Loading...
10/15/2001 CONF MTG - 4727� � CfTY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING October 15, 2001 — 6:00 p.m. Fridlep Municipal Center Conference Room A (Upper Level) 1. Brief Review of 2002 Budget. 2. Fund Balance Analysis. 3. Street Capital Improvements Plan Analysis and Recommendations. 4. Health Insurance Analysis and Recommendations. 5. Review of Potential Budget Adjustments. 6. Review of Changes to Assessing Division. 7. Conclusions. Adjourn. � �. � _ { I^-- � ,�. - � Memo to: The Mayor and Council � From: William W. Burns, City Manager � Subject: 2002 Budget Recommendations Date: October 12, 2001 These materials represent staff's findings and recommendations for adjustments to the 2002 budget. The first outline is my assessment of where the additional costs are in the 2002 budget as it currently stands. The biggest part of the $1.3 million increase consists of costs associated with personnel, the proposed garage addition and street construction. The next material, a memo from Rick Pribyl, depicts two methods of calculating fund balance. While our overall balances are diminishing, the decline is not rapid and the balances remain healthy. We are, however, concerned about the impact of declining interest rates and an uncertain economy. The third memo is from Jon Haukaas. He recommends that we begin using $100,000 a year from our Storm Water Fund to pay for curb and gutter. He also suggests raising the Storm Water Fee by the rate of inflation each year to help with the replenishing of this fund. Additionally he recommends changing our policy on assessment for street reconstruction. Rather than assess the cost of curb and gutter (about 15% of project cost), he would assess 25% of project costs. He would also limit miscellaneous projects to those that can be reimbursed through MSA "system" funding. He has also identified a number of expenditure reductions that, together with the revenue changes, will enable us to come fairly close to funding annual costs for street capital improvements with annual revenues. The ne� memo is a little more difficult to explain. Essentially it tells you that our self- funded health insurance program ha.s become considerably more costly than expected. While the majority of the increase is attributed to a bad cla.ims year, we are also experienciug new costs that are associated with the manner in which we defined the current contract period. It is a 16-month contract with no provision for payment of claims that were incurred within the contract period, but not billed until after the contract had expired. Deb estimates tha.t about 25% of our projected increase is attributed to contract term. The remainder of our new cost is associated with inflation or "trend." T'his accounts for about 16% of our increase. In order to minimize our health insurance increase, we bid the products used for self- funding (stop loss insurance and third party administration of claims). Additionally we took bids from carriers who would provide us with a"fully-funded" health insurance plan. There are two bottom lines here. One is that the fully funded option is both less expensive and less risky (we could not say that two years ago). The second bottom line is that we need to raise our General Fund allocation for health insurance from $577,027 to $612,280 or by $35,253. Our consultant holds out hope that we can shave at least some of this amount through plan design and negotiations with Medica. The fifth memo is mine. It identifies $358,036 in potentia.l operating cuts and $375,000 in potential capital improvement cuts. It goes on to recommend a list of operating and r � � V capital improvement cuts totally $430,000. It also suggests another list of items to be budgeted but not spent until midyear. The value of these items is $198,192. The list includes a po�ice officer and the proposed new Fire Captain position. The cuts (not including those on the hold list) would enable us to reduce our overall budget increase from 9.1 % to 6.2%. The fmal memo is from Rick Pribyl. He has analyzed three options for providing property tax assessment in Fridley. One option would have us contracting with the County to provide this service. Another option would have us contracting out commerciaUindustrial assessing to the County and maintaining residential assessing as a local function. The third option would have us maintaining both residential and commerciaUindustrial assessing as a City function. While the County options cost less in operating dollars, we believe tha.t keeping the assessing functions local will give us greater control over our properry tax revenues and our taxpayer relationships. We recommend to you that we keep them local. That's my summary. Please bring your 2002 Proposed Budgets with you on Monda.y night. We are meeting at 6:00 p.m in Conference room A. Thanks. Outline for Budget Discussion 10-15-01 1. Brief review of 2002 budget A. Ezpenditures B. Revenues 2. Fund Balance Analysis 3. Street Capital improvements Fund Analysis and Recommendations 4. Health Insurance Analysis and Recommendations 5. Review of Potential Budget Cuts and Recommendations 6. Review of Assessor Options and Recommendations. 7. Conclusions '. ' �t,. . : Overview of 2002 Budget 1. All funds (see page 4).......9.1% 2. General Fund ........7.75% 3. Total increase........ $1.3 million 4. General Fund components of the increase: • 4% COLA .....$278,637 • 45% increase in employee health insurance costs .....$245,000 • shift of costs for 2 poGce officers from federal grants to local funding..... 5115,000 • new Fire Captain position.....$64,228 • State mandated PERA increases.....$17,202 • Fuel.....$26,915 • 2002 elections .....$27,700 • Legal services.....$17,700 • Aerial survey.....$30,000 � Employees compensation study..... $20,000 • North Metro Mayors..... $13,600 • Natural gas .....$15,485 • Sulbtotal ....$871,467 out of $904,209 5. Capital Improvement Fund components of the increase (see p.72): • Improvements to buildings and lands .....$584,000 • Streets..... $145,000 • Parks .....($86,600) • Sulbtotal.....$642,400 • Note: Municipal garage improvements cost $650,000 6. Revenue Increases • Property Tages : a. $5,507,313 or 33.5% more than the certified levy for 2001 b. Includes $1,217,156 associated with lost State revenues c. Also includes a 4.2% increase over last year's base, or $172,924. * Overall revenues from ezternal sources are projected to increase from $10,172,883 to $10,667,373 or by 4.9%. * The only fee increase that the budget projects is a 10% increase in the rental licensing fee. :` i. * The Water Fund (not included in the official budget) will reflect a 4% increase in water rates. * Although the budget does not currently show it, we will be requesting a 4.2% increase in our storm water fee. � FINANCE DEPARTMENT CITY OF FRIDLEY TO: FROM: �I � ' • 1 I L� . �.•_ � WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER ��� RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: FUND BALANCES Date: October 12, 2001 RICHARD D. PRIBYL FINANCEDIRECTOR As part of your budget message, you ask us annually to provide you with estimated fund balance information for your Table Number 3. This table has always been put together using strictly the budget information. In the General Fund we tend to portray a gloomy picture with our use of fund balance. In hind site, when we have completed our year end budget analysis we always tend to bring in more revenue than estimated and spend less than budget. Because of this trend, I felt that when preparing the projected fund balance information it would be more realistic to be using a 5 year actual trend when projecting the General Fund budget performance. The information attached to this memo is the information that we are providing to you for use as part of your budget message. When we use a 5 year trend on the Estimated Revenues for and Appropriations for 2002, we find that the use of fund balance will fall to only $79,761 and not the budgeted $854,538(see schedule A). I have also provided the other Table 3 that does not include any trending(see schedule B), it shows the impact on fund balances based on budgeted dollars. The difference between the schedule A and schedule B aze significant. We need to remember when looking at the trend that it is based on a five year average and economic changes similar to what we are currently experiencing can change the actual outcome. As you can see on Table 3(schedule A), we are estimating, based on the 5 year trend that our General Fund fund balance as of 12/31/2002 will act�ally be greater than it was as of 12/31/2000. �! SCNCDu.�c A TABLE 3 Fund Balances Unreserved Unreserved Discretionary Discretionary Fund Balances � Retained Year General Fund Fund Balances Earnings - Ail Funds 1997 7,042,470 21,932,428 40,404,066 1998 7,513,410 21,091,541 41,730,419 1999 6,945,233 20,029,553 39,455,417 2000 6,736,638 22,664,682 43,012,447 * 2001 6,868,086 21,822,918 43,241,838 * 2002 6,788,325 20,147,850 42,352,852 * Projected Estimate Note, this is done using the "5 Year Gen Fund Analysis" worksheet for the General fund F _r � �`C� EOu. e.� � TABLE 3 Fund Balances Unreserved Unreserved Discretionary Discretionary Fund Balances � Retained Year General Fund Fund Balances Earnings - Ail Funds 1997 7,042,470 21,932,428 40,404,066 1998 7,513,410 21,091,541 41,730,419 1999 6,945,233 20,029,553 39,455,417 2000 6,736,638 22,664,682 43,012,447 * 2001 6,141,454 21,096,286 42,515,206 * 2002 5,286,916 18,646,441 40,851,443 " Projected Estimate s 0 Five Year General Fund Analysis - ACTUAL VS BUDGET REVENUES Actual Actual Actual Actual Actuai 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Budgeted Revenues $ 9,445,504 $ 9,718.289 $ 10,081,641 $ 10,260.126 $ 10,451.264 Actual Revenues 9.805.430 10.116.682 10.532.075 10.325.770 11.096.641 Variance 359,926 398,393 450,434 65,644 645,377 Actuai Revenue °/a of Budget 103.81y. 104.10°/. 104.47X 100.64X 106.18•,G 103.84% Five Year Average Actual vs Budget EXPENSES Budgeted Expenditures $ 9,840,221 $ 10,240,659 $ 10,357,833 $ 11.164,814 $ 11,571,641 Actual Expenditures 9.479.381 10.030.524 10.059.889 10.932.370 11.310.395 Variance (360,840) (210,135) (297,944) (232,444) (261,246) Actual Expense % of Budget 96.33y. 9T.95°�G 97.1274 97.92X 97.T4�G 97.41 °/. Five Year Average Actual vs Budget Variance T20,766 608,528 748,378 298,088 906,623 Final Budget 2001 S 11,068,838 11.493.721 424,883 103.84°� Proposed Budget 2002 $ 11,713,693 12.163.329 449,636 103.84% $ 11.664.022 S 12,568.231 11.362.273 12.243.090 (301,749) (325,141) 97.41 Y. 97.41 % 726,632 774,777 Actual Fund Bai Change (Use) 326,049 86,158 4T2,186 (606,600) (213,754) 131,448 (79,T61) Note, the budgeted numbers are generated as a result of a five year average of Actual vs Budget. � City of Fridley 1 �J TO: William W. Burns, City Manager k �� G�� FROM: Jon H. H�s, Public Works Director DATE: October 10, 2001 SUBJECT: Street Capital Improvement Plan I' 1 1:• Over the last several years we have seen a steady decrease in the Street CIP balance. On average, the balance has been decreasing by approximately $200,000 to $400,000 annually since we began tracking it in 1999. This is due to the fact that not all of the projects we do ha�e a reimbursement source such as State Aid or assessments. The Street CIP currently contains the annual street reconstruction project, the annual sealcoat project, and one or two miscellaneous construction projects such as signal painting or bike trail extensions and upgrades. Our proposed solution makes adjustments to both the revenue and expenditure sides of the Street CIP fund. On the revenue side we propose to transfer approximately $100,000 per year from the storm water fund to pay for the installation of concrete curb and gutter and miscellaneous storm sewer improvements. This anticipates an increase the storm water fees by the rate of inflation every year to maintain its balance. Secondly, we propose a change in the assessment policy to have 25% of the total project costs assessed to the adjacent properties on our existing front foot measurement basis. Third, the miscellaneous construction projects (signal painting, etc.) will only be projects that can be reimbursed through the MSA system without decreasing the "off-system" money a�ailable to us for the annual neighborhood street reconstruction project. In this manner, the annual neighborhood street reconstruction project can be paid for almost entirely through State Aid reimbursement, storm water fund transfers, and assessments without reducing the Street CIP balance. On the expenditure side of the account we propose to reduce the sealcoat budget to approximately $100,000 per year. We will substitute a fully reimbursable mill and overlay project on the MSA system instead of a sealcoat project every second or third year. We will also defer the 2002 85`h Avenue Trail project and the 2003 7`h Street sidewalk project to future years when we ha�e additional grant funds to leverage out these moneys. Attached is a revised Streets CIP budget for years 2002 and 2003. f Im City of Fridley State of Minnesota Beginning Balance Revenues Funds Available Proiects Ending Balance Beginning Balance Revenues Funds Available Proiects Ending Balance 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET 2D02 Streets Capital Improvements 2002 Interest Income Minnesota State Aid - Street Project - Signal Painting Assessments Stormwater Transfer Total Revenues 2002 Street Reconstruction Program Ward 3 2002 Sealcoat Program (Area 5) *"" Signal Painting Project Reconstruct 57th East of Univ to 7th St (200,000) HRA Total Projects ' New Project or Equipment '" Relocated Project or Equipment ""* State AidConst Fund From Milage Available 2003 Interest Income Minnesota State Aid - Street Project - Signal Painting Assessments Stormwater Transfer Total Revenues $ $1,346,810 67,341 335,000 55,000 150,000 100.000 $707,341 2,054,151 600,000 100,000 55,000 0 $755,000 $ 1,299,151 $ a1,299,151 64,958 325.000 55,000 150,000 100.000 $694,958 1,994,108 2003 Street Reconstruction Program Ward 1 600,000 2003 Sealcoat Program (Area 6) 100,000 *`* Signal Painting Project (TH47 North 1/2) 55,000 *"' TH65 Add'I N& S Bound Lanes / Causeway 7 million HRA $0 (6.5 million State/Fed .5 million HRA) * 73th Ave / 73 1/2 East Reconstruction HRA 0 (Saivage Yard Redevelopment - HRA $ 100,000) " Bikeway/Walkway 61st Ave "NCDA" (Commuter Rail Underpass) 0 (Grant $24,000) " Bikeway/Walkway W Main St "NCDA" (57th & 61st) 0 (Grant $24,000) Total Projects $755,000 $ 1,239,108 a� � � anr � FRIDLEIf MEMORANDUM Date: 10 October 2001 „ ` ��v Memo to: William W. Burns, City Manager � Fridley City Council From: Subject: Deborah K. Dahl Director of Human Resources (763) 572-3507 Deborah K. Dahl, Director of Human Resources ��7�� HEALTH INSURANCE UPDATE The following information is to outline the discussion for the Oct. 15, 2001 budget discussion related to the City's costs for health insurance. I will be available for the meeting to answer questions you may have. I. II. III. Background A. In 7une, 2001, staffprojected the costs for next year's health insurance and prepared for a 44% increase, given inflation, claims experience (as of June) and contract. B. Staff looked at the self-funded program as well as went to market to bid for fully- funded options and would return in October with a recommendation. Options: Nine (9) bids were obtained from self-funded and fully-funded plans matching the City's current plan and some with slight modifications. If the City stays Self-funded: A. Expect to realize an increase of 70% to renew with same carrier and renewed with the same stop loss carrier at the same level of benefit: B. Explanation for Increase 1. Contract change accounts for 25% of increase. The City purchased an "immature" contract and went to a 16-month contract (9/1/00 to 12/31/O1). The contract was discounted but did not include 3 months of run-out coverage for Terminal Liability. Public sector employers who are self-funded are mandated to purchase this coverage. The City must purchase run-out coverage to get back into compliance, whether we stay self-insured or return to fully-funded. This includes the option for Terminal Liability Insurance and three (3) months of estimated claims. 2. Claims are running 20-25% higher than projected. 3. Inflation is running at 16%. Note: Since June 2001, there has been a change in the counts of employees participating, switching from 60 singles and 53 families to 48 singles and 60 families (additional cost of $70,000). In addition, the City has paid for $63,000 in outstanding claims incurred in previous plan year that fall into this plan year (YTD). C. Bids for a similar plan design and move to a 24/12 self-funded contract versus a 16/16: 1. Minimum bid (option 3— Allianz): $926,482 (maximum funding). Total City's cost would be $778,722.72. 2. Maximum bid (renewal HCC/Avemco — option 2 with plan modification): 1,086,812 (maximum funding). Total City's cost would be $914,028.20. Note: Maximum funding is the total amount needed to be funded. The City's portion will be 100% of the cost for singles and 80% of the cost for families. Also, these rates do not include $169, 000 in Terminal Liability Option, run-out insurance, claims and administration if the City were to exit self funded plan. D. Fully-funded (pooled) insurance options which match current plan design: 1. Blue Cross Blue Shield =$726,132 plus $169,000 (cost to exit self-funded plan, includes: TLO, run-out insurance and expected claims) _$920,132 (maximum funding). Total City's cost = $752,762.40. 2. Medica Choice =$655,952.92 plus $169,000 (cost to exit self-funded plan, includes: TLO, run-out insurance and expected claims) _$824,975.92 (maximum funding). Total City's cost = $693,820.41. E. Reasons for returning to fully-funded? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) No gain to stay self-funded, higher risk Self-funded leaves us susceptible to huge swings in utilization/market We have strong concerns about our early retirees who opt for our insurance and are carried until age 65. Aging population = high claims. Fully-funded options allow us to be able to plan better Administration and management of claims is more effective Less liability or exposure for administration of the plan Advantage to be in a pool to spread the risk IV. Premium Rates u A. Overall rates for 2002 — Medica Choice City's costs: $693,820.41 Employee's costs: $131,155.51 B. Monthly Premiums 2001 Single $272.19 Family $607.68 2002 Difference $293.79 $21.60 $881.38 $273.70 * *45% increase over 2001 C. City Cost/Employee Share per month 2001 City/Employee Single $272.19/ 0 Family $488/$119.68 Recommendation to Council: 2002 City/Employee $293.79/ 0 $705.10/176.28 Dit%rence City/Emptoyee $21.61/0 $217.10/56.60 A. Staff and benefits consultants recommend the City return to a fully-funded plan, Medica Choice Option. VI. What's next? A. Benefits consultants will be refining plan design and rates for Medica's fully-funded plan to try to bring down rates a little more. B. Look at offering one, two or both options for Medica Choice or Medica Elect. . ..r � Potential Budget Adjustments Operating Funds 1. 1/Z% cut in COLA ...savings ...$38,942.56 2. Savings associated with Police Department retirements .....$98,317.57 3. Eliminate employee compensation study ..... $20,000 4. Eliminate part-time accounting position.....$25,602 5. Avoid filling one police oiiicer position.....$46,946 6. Eliminate new Fire Captain position.....$64,228 7. Eliminate digitized aerial mapping from Engineering budget.....$30,000 8. Eliminate 1 ton utility truck from Park Maintenance.....$34,000 Subtotal.....$358,036 Capital Impravement Fund Adjustments 1. Digital community billboard.....$13,000 2. Resurfacing of municipal garage lots.....$75,000 3. Reduce 2002 sealcoating program from $170,000 to $100,OQ0 4. Eliminate $85`� Avenue bike trail.....$150,000 5. Eliminate Farr Lake trail replacement.....$30,000 6. Reduce budget for park sign replacement .....$3?,000 Subtotal.....$375,000 Recommendation: Eliminate the following items from the 2002 badget. 1. Savings associated with Police Department retirements.....$98,318 2. Resurfacing of garage lots.....$75,000 3. Reduce sealcoating program.....$70,000 4. Eliminate 85tb Avenue bikeway.....$150,000 5. Reduce budget for park sign replacement.....$37,000 Total $430,318 Include the following items in the 2002 budget, but withhold ezpenditure until at least 7-1-02. Use the first 6 months to calculate the year end actuals for 2001 and assess where our economy is headed. 1. Employee compensation study ..... $20,000 2. Police officer position ..... $46,964 3. New Fire Captain position ..... $G4,228 4. Digitized aerial mapping ..... $30,000 5. One ton utility truck for Park M�intenance ..... $37,000 Total $198,192 Impact: A budget reduction of $430,318 would reduce overall increase from $1,308,497 to $904,179. The percentage increase would be lowered from 9.1% to 6.2%. , ¢ TO: WILLIAM W. B URNS, CITY MANAGER FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CHANGES TO THE ASSESSING DIVISION DATE: January 27, 2000 As you know as of November 9, 2001 Ed Hervin will be retiring from the City Assessor Position. As I see the options that are available to us, we could do one of the following: . a) Open the position of City Assessor to the market, maintain Mary as the Residential Appraiser. She would be promoted to City Assessor if the market did not provide a "standout candidate". b) Subcontract the commercial / industrial properties along with apartment and Unimproved Parcels to the County. The residential properties would stay with the city. The city would need to provide Mary with a promotion to City Assessor. She will still have the over site on the C/I properties and need to sign off on the annual overall values. c) Contract with the County to provide the full assessment activity. My recommendation is to choose option A. I would like to advertise the position and include Mary in the field of candidates. It would be nice to see if the marketplace could provide a stand out candidate. If the process does not provide an individual that has a good background, it would then be my recommendation to promote Mary and provide contract backup for her when needed. The costs associated with each of the options are shown on the attached schedule. At this time I would once again recommend that the city keep the assessing function in house as opposed to contracting with the County. The County contracting option puts the appraisal of our properties in the hands of inexperienced appraisers at the County. The County has recently been through a re-staffing exercise and has found that the field of candidates was small. Their hiring process for their C/I properties provided them with inexperienced appraisers. The beneft the County has, is that those same appraisers are under the direction of an experienced Assessor. Although this option would save the city some money it would remove a first line contact the city has with many of its properties and owners. I would like to see what the market has for potential candidates for City Assessor. a c� ao cc o co o ao co 00 �� r� in w N O f� � O �O � M O ti � N pp � � N CO 1� M � N N � � ER 69 bl} ER d�? !A (O (G Cfl tn �' T T r � � � :�i �n :r� ���� ti ao � ao v tt (O O M � M � N N M � � s �' +� a� �n 3 � � � � � a � °' � a �a \ Q � � y V � +1�- � � a U fd = y '� +' (6 N N N C � N� O O N +4+ 4 V y-�p n�. � i N O c C�a�i � � Q- pN � C C .� _ � � 7 � v `� V i N N N O �' �r eC 4 > > > a = � 0 O fl. O. fl. � O++ Q N ��� 7 N W k � �` ��� :z ,. � ,, . ���'��. O O O O O M O O O O M o 0 000 O O e-0000 � CO � � � 00 CO �C 00 O � � CO <C �Od' C! C1 N�00� M M CDCON � � MMOCON � N t� � t�G t�0 � ti� � M N � � � � � bl} EA Ef� d'T IA fA tA /R b9 E!? W d�? N rn a � m � C .N y a� N a N 0 0 N N � N L U � U � � U N . � Z C � � d � ac�no 0 y N m N a 3 � oz :. � 02 � a C E � O � N Q. � �� O � �. O QQ y Yat� N � � C f0 � L U V v o � C U �� � � N��(C � m" °' Q�c�n ��o o��QQ� Oc�naac�no � C � 0 U N L .-. O �.% ,�' O Q O ti