddoesnotmeantheCityisinbadfinancialhealth. CapitalProjectFunds MostoftheCapitalProjectFundactivitiestakeplaceinthesummermonthsdueto Minnesotaweather.Projectsizesaffectbothcostsandrevenuesfromoneyeartothe nextsocomparingthemtopastrevenueandexpendituresalsoisnotagoodgauge.The 2010budgetdidincludebudgetamountsof$4,289,220fortheCapitalProjectFunds.So fartheCapitalProjectFundshaveexpendituresof$1,681,842,mostlyforthe2010street reconstructionproject,andrevenuesof$2,731,710,whichismostlybondproceedsfrom the2010AImprovementandRefinancingBond. EnterpriseFunds TheCityhasfiveEnterpriseFundsthatitoperates.TheseareoperationsthattheCity runslikeabusiness.TheWaterandSewerFundsthroughSeptemberhavebilledand recordedrevenuesforthefirsttwoquartersoftheyearandwillbillforthethirdquarter inOctober.TheLiquorandCemeteryFundsreceivetheirrevenuesonaprettyconsistent basisthroughouttheyear,withDecemberfortheLiquorFundbeingitsbusiestperiod. FinallytheFiberNetMonticelloFundisstillunderconstructions,butwherecompleted, servicesarebeingprovidedandrevenuesarebeingreceived.Belowisthetableof budgettoactualfortheEnterpriseFundrevenuesforthepasttwoyears: 2009 2009 %2010 2010 % Budget 3rdQTRYTD Received Budget 3rdQTRYTD Received WaterFund973,375 425,368 43.70%989,977 429,047 43.34% SewerFund1,485,950 714,905 48.11%1,536,625 780,199 50.77% LiquorFund 3,742,000 3,226,709 86.23%4,121,570 3,293,493 79.91% CemeteryFund31,000 16,472 53.14%24,221 6,441 26.59% FiberNetMonticelloFund25,000 3,849 15.40%1,947,774 236,796 12.16% Total6,257,325 4,387,303 70.11%8,620,167 4,745,976 55.06% 7 Asyoucanseetherevenuestotalfor2010comparedtobudgetareverysimilarto2009 figuresasfarapercentageandamountreceivedtodatewiththeexceptionofFiberNet. RevenuesfortheLiquorFundareupsignificantlyfromlastyearwiththe4th quarter, whichistypicallytheirbusiesttime,stillahead. Ontheexpendituresidetherearenobigsurpriseseither.Justliketherevenues,the expendituresfortheWaterandSewerFundsarewellbelowbudget.TheFiberNet MonticelloFundistheonlyfundaboveanticipatedbudgetlevelsduetoconstruction costs,asyoucanseefromthetablebelow: 20092009%20102010% Budget3rdQTRYTDSpent Budget3rdQTRYTDSpent WaterFund1,165,368401,77434.48%1,307,876324,79724.83% SewerFund2,402,754953,65239.69%2,477,121871,89335.20% LiquorFund3,714,9262,811,24375.67%4,107,4342,883,35970.20% CemeteryFund35,49813,19837.18%39,16914,32536.57% FiberNetMonticelloFund642,0001,343,415209.25%1,978,2305,340,619269.97% Total7,960,5465,523,28269.38%9,909,8309,434,99395.21% AllfundsexcepttheFiberNetMonticelloFundappeartobeonpacetotakeinmore revenuethantheyspendastherevenuecollectionisonlyforhalftheyearcomparedto expendituresfor3quartersoftheyearintheWaterandSewerFunds.Onceallthe revenuesarerecordedfortheyearthesefundsshouldhaverevenuesexceedingtheir operatingexpenses,howeverrevenueswillnotfullyoffsetexpensesforasset depreciation. TherevenueandexpenditurebudgetsfortheFiberNetMonticelloFundassumedtheCity wouldhavethesystemfullyconstructedandrunningandthecostwouldbeforoperations andsomecostsforcompletinginfrastructure.However,theexpensesin2010arefor bothconstructionandoperationsofthesystem.Therevenuesfromthesaleofbonds wererecordedin2008andarebeingusedtofundtheseexpenditures.TheCityhas requestedandreceivedfromtheescrowfunds$1,905,982inOctoberfor3rd quarter constructioncosts. Investments Finally,theCity’sinvestmentactivityhasbeenrelativelyminor.AsofSeptember30th theCityhad$23,009,989investedatanaverageinterestrateof3.59%andanaverage yieldof3.49%.Thiscomparesto$29,016,471atanaverageinterestrateof3.61%and averageyieldof3.65%ayearago.Thebreakdownoftheinvestmentsisonthefollowing page: 8 FHL=FederalHomeLoan;MoneyMarkets=GovernmentSecurityMoneyMarketFunds;CD’s= CertificateofDeposits;FNMA=FederalNationalMortgageAssociation;FFCB=FederalFarmCredit Bank;FHLMC=FederalHomeLoanMortgageCorporation. Belowistheinvestmentbreakdownbetweenthirdquarter2010and2009: Investments:2009 2010 CD's5,721,000 4,274,000 FNMA9,160,000 5,092,988 FFCB1,575,000 1,928,000 FHLMC7,535,000 7,969,000 FHL3,050,000 2,365,000 MoneyMarkets1,975,471 1,381,001 Total29,016,471 23,009,989 AttachedaretheinvestmentholdingsoftheCityasofSeptember30th. Conclusion Overallrevenuesshouldendtheyearnearbudgetamounts,whileexpendituresshould finishtheyearbelowbudget.Buildingpermitsandrelatedfeesandchargesarestill fallingbelowbudgetedrevenues.Wewillcontinuetomonitorbothrevenuesand expendituressothattherearenobigsurprisescomeyear-end. CityCouncilAgenda:11/08/10 1 5D.Considerationofapprovingthepurchaseofausedmainlinesewercamerasystem withanenclosedtrailerfromtheCityofAnoka.(MT,BP) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheCityCouncilisaskedtoauthorizethepurchaseofausedmainlinesewercamera systemwithanenclosedtrailerfromtheCityofAnokaintheamountof$2,000.The camerasystemisaQcuesbuiltinthemid1980s.Thecameraitselfwasretrofittedwith newcrawlertracksandtheyrebuilttheQcuesmodel1208mainpowercontrolunitin Aprilof2007.TheworkwascompletedbyFlexiblePipeToolCompanyatacostof $1,935.96.Acopyofthebillisincludedassupportingdata. Thecamerasystemisequippedwiththefollowingoptions: -6’x12’EnclosedTrailer -QcuesModel179TransporterController -QcuesModel1208PowerControlUnit -QcuesCamera -MinarikReelController -Over500’of10-pinCable -SonyTV -RCAVHSPlayer/Recorder Staffhasusedthecamerasystemonatrialbasistotelevisetwoblocks,onebeingRiver StreetEastwhereWalgreensislocating,anditworkedwell.Tohireacontractorto televisethesesewerlineswouldhavecostaround$500;bydoingtheworkourselveswith thispieceofequipment,wesavedthatamount.IfCouncilapprovesthispurchase,the camerasystemwillbeusedtotelevisethenextentirecorecityproject,aswellastolook forcracksandrootsinourolderclaysewerpipes. Staffhasspokenwiththreesewertelevisingcompanies;Visu-Sewer,Infratech,and FlexiblePipeTool,andallhaveinformedusthatpurchasingthisunitisagooddealand partsarestillavailableforrepairifanythingbreaksdown.Topurchaseasimilarnew unitwiththetrailer,priceswouldstartat$40,000. A1.BudgetImpact:Thereis$2,000setasideinthe2010SewerBudgetforthe purchaseofthisequipment,plusitwillpayforitselfonthenextcorecityproject. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Staffplanstousethecamerasystemmoreinthewinter monthswhentimeisavailable.Thereareover25blocksthathaveolderclay sewerlineswithrootproblemsandweintendtomonitorthosemorecloselywith thistypeofequipment. CityCouncilAgenda:11/08/10 2 B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.Motiontoapprovethepurchaseoftheusedmainlinesewercamerasystemwith enclosedtrailerfromtheCityofAnokaintheamountof$2,000. 2.Motiontodenythepurchaseoftheusedmainlinesewercamerasystem. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternative#1,thattheCityCouncilapprovethepurchaseofthe usedmainlinesewercamerasystemwithenclosedtrailerfromtheCityofAnoka. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: CopyofinvoicefromFlexiblePipeToolforupgradesoncamerasystem Picturesofthesewercamerasystemwithenclosedtrailer SUPPORTINGDATA CouncilAgenda:11/08/10 1 7.ConsiderationofcanvassingthereturnsandadoptingResolution#2010-68 declaringtheresultsofthe2010Generalelection (JO/CS) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: MNStateStatuteSection205.185,Subd.3callsfortheCityCounciltocanvassthe electionresultswithin3to10daysafterageneralelection.Theresultsmustbe canvassedandresultsdeclaredatthismeetingtomeettherequirements. OnElectionDay,therewere6,179registeredvotersatthetimethepollsopenedand555 newregistrationswereprocessedduringthecourseoftheday.Atotalof3,360votes wererecordedonElectionDay.Theresultsofthelocalracesarenotedintheattached Resolution. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoadoptResolution#2010-68declaringtheresultsofthe2008General ElectionforthemunicipalofficesofMayorandCouncil. 2.Motiontonotadopttheresolution. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CityStaffrecommendsAlternative#1asadoptionoftheresolutionisrequiredinorderto complywiththeprovisionsofMinnesotaStateStatutes. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: Resolution#2010-68 MNStatute205.185 CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY RESOLUTIONNO.2010-68 CANVASSINGELECTIONANDDECLARINGRESULTS OFTHE2010GENERALELECTION WHEREAS,theCityAdministratorhasdulypresentedtotheCityCouncilthesummary statementsofballotscastintheNovember2,2010GeneralElection;and WHEREAS,saidsummarystatementshavebeensworntobytheJudgesoftheElection;and WHEREAS,thetotalvotescastforthemunicipalofficesvoteduponareasfollows: ForMayor(2yearterm) ClintHerbst2205 LeeMartie1335 Write-Ins27(nonemorethan5votes) ForCouncilMember(2electedfor4yearterms) WayneV.Mayer1631 BrianStumpf2013 LloydHilgart1766 Write-Ins58(nonemorethan2votes) NOWTHEREFORE,BEITHEREBYRESOLVEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILOF MONTICELLO,MINNESOTA,thatthetotallistedabovearedeemedtobecorrect,theelection isdeemedtobevalid,andthewinnersoftheelectionaredeclaredtobeasfollows: ForMayor(2yearterm):ClintHerbst ForCouncil(4yearterm):BrianStumpf LloydHilgart ADOPTEDBY theCityCouncilofMonticello,Minnesotathis8th dayofNovember,2010. CITYOFMONTICELLO ____________________________ ATTEST:ClintHerbst,Mayor ________________________________ JeffO’Neill,CityAdministrator 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2010 205.185 205.185 PROCEDURE. Subdivision 1.Materials,ballots.The municipal clerk shall prepare and have printed the necessary election materials,including ballots,for a municipal election. Subd.2.Election,conduct.A municipal election shall be by secret ballot and shall be held and the returns made in the manner provided for the state general election,except as expressly provided by law. Subd.3.Canvass of returns,certificate of election,ballots,disposition.(a)Between the third and tenth days after an election,the governing body of a city conducting any election including a special municipal election,or the governing body of a town conducting the general election in November shall act as the canvassing board,canvass the returns,and declare the results of the election.The governing body of a town conducting the general election in March shall act as the canvassing board,canvass the returns,and declare the results of the election within two days after an election. (b)After the time for contesting elections has passed,the municipal clerk shall issue a certificate of election to each successful candidate.In case of a contest,the certificate shall not be issued until the outcome of the contest has been determined by the proper court. (c)In case of a tie vote,the canvassing board having jurisdiction over the municipality shall determine the result by lot.The clerk of the canvassing board shall certify the results of the election to the county auditor,and the clerk shall be the final custodian of the ballots and the returns of the election. Subd.4.Recount.A losing candidate at a municipal election may request a recount of the votes for that office subject to the requirements of section 204C.36. History:1983 c 62 s 9;1999 c 132 s 34;1Sp2001 c 10 art 18 s 37;2004 c 293 art 2 s 37,38;2010 c 194 s 22 Copyright ©2010 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota.All Rights Reserved. CityCouncilAgenda:11/8/2010 1 8.ConsiderationofapprovingguidelinesforuseofCity-ownedilluminatedpylonsign (KB,RJ,TK,AS,DP,JO) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: TheHi-WayLiquorstoresignwithelectronicmessagecenter(EMC)isbeinginstalled thisweekandwillbeoperationalbytheendoftheweek.Asyouknow,theCommunity CentermanagerswillbeinsertingthemessagesontheEMC.Thestafffeltthatitwas importanttoestablishguidelinesthatwillbefollowedtoensureeffectivecommunication onthesignandaconsistentlooktothemessagesposted. Asyoureadthroughtheguidelines,youwillnoticethattheyarewrittenwiththeoption toallowqualifiedorganizationstoutilizethesignwithonemessageofthetenavailable daily.IfCouncilwouldprefertoonlyhavetheCity’sentitiesinformationandeventson theEMC,thentheguidelinesthatidentifyqualifiedorganizationsrequirementswouldbe takenoutandtheguidelineswouldidentifythoseforCityuseonly. AswebegintooperatetheEMC,wemayfindthattheguidelinesneedtobetweakedto ensureconsistencyandfairnessofapplication.Wewouldanticipatethattheseminor adjustmentscouldbemadebystaffwiththeunderstandingoftheCouncil’sobjectivesfor EMCinmind. A1.BudgetImpact:Nobudgetimpact. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:TheCommunityCenterManagerswillhaveaccessto thesoftwaretoplaceortakemessagesofftheEMC.Therewillbeaform availableontheCity’sintranetfortheCitydepartmentstouse.IftheCouncil wouldliketohavetheEMCavailableforqualifiedorganizations,thenwewill postareservationformontheCityandCommunityCenter’swebsiteaswell. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoapprovetheguidelinestoincludeCityentitiesaswellasqualified organizationstoutilizetheEMC,withminorchangesallowedasneededwithout furtherCouncilapproval. 2.MotiontoapprovetheguidelinesforusebyCityentitiesonlyontheEMC,with minorchangesallowedasneededwithoutfurtherCouncilapproval. 3.Motiontonotapprovetheguidelines. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: Atthistime,theCitystaffdoesnothavearecommendationeitherway.Staffbelieves thatitwouldbenicetoofferroomonthesignforoutsideorganizations.Thereisconcern aboutpotentialdifficultieswithreservationsaswellasthelossofonemessageperday CityCouncilAgenda:11/8/2010 2 forCityorganizations.Aslongastheguidelinesareclearandcloselyfollowedthere shouldnotbeanydifficulties. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: ProposedEMCguidelines Pictureofthesignduringinstallation CITYOFMONTICELLO ELECTRONICMESSAGECENTER-POLICIESANDGUIDELINES 1.GeneralPolicyStatement: ThepurposeofthispolicyistosetforthaguidetobefollowedbytheCityofMonticelloinadministeringtheuse oftheelectronicmessagecenter(EMC)locatedatthecornerofHighway25andWestSixthStreet,attheHi- WayLiquorStore. ThispolicyshallbeusedasthemethodforreceivingandconsideringrequestsfromCityDepartmentsandby qualifiedorganizationsforthepurposeofmaximizingthebenefitsofthesigntothecitizensofMonticello. 2.AuthorizedUsersandPriorities: CityDepartmentsandassociatedservicesareashavefirstpriority. Qualifiedorganizations,promotingeventsoractivitiesofacommunity-widenature,willbeallowednomore thanonemessageperweekonafirstcomebasisforaperiodofonetosevendays.Qualifiedorganizationsare definedas(1)organizationsthatprovideeventsandactivitiesthathavecommunitywideinterestorbenefit,(2) raisefundstobedonatedtothebettermentofthecommunity,or(3)maintaina501-C3statuswiththeStateof Minnesota. InthecaseofemergencyorhighusagebyaCityentity,theCitymaynotbeabletohonoraqualified organization’sreservation. 3.Guidelines: PerMonticelloCityordinance,themessagedisplayedontheEMCcannotflashormoveandmustbeheldforat leastfive(5)seconds. TheCitywilldisplaynomorethanten(10)messagesperday.Theactualnumbermaybesomethinglessthan tenandwillbeatthediscretionoftheEMCmanager. Requestforone(1)messageperdaycanbemadebyqualifiedorganizationsonafirst-comebasisforoneto sevendaysandmustbescheduledinadvance. Messagecontentbyqualifiedorganizationsislimitedtoprovidingfactualnotificationrelatingtoeventsand activities.TheCityreservestherighttoedittherequestedmessageforbrevity,clarity,consistencyinformat andcompliancewithmediumspecifications.Messagesshouldnotbelongerthanten(10)words. AlleventsoractivitiespostedbyqualifiedorganizationsmusttakeplaceintheMonticelloarea.Prioritywillbe giventotheCityofMonticelloeventsandqualifiedorganizationswithintheCitylimitsofMonticello. TherearenocommercialorreligiousmessagesallowedontheEMCunlessindicatingsponsorshipofaCity event. Eventsidentifyingforacharity,anindividual,fund-raisers,etc.thatarenotbeingdirectlyheldbyaqualified organizationwillnotbeallowed. TheEMCManagerortheirdesigneewillhavefinalauthorityonprioritiesandacceptabilityofmessages requested. EMCmessagereservationsshouldbedirectedtotheCommunityCenterinwriting.Thereisaformavailableon lineforreservationrequests. 4.TheMonticelloCommunityCenterstaffwillbemaintainingthedailymessagesontheEMCandhavebeen designatedbytheCityAdministratorandtheCityCounciltohavetheresponsibilityforupholdingthepoliciesset forthabove.AnydisputeswillbereferredtotheCityAdministratorforafinaljudgment. CityCouncilAgenda:11/8/10 1 9.ConsiderationofamendingcontracthoursforWrightCountySheriff’sOfficefor policeprotectionin2011 (JO,TK,BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: AsCouncilisaware,Citystaffisintheprocessofpreparingthefinaldraftofthe2011 budget,ofwhichpoliceprotectionaccountsforasignificantportion.Attheprevious budgetsettingsessionitwasnotedthata$28,000gapinthebudgetexistsinpartdueto thefactthattheSheriff’sDepartmentdidnotagreetotheCity’sspecialrequestto maintainthecontractrateatthe2010level.Inlightofthis$28,000gap,atthemost recentbudgetsessionCouncilleftthedooropentoreducinghoursofserviceasan alternative.StaffnowrequeststhatCouncilfinalizeitsdecisiononthismatter.Staffis askingCounciltoconsidermakingadecisiononthisitemtodayeventhoughabudget workshopissettooccurverysoon.Althoughitmightbeeasiertoreviewthisitemin thecontextofthebudgetasawhole,itisfeltthatthisdecisionneedstobemadevery soonaseverydaythatslipsbymakesitharderfortheSheriff’sDepartmenttoadjust. Ourcurrent2-yearcontractwiththeWrightCountySheriff’sOfficeexpiresonDecember 31,2011.Infiscalyear2010,theCitybudgeted$1,091,350forlawenforcement services.Thiswasbasedonatotalof18,980hoursofpoliceprotectionatarateof $57.50perhour,whichprovidestheCitywith52hoursofpoliceserviceperday, including24-hourcallandgeneralservices.Ourcurrentcontractfor2011callsforthe samenumberofhours,exceptthattheratewillincreaseto$59.00perhour,resultingina budgetof$1,119,820for2011.Thisisanincreaseof$28,470from2010. TheWrightCountySheriff’sDepartmentpreviouslystatedthat52hoursperdaywill provideuswithadequatecoveragetoallowthemtocontinuetoprovidebasicpolice protectionservicesattheircurrentlevelofservice,whilestillbeingabletoberesponsive tospecialrequests. Thetablebelowcomparesthenumberofcontracthourstothenumberofservicecallsper yearoverthelast9years.ThisdatawasprovidedtotheCitybytheSheriff’sOffice. Year#ContractHours#ServiceCallsEst.Population 201052N/A11,700 2009522878N/A 200848308011,366 2007482868N/A 2006482733N/A 2005482511N/A 200444N/AN/A 200344N/AN/A 200240N/AN/A Basedonthiscomparison,itisevidentthatthenumberofservicecallsdeclined substantiallyfrom2008to2009,whereasthecontractedhoursincreasedfrom48to52 CityCouncilAgenda:11/8/10 2 hours.Onecouldthereforearguethatthereisanopportunitytoreducethenumberof hoursbudgetedforlawenforcementwithoutnegativelyimpactingourcurrentlevelof service.Thecurrentlevelofcallsforserviceshowsactivitythatisroughlyequaltothe activityseenin2007whenthenumberofhourscontractedforamountedto48hoursper day.Therefore,consideringthattheeconomyisnotprojectedtogetanybetterin2011, staffisaskingCounciltoconsiderdecreasingthenumberofcontracthoursforpolice protectionin2011to48hoursperday,resultinginabudgetreductionof$86,140in 2011. AtthelastPoliceAdvisoryCommissionmeeting,whichwasheldonOctober20,2010, theCommissiononceagaindiscussedwhethertheCityshouldconsiderreducingthe numberofhourswearecontractingwiththeSheriff’sOfficefor2011andthedecision wasonceagainunanimousthatthecurrentallotmentof52contracthoursfor2011should notbereduced.TheirdecisionwasbasedonthefeelingthattheSheriff’sOfficehas finallyreachedapointwheretheyareabletoberesponsivetotheneedsoftheCityand thatiftheirhoursarecutwemaystarttoslidebackwards,whichwouldbehardto recoverfromiftheircontracthourswerenotincreasedagainto52hoursin2012,which mightnothappeniftheeconomydoesn’ttakeaturnforthebettersoon.Inaddition,the CommissionfeltthatofallthethingstheCitycouldconsidercutting,cutstolaw enforcementshouldbeoneofthelastitemstoconsider. ItshouldbenotedthattheSheriff’sOfficehasinformedtheCitythatanyreductionor increaseinhoursshouldbemadeinincrementsof4hoursforthepurposesofscheduling theirstafftime.ThisiswhystaffisrequestingCounciltoconsiderreducingtheir contracthoursfor2011bytheamountof4hoursperday. OurcontractcallsforcontractamendmentrequeststobemadeinwritingpriortoAugust 15th sostaffwouldnowhavetoaddresstheWrightCountyBoardinpersonwithour request.AtthattimetheBoardcantheneitheracceptordenyourrequest.Basedon staff’spreliminarydiscussionswiththeCountyweunderstandthatwhilesuchrequests havebeenpresentedtotheCountyBoardinthepast,moreoftenthannotsuchrequests havebeendenied. Sheriff’sOfficerepresentativeswereinvitedtoattendtonight’sCouncilmeetingto addressanyquestionstheCouncilmayhaveforthem.Attachedassupportingdataisa summaryofthenumberofhourswehavecontractedwiththeSheriff’sOfficeoverthe years,aswellaschartsshowingtheaverageannualcostoflawenforcementpercitizen forthecitiestheSheriff’sOfficecontractswith,aswellasachartshowingthepercentage ofeachofthosecitieslevy’sdedicatedtocontractedpoliceservices.Thesecharts indicatethatMonticellohasanaveragecostpercitizenofabout$32peryear,andthat about13.7%ofourlevygoestowardpoliceprotectionservices,bothofwhicharelower thanaverageforthecitiesconsidered. A1.BudgetImpact:The2011budgetincludes$1,119,820tocover52hoursof policeserviceperdayatanhourlyrateof$59.00perhour.Byreducingthe CityCouncilAgenda:11/8/10 3 numbercontracthoursto48hoursperday,whichisareductionof7.7%,theCity canreducethe2011budgetforpoliceprotectionby$86,140. A2.StaffWorkload:Amendingthecontracthoursforpoliceprotectionin2011will havenoimpactonCitystaff’sworkload. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoauthorizestafftorequestameetingwiththeWrightCountyBoardof Commissionersonthesoonestdateavailabletorequestacontractamendment reducingourcontracthourswiththeWrightCountySheriff’sOfficeforpolice protectionservicesin2011to48hoursperday. 2.MotiontodenyamendingthecontracthoursfortheWrightCountySheriff’sOffice forpoliceprotectionservicesin2011. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternativeAction#1.Althoughitwouldbegreattokeepthe numberofhourswheretheyareat,itappearsthatdemandforserviceisdownwhichdoes createsomeopportunityforsavingcostswithoutseverelyimpactinglevelofservice. However,itisalsounderstoodthatthereareanumberoffactorstoconsiderwhen consideringreducingcoverageandthatthereductionincallsforserviceisbutone. Asafinalnote,withdebtserviceloominganddebtfundsdepleted,alongwithequipment purchasesonthehorizon,combinedwiththepressuretokeepthelevyatthesamelevel orless,thereistheneedtoseriouslylookatallopportunitiesforsavingmoney. Remember,theCityhasdebtservicefundsthathavebeennearlydepletedduetolackof developmentandtheequipmentreplacementfundneedsreplenishment.Althoughnoone likestocutpoliceservices,giventhereductioninpolicecallsforservicecombinedwith thecity-widedemandonfinancialresources,itwouldmakesensetoseriouslyconsider reducingthehoursofservicein2011by4hoursperday.Ifitisfoundoutthatthiswas abadidea,thehourscouldalwaysbeincreasedfor2012whenweexecutethenext2- yearcontract. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: A–2010-2011WrightCountySheriff’sOfficecontract B–HistoryofMonticellopoliceservicecontracthours C–AverageCostofLawEnforcementperCitizen D–PercentofLevyforLawEnforcement CityCouncilAgenda:11/8/10 1 9.ConsiderationofamendingcontracthoursforWrightCountySheriff’sOfficefor policeprotectionin2011 (JO,TK,BW) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: AsCouncilisaware,Citystaffisintheprocessofpreparingthefinaldraftofthe2011 budget,ofwhichpoliceprotectionaccountsforasignificantportion.Attheprevious budgetsettingsessionitwasnotedthata$28,000gapinthebudgetexistsinpartdueto thefactthattheSheriff’sDepartmentdidnotagreetotheCity’sspecialrequestto maintainthecontractrateatthe2010level.Inlightofthis$28,000gap,atthemost recentbudgetsessionCouncilleftthedooropentoreducinghoursofserviceasan alternative.StaffnowrequeststhatCouncilfinalizeitsdecisiononthismatter.Staffis askingCounciltoconsidermakingadecisiononthisitemtodayeventhoughabudget workshopissettooccurverysoon.Althoughitmightbeeasiertoreviewthisitemin thecontextofthebudgetasawhole,itisfeltthatthisdecisionneedstobemadevery soonaseverydaythatslipsbymakesitharderfortheSheriff’sDepartmenttoadjust. Ourcurrent2-yearcontractwiththeWrightCountySheriff’sOfficeexpiresonDecember 31,2011.Infiscalyear2010,theCitybudgeted$1,091,350forlawenforcement services.Thiswasbasedonatotalof18,980hoursofpoliceprotectionatarateof $57.50perhour,whichprovidestheCitywith52hoursofpoliceserviceperday, including24-hourcallandgeneralservices.Ourcurrentcontractfor2011callsforthe samenumberofhours,exceptthattheratewillincreaseto$59.00perhour,resultingina budgetof$1,119,820for2011.Thisisanincreaseof$28,470from2010. TheWrightCountySheriff’sDepartmentpreviouslystatedthat52hoursperdaywill provideuswithadequatecoveragetoallowthemtocontinuetoprovidebasicpolice protectionservicesattheircurrentlevelofservice,whilestillbeingabletoberesponsive tospecialrequests. Thetablebelowcomparesthenumberofcontracthourstothenumberofservicecallsper yearoverthelast9years.ThisdatawasprovidedtotheCitybytheSheriff’sOffice. Year#ContractHours#ServiceCallsEst.Population 201052N/A11,700 2009522878N/A 200848308011,366 2007482868N/A 2006482733N/A 2005482511N/A 200444N/AN/A 200344N/AN/A 200240N/AN/A Basedonthiscomparison,itisevidentthatthenumberofservicecallsdeclined substantiallyfrom2008to2009,whereasthecontractedhoursincreasedfrom48to52 CityCouncilAgenda:11/8/10 2 hours.Onecouldthereforearguethatthereisanopportunitytoreducethenumberof hoursbudgetedforlawenforcementwithoutnegativelyimpactingourcurrentlevelof service.Thecurrentlevelofcallsforserviceshowsactivitythatisroughlyequaltothe activityseenin2007whenthenumberofhourscontractedforamountedto48hoursper day.Therefore,consideringthattheeconomyisnotprojectedtogetanybetterin2011, staffisaskingCounciltoconsiderdecreasingthenumberofcontracthoursforpolice protectionin2011to48hoursperday,resultinginabudgetreductionof$86,140in 2011. AtthelastPoliceAdvisoryCommissionmeeting,whichwasheldonOctober20,2010, theCommissiononceagaindiscussedwhethertheCityshouldconsiderreducingthe numberofhourswearecontractingwiththeSheriff’sOfficefor2011andthedecision wasonceagainunanimousthatthecurrentallotmentof52contracthoursfor2011should notbereduced.TheirdecisionwasbasedonthefeelingthattheSheriff’sOfficehas finallyreachedapointwheretheyareabletoberesponsivetotheneedsoftheCityand thatiftheirhoursarecutwemaystarttoslidebackwards,whichwouldbehardto recoverfromiftheircontracthourswerenotincreasedagainto52hoursin2012,which mightnothappeniftheeconomydoesn’ttakeaturnforthebettersoon.Inaddition,the CommissionfeltthatofallthethingstheCitycouldconsidercutting,cutstolaw enforcementshouldbeoneofthelastitemstoconsider. ItshouldbenotedthattheSheriff’sOfficehasinformedtheCitythatanyreductionor increaseinhoursshouldbemadeinincrementsof4hoursforthepurposesofscheduling theirstafftime.ThisiswhystaffisrequestingCounciltoconsiderreducingtheir contracthoursfor2011bytheamountof4hoursperday. OurcontractcallsforcontractamendmentrequeststobemadeinwritingpriortoAugust 15th sostaffwouldnowhavetoaddresstheWrightCountyBoardinpersonwithour request.AtthattimetheBoardcantheneitheracceptordenyourrequest.Basedon staff’spreliminarydiscussionswiththeCountyweunderstandthatwhilesuchrequests havebeenpresentedtotheCountyBoardinthepast,moreoftenthannotsuchrequests havebeendenied. Sheriff’sOfficerepresentativeswereinvitedtoattendtonight’sCouncilmeetingto addressanyquestionstheCouncilmayhaveforthem.Attachedassupportingdataisa summaryofthenumberofhourswehavecontractedwiththeSheriff’sOfficeoverthe years,aswellaschartsshowingtheaverageannualcostoflawenforcementpercitizen forthecitiestheSheriff’sOfficecontractswith,aswellasachartshowingthepercentage ofeachofthosecitieslevy’sdedicatedtocontractedpoliceservices.Thesecharts indicatethatMonticellohasanaveragecostpercitizenofabout$32peryear,andthat about13.7%ofourlevygoestowardpoliceprotectionservices,bothofwhicharelower thanaverageforthecitiesconsidered. A1.BudgetImpact:The2011budgetincludes$1,119,820tocover52hoursof policeserviceperdayatanhourlyrateof$59.00perhour.Byreducingthe CityCouncilAgenda:11/8/10 3 numbercontracthoursto48hoursperday,whichisareductionof7.7%,theCity canreducethe2011budgetforpoliceprotectionby$86,140. A2.StaffWorkload:Amendingthecontracthoursforpoliceprotectionin2011will havenoimpactonCitystaff’sworkload. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoauthorizestafftorequestameetingwiththeWrightCountyBoardof Commissionersonthesoonestdateavailabletorequestacontractamendment reducingourcontracthourswiththeWrightCountySheriff’sOfficeforpolice protectionservicesin2011to48hoursperday. 2.MotiontodenyamendingthecontracthoursfortheWrightCountySheriff’sOffice forpoliceprotectionservicesin2011. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: CitystaffrecommendsAlternativeAction#1.Althoughitwouldbegreattokeepthe numberofhourswheretheyareat,itappearsthatdemandforserviceisdownwhichdoes createsomeopportunityforsavingcostswithoutseverelyimpactinglevelofservice. However,itisalsounderstoodthatthereareanumberoffactorstoconsiderwhen consideringreducingcoverageandthatthereductionincallsforserviceisbutone. Asafinalnote,withdebtserviceloominganddebtfundsdepleted,alongwithequipment purchasesonthehorizon,combinedwiththepressuretokeepthelevyatthesamelevel orless,thereistheneedtoseriouslylookatallopportunitiesforsavingmoney. Remember,theCityhasdebtservicefundsthathavebeennearlydepletedduetolackof developmentandtheequipmentreplacementfundneedsreplenishment.Althoughnoone likestocutpoliceservices,giventhereductioninpolicecallsforservicecombinedwith thecity-widedemandonfinancialresources,itwouldmakesensetoseriouslyconsider reducingthehoursofservicein2011by4hoursperday.Ifitisfoundoutthatthiswas abadidea,thehourscouldalwaysbeincreasedfor2012whenweexecutethenext2- yearcontract. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: A–2010-2011WrightCountySheriff’sOfficecontract B–HistoryofMonticellopoliceservicecontracthours C–AverageCostofLawEnforcementperCitizen D–PercentofLevyforLawEnforcement CityCouncilAgenda:11/08/10 1 11.PersonnelCommitteeRequest–ConsiderationofeliminatingIceRinkmaintenance atWestBridgePark (JO) A.REFERENCEANDBACKGROUND: Inanongoingefforttoanalyzeservicesandassociatedcosts,membersofthePersonnel CommitteerequestthattheCityCouncilconsiderwhetherornottomaintaintheice surfaceatWestBridgePark.Followingarepointstoconsiderwhenanalyzingthe cost/benefitofmaintainingaskatingpondatWestBridgeParks. ReasonstoFloodtheIceandMaintaintheWarmingHouse Currently,theParkiscentraltoChristmas/Wintertimecommunityevents.Thepresence oftheicesheetcontributestothecharacteroftheseevents. WestBridgeParkistheCity’sshowpieceandanimportantentrancetotheCity fortheHolidays.Thepresenceoftheiceandskatingactivityisacomponentof itswintercharacterandcharm. HomefortheHolidayscanincludevariousactivitiesatWestBridgePark.The warminghouseisoftenopeninsupportoftheactivities. LionsClubdonationoffundsandlaborcontributetotheChristmaslighting.The presenceoftheicesheet/skatingaddstotheChristmasambiencecreatedbythe speciallighting.Wouldthelightingalone,withouttheicerink,beenoughto createaChristmascelebrationaffect? TheParkisawinterattractionthatbringsactivitytothe“Downtown”area. Thecosttofloodtheiceandstaffthewarminghouseisrelativelylowas comparedtothebenefitderived.Bycarefullymonitoringhours,stafftimecan bekepttoaminimumwhilemaintainingservicetotheresidents. UsersoftheslidinghillontheEastBridgesidewillcontinuetohaveaccessto thewarminghousewhenitisopen.Thewarminghouseattendantdoescheckon theuseoftheslidinghillfromtimetotime. WestBridgeicesurfaceisalwaysopenandavailabletoskaterswhoarenotable toskatewhenMooseSherittisavailableforopenskating. TheParksCommissionrecommendedthattheicecontinuetobemaintainedas outlinedintheattachedmeetingminutes. ReasonsSupportingDiscontinuingIceMaintenance SkatingopportunitiesareavailableindoorsonalimitedbasisatMooseSheritt arenaandopenonaregularbasisat4th StreetPark,soeliminationoficeatWest BridgeParkdoesnoteliminateopportunityforskating.EliminatingWestBridge Parkicedoesnotresultinareductionisserviceduetothepresenceoftheother skatingrinks. Thoughnotresultinginahugesavings,itisnonethelessasavingsandshouldbe seriouslyconsidered. CityCouncilAgenda:11/08/10 2 Althoughthepresenceoftheskatingpondaddstothewintercharacterandcharm ofthepark,theChristmasLightingcanstillbeinstalledandtheParkcanstillbea niceshowpieceattheentrancetotheCity. A1.BudgetImpact:UponCouncil’srecommendationforWestBridgePark,funds arenottoexceed2010budgetamountof$5,250fortheyearof2011.Outofthat budgetedamount,$2,100isallocatedforWestBridgeParkskatingattendants. Stafftimethatwouldbefocusedonfloodingandmaintainingtheicewouldbe redirectedtootheractivities. A2.StaffWorkloadImpact:Parksstafftobeginfoggingareatostarticewhen weatherpermits. B.ALTERNATIVEACTIONS: 1.MotiontoapprovefloodingandmaintenanceoftheicerinkatWestBridgeParkand providestaffingforthe2010-11seasonatthesamenumberofhoursaslastyear. Councilshouldselectthisoptionifitbelievesthatitisworththemoneytomaintain theiceforreasonsofpreservingtheChristmascharmoftheparkandforthesakeof maintainingoptionsforskaters.Althoughthisisagoodtargetforaservicereduction sinceotherskatingopportunitiesareavailable,itcouldbearguedthatthesavingsare notsignificantenoughtowarrantachange. 2.MotioncallingforeliminationoficerinkmaintenanceatWestBridgeParkforthe 2010-11season. Councilshouldselectthisoptionifthereisaviewthatregardlessoftherelatively smallsavings,theservicebeingprovidedisredundantandthusshouldbeconsidered forelimination.Christmaslightscanbeinstalledwithorwithoutthepresenceofthe skatingrink;therinkisimportantbutnotacrucialelementoftheparkgroundsasa nicewinter-timeentrancetotheCity. C.STAFFRECOMMENDATION: ItisuptoCounciltodetermineifthebenefitjustifiesthecost.ItistheviewoftheParks Commissionandstaffersthatmaintenanceoftheicesurfaceanduseoftheparkfor skatingprovidescitizenswithauniqueandpositiveexperience.Itisaplaceforkidsand parentstomakememoriesskatingundertheChristmaslightsneartheriver…withcars andtrumpeterswanshonkinginthebackground.Itwouldbesadtodiscontinuethis uniqueopportunityforenjoyingwinterinMonticello.However,theuseoftherinkis significantbutnothuge.StaffunderstandsthepressurethattheCityisundertosave moneywhereitcan.Itisalsotruethatavailabilityofaskatingsurfaceispresentat FourthStreetPark;therefore,frompurelyaneconomicsense,itmaynotmakesenseto maintaintwooutdooricesurfaces. CityCouncilAgenda:11/08/10 3 Insum,individualandcommunityuseofWestBridge(andEastBridge)parksforsome havebecomeariteofwinterandtheholidayseason.Skating,asacomponentofthe park,hasbeenapositivetraditionfortheCity;however,itdoescomeatacostthatall residentsmustshare.ItsuptoCounciltodetermineifitisworththecost. D.SUPPORTINGDATA: SkatingRinkattendancetotals Councilminutesfrom11/23/09 ParksCommissionminutesfrom9/23/10 City Council Agenda: 11/23/09 1 9. Consideration of approving reduction in warming house hours for the 2009-2010 winter skating season (TP/JO) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Council tabled this item last meeting and asked staff to provide a cost estimate for having warming houses at both rinks open Tuesdays, Thursdays, weekends and on holidays. Council also asked to define a volunteer working agreement with the Hockey Association to see if they could find volunteers to monitor the skating rinks and/or provide some level of reimbursement to the city in order to keep the 4th Street warming house open on weekdays. Subsequent to the meeting, the city did receive a letter from Eric Hanse on topic (attached) . Eric was one of the main spokespersons for the Hockey Association at the recent meeting. In his letter, Hanse noted that the Hockey Association would not be able to provide regular assistance this winter in keeping the 4th Street warming house open either by providing a regular volunteer worker or by providing the City with cash to cover a City employee. However, Hanse did note that the Hockey Association will try to keep the rink open 2 nights during the week for “rink ratting” in the event the City does not fund weekday hours. It will be understood that when a team is using the rink via the key, the warming house will be supervised and responsible for by the team. Hanse went on to say that the in the future, they will go to the Hockey Board to see if the Hockey Association could provide an attendant on a regular basis in 2010-2011. In the meantime, the Hockey Association hopes that the City can keep the warming house at 4th Street open two nights during the week with the added option of the key for the association. The Hockey Association feels that not only is it about them being able to use the ice and take responsibility for it, but it’s also a great place for kids that do not play organized hockey to play and develop a love for the sport. When asked about the advisability of utilizing volunteers to man the warming houses, Joel Jamnik responded by saying: “I think the Hockey Association alone should be allowed to use the rinks when they are not staffed by City staff…for the reasons you list, there should be an agreement specifying the terms of use (supervision, security of the facility, etc.), and the warming house should either be locked or staffed when the Association is using the rink for team practices.” Please note that according to according to Monticello’s Safety Policy based upon OSHA regulations, each facility must have a CPR/first aid certified attendant on duty for each shift. The City’s skate guards are CPR/first aid certified and have also been trained in BBP (blood borne pathogens). If volunteers regularly staff the facility, it would be important for them to have training in these areas accordingly. City Council Agenda: 11/23/09 2 The table below represents the costs for each of the basic options. Total Hours of Operation per week, not including Holidays and School Vacations. (Note: all of this is based on a 9 week plan.) Option Hours/Wk Total Weekday hrs Option One – No Change 54 hrs/week 972 total hrs $9,574.20 Both rinks open Option Two No Weekdays 16 hrs/week 11 Hol + 144 Wknds $4,570.00 Both rinks closed with YHA opening on occasion. Option Three 40 hrs/week 360 hrs $3,546.00 4th Street rink 30 hrs/week 270 hrs $2,659.50 West Bridge rink Parks Comm 630 Total hrs. $6,205.50 Option Four - Open Tuesdays, Thursdays, weekends and holidays for both sites: West Bridge Tuesday & Thursday 4pm-7pm Weekends/Holidays 1pm-7pm Cost 54 hrs 108 wk hrs + 66 Hol hrs $2,245.80 Season 4th Street Tuesday & Thursday 5pm-9pm Weekends/Holidays 1pm-9pm 72 hrs 144 wk hrs + 88 Hol hrs $2,994.40 Season Option Four (Council request): Tuesdays, Thursdays, weekends, holidays $5,240.20 Total Season Please note that the total hours noted above are based on perfect weather. The actual number of hours open is weather dependent; under the current 54 hour/week schedule, the actual number of hours open averages about 40 hours per week. A1. Budget Impact: Budgeted funds are available to cover any option that the City Council desires. A2. Staff Workload Impact: The Parks Department staff will maintain the ice and two skating attendants would be staffed during the hours proposed above. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve one or a combination of the options listed above. With any of the options, it is expected that the Hockey Association will be opening the warming house from time to time. If not already covered adequately by the current agreement, then an addendum should be put in place that identifies responsibilities relating to Hockey Association operation and monitoring of activities in the 4th Street warming house. City Council Agenda: 11/23/09 3 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: At a meeting on Thursday, November 19th, the Parks Commission recommend keeping the warming houses open under a slightly reduced schedule not to exceed a budget of $6,205.50 as outlined in Option Three. This option was preferred given park use statistics and the importance of providing a recreational outlet for an increasingly sedentary population. Also, there is some concern relating to safety issues that may arise with the public using the rinks without an attendant on duty. From a staff standpoint, I think we would also like to see the warming houses open on weekdays, but it is understood that this is truly a policy decision and up to the Council to weigh level of service and usage versus cost. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Email from Eric Hanse, Youth Hockey Coach Council Agenda Item from 11/9/09 Graphs of usage for West Bridge and 4th Street rinks (during warming house hours) Youth Hockey Agreement Moose Sherritt Arena – public skating hours