10/10/2007 BWS - 6140�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
William W. Burns
M E M O R A N D U M City Manager
Memo to: The Mayor and City Council �
From: William W. Burns, City Manager�
Subject: Budget Work Session
Date: October 10, 2007
Here is a proposed outline for our budget discussions on Monday night. The meeting begins at
6:00 p.m. in the lower level meeting rooms. There will be sandwiches and drinks available for your
dining pleasure. If you have questions between now and then, I will be happy to answer them or be
prepared to answer them on Monday night.
1. Overview of the Budget .... Bill Burns.
2.
K�
�
5.
�
A. Enterprise Funds
B. All Funds
C. General Fund
D. Special Revenue Funds
Review of General and Utility Fund Projections .... Rick Pribyl.
Employee Health Insurance Recommendations
Concepts.
New Expenditures:
Deb Dahl and Jim Sarych from Financial
A. Parking Ramp .... Not Budgeted .... Jim Kosluchar.
B. $36,000 for Additional Paid —On-Call Firefighter Hours ..... Budgeted.
C. Property Maintenance Code Enforcement ..... Not Budgeted .... Scott Hickok.
D. Code Enforcement Intern .... Not budgeted .... Scott Hickok.
Contributions to Outside Agencies ... Bill Burns.
A. SACCC - $5,800 .... Budgeted.
B. Anoka County Mediation Services -$3,000 .... Budgeted.
C. Alexandra House -$42,561 .... Not Budgeted.
2008 General Fund Levy Request .... Bill Burns.
A. Recommend $1 Million General Fund Levy Increase.
B. Cost to Owner of Average Fridley Home .... $80 a year.
7. Other Items.
�
�
C71Y OF
FRIDLEY
CITY COUNCIL
BUDGET WORK SESSION
October �5, Zoo7 - 6:0o p.m.
Fridley Municipal Center
Meeting Rooms i and �
1. Overview of the Budget.
A. Enterprise Funds
B. All Funds
C. General Fund
D. Special Revenue Funds
2. Review of General and Utility Fund Projections.
3. Employee Health Insurance Recommendations.
4. New Expenditures:
A. Parking Ramp.
B. $36,000 for Additional Paid —On-Call Firefighter Hours.
C. Property Maintenance Code Enforcement.
D. Code Enforcement Intern.
5. Contributions to Outside Agencies.
A. SACCC - $5,800.
B. Anoka County M�diation Services -$3,000.
C. Alexandra House - $42,561.
6. 2008 General Fund Levy Request.
A. Recommend $1 Million General Fund Levy Increase.
B. Cost to Owner of Average Fridley Home.
7. Other Items.
�
�
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
MEMORANDUM
Memo to: The Mayor and Council �
From: William W. Burns, City Manager�
Subject: 2008 Budget
Date: May 30, 2007
William W. Burns
City Manager
The 2008 budget for all budgeted funds is $18,364,859, or 2.87% more than the budget for 2007.
The budget includes $14,323,193 in General Fund expenditures, $1,092,066 in Special Revenue
Fund expenditures, $2,942,700 in Capital Improvement Fund expenditures, and $6,200 in Six Cities
Watershed Fund expenditures.
ALL FUNDS EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
General Fund.
General Fund expenditures are $605,337, or 4.41% more than we budgeted for this year. This
amount includes an additional $236,800 in Police Department expenditures; $141,004 in additional
Public Works expenditures; and an additional $20,515 in Fire Department expenditures. It also
includes an additional $35,349 for Parks and Recreation expenditures; an additional $35,149 for
general administrative expenditures; an additional $72,819 for Community Development
Department expenditures; and an additional $53,341 for Finance Department expenditures. Non-
Departmental and Reserve expenditures are up by $8,667.
Another way to look at budget increases is by broad category of expenditure and object code. The
table on the next page demonstrates that the expenditure increases are largely for personal services.
The next largest increase is for services and charges. There is also a significant increase for supplies
that has been driven by the rising cost of vehicle fuel and energy. Capital outlay costs are once again
lower than the preceding year.
Line item, or object code changes include an increase of $366,120 in salaries for full-time and
temporary employees and $76,001 in increases for PERA- related retirement benefits. There is also
BM-1
a$44,432 increase for fuel, and a$46,148 increase for utility costs. Other significant line item
increases include a$48,312 increase in contractual service costs, and a$21,704 increase for liability
msurance.
Once again, the budget does not provide for any significant expansion or contraction of municipal
services. Like last year's budget, the 2008 budget is a very tight budget that includes a 3% cost of
living adjustment (COLA) for all City employees at a cost of $235,726. It also includes the phasing
in of $31,730 in compensation study incr�ases that were identified in 2006. Finally, it includes
$61,718 for merit step increases. While it provides for $36,000 in additional Paid-On-Call
Firefighter hours, it also provides for one fewer data processing/account clerks in the Finance
Department at a savings of $58,498.
GENERAL FUND - EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Chan e
2007 Bud et 2008 Bud et Amount %
Personal Services $ 10,052,756 $ 10,554,503 $501,747 4.99%
Su lies 767,750 851,353 $83,603 10.89%
Ca italOutla 325,860 207,340 $118,520 36.37%
Other Financin Uses 0 0 $0 0%
Total $ 13,717,856 $ 14,323,193 $605,337 4.41%
There are several potential issues created by the absence of an appropriation. These include the
elimination of $42,561 in Police Department funding for the contract with Alexandra House. We
have also eliminated $4,000 in funding for the City Watch contract. Council may recall that this is a
service that enabled the Police Department to provide telephone messages via landline to Fridley
residences. Additionally, the budget does not include funding for implementation of a housing
maintenance code or for reinstatement of Project Safety Net.
General Fund Revenues.
The $14,323,193 in General Fund expenditures is supported by $12,671,990 in General Fund revenue. In
order to balance the budget, we are again proposing to transfer $500,000 from the Liquor Fund, $250,000
from the Closed Bond Fund and $901,203 from the General Fund Reserve. The transfer amount of
$1,651,203 is more than last year's $1,616,546. It assumes that our LGA revenue from the state will be
$647,056. This may or may not materialize depending on the outcome of the 20071egislative session.
Special Revenue Funds.
Spending for all Special Revenue Funds in 2008 will be $1,092,766. This amount is $173,884, or
13.73% less than was budgeted for in 2007. All of the decrease may be attributed to the discontinuation
of transfers from the Police Activity Fund to the General Fund. The table on the next page shows
spending for each fund within this funding category.
•I��b.l
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Cable TV Fund.
Expenditures are down by $28,515, or by 15.69%. The decrease is almost all in capital outlay. In 2007,
we are replacing cable television-related lighting in the Council-chambers at a cost of about $35,000. The
2008 expenditure is an$8,300 expenditure that will be used for purchase of a TriCaster, a portable
control unit that will enable multi-camera field production.
Revenues of $257,800 more than offset the cost of Cable TV Fund expenditures and leaves us with an
anticipated fund balance of $1,007,184.
Grant Management Fund.
Grant Management Fund expenditures are projected at $92,034, or $513 less than for 2007. The bulk of
this budget is for three part-time, grant-funded employees. These include the Chores and More
Coordinator at the Senior Center and our two part-time Section 8 Housing employees.
We anticipate that grant revenues will match expenditures. We do not anticipate any remaining fund
balance.
Solid Waste Abatement Fund.
We have budgeted $473,908 or $24,322 (5.4%) more than was budgeted for 2007. The biggest
contributor to the increase is the $10,918 cost for our curbside recycling contract. There are also new
costs associated with the recycling drop-off events and personal service costs associated with the City's
Environmental Planner.
Expenditures are offset by $439,100 in recycling fees and grant revenue. This leaves us with a deficit of
$34,808 that must be transferred from our Closed Bond Fund.
Springbrook Nature Center Fund.
The budget for the SNC is $373,623, or $20,822 (5.9%) more than the budget for 2007. By far the
biggest contributor to the increase is the cost of personal services. This includes $3,086 for a part-time
naturalist at Adams Elementary School. The entire amount will be reimbursed by the Anoka Hennepin
School District.
BM-3
The 2008 SNC levy is expected to generate $295,200. Additionally, we expect to collect $79,500 in
various program related fees. The 2008 expenditures and revenues for 2008 will leave us with a fund
balance of $67,246.
Capital Improvements Fund.
Capital Improvement Fund expenditures are projected at $2,942,700, or $80,700 (2.82%) more than we
budgeted for 2007. The major contributor to the increase is street improvements that are anticipated to
increase by $100,000 (3.86%). The table below shows the distribution of these expenditures among the
three improvement categories.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
We anticipate Capital Improvement Fund revenues of $2,836,250. Of this amount, $2,125,000 will be
generated through a property tax levy needed to retire debt on the City's street improvement projects.
The combination of expenditures and revenues will leave us with a projected fund balance of
$5,234,516.
Enterprise Funds.
In addition to formally budgeted funds, the City budgets informally for four enterprise funds. Those
budgets are suininarized in the table below.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
. ,
Water Fund.
We are projecting $2,188,433 in Water Fund expenditures for 2008. The amount is $94,053 (4.49%)
more than the amount budgeted for 2007. The additional cost is split between depreciation costs for
capital improvement projects that are projected to be constructed in 2007 and 2008 and additional
operating costs. The biggest part of the operating increase is for personal service cost increases of
$36,599. Of this amount, $18,296 is for salaries. Another $3,620 reflects increased administrative
overhead for the services of the City garage. The remainder is for fringe benefits.
Operating revenues of $1,987,300 will leave us with an operating deficit of $99,191. A comparison of
operating and non-operating revenues and expenditures finds us with a combined deficit of $153,533.
We also expect to end the year with a negative cash balance of $7,259. That negative cash position is
projected to grow to $411,393 in 2009.
Sewer Fund.
We are projecting Sewer Fund expenditures of $4,090,361, or $183,880 (4.71%) more than we budgeted
for 2007. Of this amount $138,585 is represented by increased costs for sewage treatment that are passed
on to us by the Metropolitan Council's Environmental Services Division. Another big portion of the
increase is represented by an additional $34,053 in additional personal service cost for the five
employees who work in this division. This number includes a$13,629 increase in cost for salaries. The
remainder is represented by additional fringe benefit costs and by a$3,620 increase in the division's
garage overhead charge.
Operating expenditures of $4,090,361 are partially offset by operating revenues of $3,476,400. This will
leave us with a$613,961 operating deficit. Part of this deficit will be offset by non-operating income of
$126,000. This will leave us with a net deficit of $487,961. The cash position for the Sewer Fund will be
reduced from $2,789,892 to $2,432,374.
Storm Water Fund.
Total storm water expenditures for 2008 are budgeted at $339,120. This amount is $103,705, or 23.42%
less than we budgeted for 2007. Nearly all of the reduction is explained by the elimination of a$100,000
transfer to the Capital Improvements Fund for street reconstruction. Rather than transfer money to the
Capital Improvements Fund, we will bill the Storm Water Fund directly for its share of street
reconstruction costs.
We anticipate operating revenues of $401,912. This will leave us with operating income of $62,792.
Non-operating income of $32,200 will increase our net income to $94,992. Our cash position in this fund
will be improved from $624,312 to $801,894.
BM-5
Liquor Fund.
Liquor Fund expenditures are projected to rise to $6,113,789, or by $58,809 (.97%). As in past years,
nearly all of the cost for this fund is for the product that we sell. The biggest contributors to the sma11
increase include $19,543 for personal services, $17,683 for the cost of goods sold, and $10,000 in
additional credit card fees. We also anticipate a$3,000 increase in freight charges. As in past years, we
anticipate a$500,000 transfer from this fund to the General Fund.
We anticipate operating revenues of $6,042,831 leaving us an operating income of $429,042. After
adding in non-operating revenues of $31,200 and a$500,000 transfer out, our net assets will be reduced
by $39,758 from $1,516,768 to $1,477,010.
Budget Issues.
The budgets that I have reviewed in this memo have been designed to maintain existing levels of service.
Other than the $36,000 for additional Paid-On-Call Firefighter hours, the budget does not anticipate any
new personal services. In fact, it contains funding for one less full-time position than is funded for in
2007. As in the past, I have identified several discussion items for our budget work session on June 18.
These items for discussion may be divided into three major categories: expenditure items, items not
budgeted or cut from the budget, and review of financial projections.
Expenditure Items:
A. 3% COLA for all City employees.
B. Health Insurance (since we do not have provider quotes until October, most of this
discussion ill be more meaningful at our October 15 budget work session).
C. $36,000 in additional POC expenditures to improve shift coverage.
D. $43,000 for Code Enforcement-Related Nuisance Abatement.
E. SACCC Contribution: $5,800.
F. Anoka County Mediation Services Contribution: $3,000.
G. 2008 Machinery and Equipment Purchases.
H. 2008 Capital Improvement Projects.
Items Cut or Missing from the Budget:
A. Alexandra House Contribution: $42,000
B. Funding for Curfew Violations Center.
: .
C. Funding for Property Maintenance Code Enforcement.
D. Funding for Summer Code Enforcement Intern: $7,200
Review of Financial Projections:
A. General Fund Projections.
B. Utility Fund Projections.
Other items requested by Council.
Thank you.
BM-7
�
TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR 1''�
SUBJECT: General Fund Projections for 2008 and beyond
DATE: October 4, 2007
Attached you will find a General Fund cash balance projection
sheet that was provided at the June budget work session. This
worksheet has been modified with one change since that meeting,
and that was to add $981,127 to the cash balance during 2007.
You may recall the most recent budget reappropriation cleaned out
the 2005 Street.project fund and moved this residual balance to
the General Fund. This additional money has moved the year in
which the city's General Fund would be out of cash to 2015.
The City would require, starting in 2009, an additional
$1,000,000 would need to be moved into the General Fund annually,
to support the same level of service from the prior year.
^, Y
O W �
W � �
N � T � �
�
�� � � � Om � X
W �
Y�,� C+r7 C m
r�r � K m r"' �.
� V m��C m Of 1� OD O� !� CO 1!> N e0 aL�+
•� � d �� v �� i� m o � o °o_ o o � �
� t� o �� ��� a°> o � e� .°-° i a� e' M 'o
�" N Q. cv o c�� �, n m �, a� r- w a � r� �
'v o
���� C� � LL' W=a N N M N N N N N � :!� r
m VLL�IL« V O
d � 3 .� � � �
� d � � y � � � � � O O O O O � � � � . 'NO
�� m�� 3 �� r � � � � � � � �
�o���N "$,o` .- � .- � .- � ='2
.° N,��.�v � ��- � �s, «, v► u, �t
���a�'io,� v 1°O
N
� O LL �(� 4 O � .m p
$'�'+ � � ,f Ij = � � l�f N o�0 � n N C�O l�f � � � �`'" C�p
tII O d �0 Q►v- c rn t�i rn co c+� co v_ rn � C �
++ �� C++ +' � Wg� (O sT N O (V 1f7 O (O lf) ln �.. C M
N E(7 N m N r, m�� � � � � N N tI � � L 3 r.�+ O
N� � L f, O O �
��/f � O �p i» i» i» <» F» is� <fl c p ~ 1�
` rL.+ r�.. Y '�^ t6 � � �
U 3 _
3� 0 3�p � v v � c
�����o � � � � � �N � � � � � �_ �
� � � N � � � N � � � � � � � ti
� V� V' t0 Ip t� �O I� h OD CO � C � M
� LL
w is vs i a v3 n u� ui � vr t E
� � m
�$
m � � � � � � � � � � � 3o m°
Q o `m � o N „
� � °° � � � � � � � � �g ��
� � � � � � � � � o� mo
� V ~ � E�9 N
m �
�i � .~N- N � � � g 25 25 25 �7S a'S �S �i �S �S �i o o c�i o
S �� � � :g� "� � � � � � � � � � � r$ m ��
� �� � �; �� � � � � � � � � � � m� ��
� � �� �� ��
LL'� ac
0
�y o � r .- � r n� r� +'' ao
� ��pj C � ^ � � � � � �p � � N � � � p�p
� O � (V � � � � 1� � C7 � N � � �O j � ' L m �
� � � a � '' � � N fh ('7 � � �P IA If> �U �D � � � � �
� m U� O M H H fA �A � � tA � W fA C 3 U iR
� � N
._
_
� t> > -wp � a�i , c v
� � LL ' Nqq�� LL " . '+,� � l� .'` � fr �P� YT� ��' � C N O
� C
� � � � �p .. ., ;' ' 's�},�;,, M � 1L
� 7 � � � � � O. , T, � � f7 ,.� ; � ; : ;: (p �: .n W � O
�� c� c� � c� � � i� R� F� R�� R � � � N
,,m � �pp'� mL � '�Dp� �, � ��p � � y�p� � � � �
� � V �� N C � fD � 7 7 � 7 7 3 7 7 �° t� M
vN � M �,� � v m m m m m m m m m ob �� �
w � 01°0 �' ' �° � � � J ~ �
O 0 = E m� m w p � cV m
�� � � �� � � o
:i O :.i � J� J W
TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR �"�P
SUBJECT: Utility Fund Projections for 2008 and beyond
DATE: October 5, 2007
Attached you will find the utility proformas that were presented
to Council with the 2008 Proposed Budget. The statements
attached are identical to those provided within that budget
document. Staff is not aware of any changes, thus the same
issues exist as has been discussed many times. The city is in
need of raising the rates as soon as possible to stop the
continuing drain on utility resources and allow the system to be
maintained in an responsible fashion.
M �
N
�
O
N
M M
.0 �"
���
N �
�Q N
�
a
N M
� �
w
V �
d O
�p N
�
a
N M
01
O
O
N
� �
O
O
N
� N
r O
V O
Q N
N
2
O
H
� O
U �
a
J � W
a
� � w �
LL LL � =
� Q V �
U � ? �
00 0000 0 ��on�n
00 0000 a0 O �0�t0010
O O O f0 1� M N T f0 f� M� 1�
� h ��� O aD � N m N N
� � � N P (O � N �
� N N N
O O O O O O o � f f N f� � V
O O O O O O CO �� f� fD M N
O O O(O I� M N M a I� M OD 00
vn a°'o°vv c°OOa"�oornfO�
� � � � h (O � N M
� � N N
00 0000 o c�vaonnaa
00 0000 00 f00 (OODM
O O O(O f� M N �� N M� 01
�� M�� O�f � 0�0 m 01 � 0�0
� Of r- O t� �� � N
e- � N N
00 0000 o MO�t� I�
O O O f�0 � M � �� � M��Cl
N
� n ONO �� M N� n��
V_ a0 � O f� ��
e- r N
� N O � O �
�� N00OO
� N � � n
� � �
O O �V � �C OI
O O Of f0 M 01
a n � � � N
V I� � Of
� � �
T O f0 00 � N
f0 O N O N M
� aD f0 t0 � O
OD tn M CO 1� N
(�O � � � M O�f
�
N � � I� '
O O � M
� f0 � �
f0 � CO �
� „ � ,
N
N
r
�
� i � � �
�
Of
�
�
� � � � ,
�
�
O
�
p i � �^p � �
°o n
l0 �
� O ' I� ' ' M M
� � � W �
00 I� N Ip f�
h N N
� n , O�I � 1 N O
co � n v� .-
Cp I� O t0 N
� N � �
... .r.
N � o N
�I 01 .°�... �
C
f0
O O O �
U
°o °o °� �
o w -
ui �ri a �
O. j C X
O
f0
t W y N
� d d N � y C
� � � � � N Q K
'� � N � C � W
v' °' W ^ 00 �, x aNi
v y c0 y K LL 7
� y i� � N W N � N
W 01 C Of N f� � N C C O 7 G�1
N O�i d � Gyi V..m O W j �� N� O C
s p� C C C Ny � �� C � � t:.0 � Q��0
" � � tl) �"' � U U �p V C� N d`� fC0 �
O OI � � j�0 x N C. C
�OOO �v�mc�+ W y �dpa 5 +��?�.�°F:O m
H o o c� d a�i O �� � � � O � � 5`� d Z u�'i °' o 0
c�oo '.-' ,��.� "o a�c� � rn.�9 � O y c�i/i.��.�ivZ c
-° o vi m�� t f°. a�i � a r � m� a o«� °: a�i m a� m
�a a m.. c-a� �..�'it o
C9 o�u.o oatno¢U o z5¢ �o(90r z
a
\
N O O�f O�1 CO O O O
,0 � N N N 000
T I� O: ui
u� � �N`�
O N M
�
a
�
N 00�10�0 GO 000
,0 01 N N N 000
� O N �
V e- � � N �
N O �rj
'� N
a
�n o u� ao 0 0 0 0
� N � ^ � O O O
-a _ ., N N
d T 1� � ui
�Y,1 � � M N �
N O �vj
•0^ N
a`
�n o� r o 0 0 0
'p � N �N IV 000
� � � � a � �
� p N N
.O N t'j
�
a
� °
�.•p �:O�D �N �' N'... � � � O ��0',
.:�,� � �r �� ..,I[�"� f�0
� �p ���e-N
7 N M
m
.... ., \ . ..:�
(MO O O�f N 00 O O ��fJ
.0 f� N N N O O f�
� ^ � � � N �
O
-� N M
7
m
N
z
0
f� ~
U
0 O
I-- �
wa
� � N
J a W
oa
z ^
0
l L LL � N
LL � W �
� 3 V �
c�uWi?�
� O OI N o �(O � O H
W N��� O N h O
!V �
� p � � O N � M
Q N M lM
\°
� ON1 N � O f0
N c� � f0 O�
O (O � � M
M
�
N n�rno�°w
V 01 � I� � �
(�O � N � M
M
0 0�n rn cn v
aD O� M � f�0
N CO n (O � �
� � f0 O c0,�
CM �
o aocor��v
a0 �A O� CO M CO
N Q1 M O M t0
hf00� �
(�O � O � M
M
f0 � � (O O
� N 00 01 M
� O � N M
O 00 I� � f0
� � CO � M
N
� � M � �
N � � CO '
� � f�0 � M
N
O
� i � � i
O)
�
0
O �
� � � �
n
0
0
p � � � �
M
O1
o� � � � °o
O O
�
O
0 � � � �
M
n
O r
�V ' O ' � �
N � N
�
o �
N C
C �
O =
U
� � d
y � .�. ?� V!
C
o � � c y� a
- x
'E � X o � � w
w � i�
C y U -� .0 y X V 7
�`� C � .�-. N � 4= ip C
V% l6 V! f6 y �' O O �
� 0 � � � � w � � � � O � O y � �
s�a > t�• 'v
� �"' a+ m y � y U} y X .J.. d �p �1 c C
a � LL 0 7 p� N�A y C N� Cl 01 N W N w'a+
G> 'O 'C C C C� N N 16 L� � �� � T� y
N N Gi r' d N dl+ �'- � y m U'�' O Ol� C O� nC•
a p� _= d a�i u� m'c � x� r i� c�� C c a� o�� T
y c m m a � a � N a �� w� U Z° a R�' �°' c m
C=��v a��o?ai0 �mu,�d`°�p c a� mo°�z o
y m o o � m� c•°-'v,�'"¢ •r, aNCnvc% �
o a��e�oR ���ro a�ia�i3NLa��ioo � O�y�°�O,p �—c,
(7 v�t9C9� Ov�tiO DacnoOOl- 0 Z ��C9�0� Z
N `
O
F- �
f
� �
� �
a�
� u
2
0
� LL �
�a°
�3u
o��
� O .
U N G
o O W �
.� a�0 O '�d' N
� N N N O O
d O �
O N
�
a
o � N
O N �
� � � N
« N f0 O
d O �
'p N
�
a
0
w
y W O �
� � N � 01
�O N
�
a
O N f0 O
O O � � N
a0 � aO �f OD
N � � M �
0 1� I� O O
W O fD � W
N 01 f0 M T
o vmaoo
W C�D V�' r C�D
N 4'1 lD �
� N 01
0 1n M 00 tp o � r- aO O
.� 0�0 O f�0_ � � o�D C�C N O� aND^
w� N �� 01 � N N tD N�
d OO M a �-
�O N
�
a
O O
N O ' ' ' '
M n
O O
O O
N O ' ' ' '
M �
N O � � ' '
M �
O O
O O
N O ' ' ' '
f� �
o N O O N � 'o O O O�O�O O N� �� O O. p .� N
O O O � O O O��M N��h N��OI �O O �� � O .OI
y � CO � � C? � V. N O! . O . ..f0. �- �- OD � a� P � � � .N O � .�. � � �. N .. . pl .
�41 � � M.Qi�Oi � M �:O> (O a0 � M Ol N cM m . N� �a
� O . M�. a �. � � O N 01 ... � M t0 .. N f'f �. OI
7 N � . . �� � � . . �.
m
f0 N�t N O O f0 � O Yf A O O O O O M
1� N N N O O oD t0 f� N N O O O O O h
y N N N t � � � � � tD CO W O O O ' ' O O O
t� Oi aO a f0 h aO �� � N f0 O.- O N N
� O M M O N a0 � M Y! M� O t0 �
� N
m
CO � f� f. O O N O N Y1 c'7 i�
I�OCO� tn��CNO � OI 10 � N� ��
Q! O � M.- N � OD N � N
� O M .- M O M O! M t0 �`�'
Q N
\°
I �.
1 �
c
: o
1 d d
, �
j O d
a y ^
i d .-. mN p, c
I O) � N t) q �C �p N
1 C y N .�.
� N p �} C y � £
. V d e o� y tn � y d
> > •= �
� d � y =mc � ca�i ���
� C Gyf � C C1 V m O W >� N C .
� d � N OI l0 N a C.� m 01 C1 C N
� � � N C L � y � �� C � R' fYp � ..�,.
� n � a�i � �� w K Z Na�'�c�i ��L° u c m� m y� c
° .,d. � N N�. � W� U� 0 C. C � c O u�i �� d
�� 3 �� �� a � m N�o �� � a> � aziQ o c o
�� € �°��yo d �yo,���o i° Q�mN`°cc��o c
i « a«° �L~ x aa`> >wi'it�' a o« °? a�i 75.'ca n m
.� v> OcnHO W Oav�OQU O 2 �S�cqC90 2
emo
To: William W. Burns Ci Mana er �
, ty g ;�
From: Debbie Dahl, Human Resources Director�
Date: October 10, 2007
Re: OCT.15, 2007 BUDGET MEETING
This memo is to provide you and the City Council with a sLU7unary of some of the final numbers related
to the Personal Services portion of the budget.
COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS
The proposed budget has planned for a 3% cost of living adjustment for all groups, including labor
unions. Note, howevex, that all unions have not settled for 2008. The overall cost for the cost of living
adjustment as reported in the 2008 Draft Budget is $235,726.
Earlier this year, Council voted to not increase their salaries in 2008, which will amount to a savings of
just under $1,000.
My research has revealed that other cities in the Metro Area are proposing an avexage increase of 3.08%
(source — Metro Area HR Directors and TUG List, 8/2/200�. USA Todav reported an increase of 3.9%
is anticipated across the nation for 2008 in an article written by Stephanie Armour on 8/31 /2007
(source, taken from a WorldAtWork survey).
PERA INCREASES
In a sexies of increases mandated by the state pension plan, the employer contribution will increase to
6.5% (up .25%) for the Coorclinated Plan and 12.9% (up 1.2%) for the Police and Fire Fund, which will
result in an overall increase to the Genexal Fund of $76,001 as reported in the Dxaft Budget. No
addirional increase is e�ected beyond the proposed budget.
BENEFIT RATES/CHANGES
Health Insurance—There is great news regarcling the renewal rates for health insurance—the renewal
with HealthI'artr�ers came in at a 5% increase, so there will be no additional cost to the Proposed
Budget and it would be my recommendation to stay with HealthParmeYS and keep the same plans. This
low increase can be attdbuted to lower claims as a result of more people switching to the HRA/VEBA
plan. I have attached a Clauns Analysis that reflects where the e�enses are being utilized.
J: \Personl\Pc�sonnel\Payroll\BudgetPcrsSe�n-\ 2(p8\ counal.memo. doc
You will recall that the Council set a clirective to reduce the employer contdbution for 2007 to bring it in
line with the conteiburions of other ciries. The Council wanted to see the single contriburion at 90% of
the premium cost for individuals and 70% for dependent coverage.
The patrol union, however, raised issue with the reduction and the City went into mediation. In June of
this yeas, the City settled with the patrol union to modify the employer contribution in exchange for a
commitment to change the employer contribution in 2008 to 95% for single and 70% for dependent
coverage (computed off of the Base Plan).
Due to the changes directed by Council, the City of Fridle�s employer contriburion level is closer in line
with our peers. The League of MN Cities 2007 Salary and Benefits Survey reported monthly employer
coniribution levels at: $455.04 for single coverage (116% employer contribution) and $715.77 for
dependent coverage (69% employer contribution). Fridley's 2007 contribution levels after the mediation
agreement are $439.38 for single (93% of the premium) and $993.89 for dependent coverage (73% of the
premium). It is important to note that Fridley's premiums are higher than those of out peexs.
The cities we have identified as our peers were generated during the compensation study passed ]a.st year
and were considered by departnient managers as cities that are similar to Fridley in the size, make up and
the kinds of services/pYOgYams they deliver. They replace the earlieY Stanton V listing and are: Apple
Valley, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Columbia Heights, Edina, Golden Valley, Lakeville,
Maplewood, New Brighton, Richfield, Roseville, St. Louis Paxk, and Woodbury.
If the 14% increase occuts in the marketplace as e�ected, Fridley's monthly premium rates for 2008 will
still be in line with our counterparts in tertns of a percentage of the premiutn. The employer contribution
levels and rates are detailed in the attached 2008 Employee Benefit Summary.
Again, the amount budgeted for health insurance in the Proposed Budget will not need to be adjusted
and will come in slightly under plan (by $5,000).
Dental Insurance—The xenewal rates have not come in for the dental plan yet, howevex, it is estimated
that the Yates will increase by 5.5%. I have planned for a$2 incYease per participant in the 2008 budget,
which brings the employer contribution from $20 per month to $22 pex month. This increase has
resulted in an additional cost of $1,432 for the year.
My research has shown that Fridley is significantly behind the average employer contribution for dental
plans with our peer cities in the Metro Area. The average contribution is $32.87 for single and $21.91 for
family. Many ciries with cafeteria plans, however, report that the dental contdburion may be purchased
from unused dollars from the health insurance contribution, which may skew tliis number.
Cash Option—The Cash Option allows fox employees to opt out of health and dental insuxance if they
can pYOVe they have coverage elsewhere and receive a monthly cash amount (taxable). Currendy, there
are 38 employees who enjoy this benefit. Tradirionally, though not consistently, the cash option has been
set at 80% of the single employer contribution level (computed off of the Base Plan). With the adjusted
amount in the employer contribution toward the single coverage for 2008, the proposed monthly
contriburion toward the cash oprion is $377, and will result in $1,080 above the proposed budget for the
General Fund.
Life Insurance—Thexe axe no rate changes or contribution changes scheduled for life insurance. We
were able to negotiate a three-yeax rate guarantee. This will be the last year of our thxee-year contract.
There are no other changes or increases scheduled for benefits beyond the proposed budget. I will be
available at the Oct. 15�' meeting, along with Jim Sarych of Financial Concepts to answer any quesrions
you or the Council may have.
DKD
J:\Pasonl\Pe�onnel\Payroll\BudgetPezsSerc*\2008\council.memo.doc 2
City of Fridley
Health Insurance Claims Analysis
For Period: 06/01/2006-05/31/2007
High Base HRA Total
Employee Participation
Sin le 15 10 31 56
Famil 16 10 13 39
Total 31 20 44 95
Early Retirees/COBRA Participation
' 7 4 4 15
i
Claims ' � % of Total
Ph sician 208,239.00 94,183.00 33,581.00 336,003.00 45.45%
Pharmac 25,252.00 2,037.00 19,908.00 47,197.00' 6.38%
In atient 118,140.00 26,921.00 46,698.00 191,759.00' 25.94%
Out atient 80,840.00 39,997.00 30,298.00 151,135.00 i 20.45% -
Other 7,567.00 4,659.00 892.00 13,118.00; 1.77%
Total Claims 440,038.00 167,797.00 131,377.00 739,212.00i �
--- -- ----,
--�-- --------i- '
Claims to Premium Ratio I
- -�-- 101.02%j 54.88% 52.53% --__-_- — ''
,,
- --- -_._ _---. ____ �
Percentage of Total Claims � ' �
--
---�_ _---
59.53% ' 22.70% 17.77% �
-�- - - _._ .__-- ---�
, ,
---- ---+— -
High Claims Breakdown __ __ _�____
'6 Claimants have claims over $25,000 which accounts for __
��
!$300,855 of the total $739,212 in claims (or 41 % of all claims)
- - -- -__ __
__ _,2 people over $70,000 in claims ($184,358 or 25% of total claims) I�
- --- __ _ _-- --- -- - --
-
- —_ --- ---- _ _
--�--- ---- -- -=
Conclusions: ' I
-- ' --- - �the cost up �-----______.--- ---
Like all other insurance, claims drive
�-- , �_ ;
, , ,
- � _---- --- --
! 0%o f the tot lOclaims and1drves up the c st fogother plansounts for ____ �_
T_.__ -- -- __ _— - - �
I -� ,
-- - � ---- - --- - - -� - -
HRA is working to keep claims costs low '
_----- �- ----
_ _ -- --- -- --- , ----- --a--
� �
T- -- --- - -� -___ ____ __.__
' Employees enrolled in the Hi�c h Plan pa�a higher premium �
- --_. __=-
_� extra $480.92/mo. for familY coverac�e and $72.39/mo. for sin le I '
, � - -- - —
! While it won't affect the City's contribution, Council may want to consider
- - -_ - -_- -
eliminatin the Hi h O tion to kee claims down, eventuall curbin overall rates '
�� �� O N O p) �
R+�+ (V � l4 r�,. N� !4 a�+ O� � r,�,, O 10 � O �� O cv
� ++ a+ ln � � 3 ++ �f7 � � � �.. nj 00 � 3 .F+ �+ � O � � 3 r.. � O � � � � � 0 O
� C N � � � C y'� � p �� y'� � p � C N N O 0 � C y � r- (O � C y'�
� oVcfl° = oV co° = oVo° � oU,n N c oUcflao�r c oU� o
a� �,� a� �;� a� �N a� � ° a� NN�r Q� �
�
� _
� � � � �oo W Oo m f+�A O •+ �
• O i��0�0 • O L L�jaO •• zQ 7OO � O ��LO (� • O��LaO�� • O`��
� V� G> • �() � G> . �++ m� � V G� p� � V G> oD � G1
" aa�� ' aa�� ' cW'L°° - aad' o� - aa°D•o� =vaarn
N� = N'ct 0� = O O � N 0 N�� �
V a V a � ° V a � V a V a
U
a� L � d` � d L O O d 'a � �p
d
- oa mv°�' - oa m`�°n°�° �a�`o� •.c �° °'�, � �w °'�, o
_ _ Na � _ _ Naoc�i - —° No°'. °ti = c �ti _ o oa °r>o� o oao
� U � �� � p� M N p �� O U... M U CO N M V O
W W V W U ca � 0 � � � �
� a a a
�
� do � dc � a�io ,�,
� °° � ° ap °� >` � °' co ap >' L o a�
� O� f�f1 �' 00 O O y Cp I� p Q y��
(A N E� N� N E��° � � N E 0� N
♦+ LLI V LL! V � W U
�
ai *
_ �
C o � o � � 3
ai � 3 N I� 00 7 N f� � pp a.L+ • O �
m ' O�� � O O�� �� •��� O I`
O O � G1 � O
� � N V.` � O � N V r� O N V a O O
� - C � � C �' � �
O v � - v � � ~
. U
� -
� •• Op t.� p� pp L 7 M� • pp t 7��
W �,, O
O C�<D N p C•� 1� � p C•� ��
� N O L� s� N O L�� N O` O �
O �a. � �a r' �a�'�
O
N
�� m o�� � a�i o��, : m o �
� o o�o� � o o�M O • o o�o°'�
•L , N E��M M N E��� N� N� N
� WV ,' WV WU �
y� o
� �' �
N
O O � N
� �� �
+. oo rn � '«, � � � � d
U ' �=:C M oO O � c+� op � O Q�� p u�
p(� L� M I� p(� L O) M^ p N r(Yj �
N x .+ ch � o• N� ..� c''> � o N L% L a0 t� E
_�� O = d' � o . �- M 00 N
• U �� U ��� UI-� �
� � � �
0 0 � f0
v
�� ►� Z 3 � � .N 1� .= j � � j , I� t ,� � � �
O++ �� O+�+ �� O++ O c
N O N� M N N O G1 �� v� c��t O d Do � f°
�a�� 3 �a`�'� 3 �a"'� y
o- o- o
� � � � ' �_
.`
a
c c c
� U C U � U
-a C V � c U � c V
G� �> N a? . G� '> N ai � N' j N ui
• J� 0 Z J� Q Z �� Q Z
U
c
0
+r o
� O
� O
� M
d
>
d
J
G1
d
J
d o d c
O O� M 0�0 N O 0� O
N N �� p�p N
WU WUo
c c
O o
O � O O O O a+ � N
N V C N N N N V��
U U
�
N
C�+�'' e`� a0 N p+' N
O � l0 �j � � O R
N'n � M 1� O� N� d'
w
m�000 °f °
0 o��nrnr� o o�°o
N N ��� y N N O m
W U �n ao n W Cj �
m
o �
N �
o � o �
� O O O � � � �
O a+ � O O O w O � N c
N V� o 0 0� N U�� m
� N N N N � �
o � o g
U � U y
c Z
o �
� `
O ui
p r.�+ tf> W~�• p.d+ � d
0� M O� io � C� N �
N � M � O .o N � �' -o
�
N c°
N
e�+
a R
J � N � �
.)
� � Q Z
— � c
j � o
J O d
O �
C
� y
N
a`�
a
�
�
L
G7TY OF
FRIDLEY
William W. Burns
M E M O R A N D l,l M City Manager
Memo to: The Mayor and Council �
From: William W. Burns, City Manager 0�
Subject: Housing Maintenance Code �
Date: 10-12-07
The attached materials from Scott Hickok reflect the point-of-view of his staff regarding a Fridley
Housing Maintenance Code. While the hiring of a full-time building inspector may be the ideal way of
addressing housing maintenance issues, I believe that there is a more practical solution to the problem.
Since there are no funds to hire a full-time building inspector, I am recommending that, rather than adopt
a full-blown housing maintenance code, we address the exterior maintenance issues that we hear most
often. To that end, I recommend that the relevant sections of our code be modified to enable our code
enforcement personnel to deal with the following exterior maintenance problems:
1. Falling gutters and spouting.
2. Boarded or broken windows.
3. Rotting soffits.
4. Peeling paint.
5. Damaged or missing garage doors.
I recommend further that the City hire a second seasonal code enforcement officer at a cost of $7,500 to
handle these issues. To the extent that these problems require abatement, I recommend that the staff time
involved in these abatements be assessed back to the properly owner.
Although I am not recommending that the City adopt the International Housing Maintenance Code for
homesteaded residential property, the Fire Department is investigating the possible adoption of this code
for rental housing. We are also looking at the prospect of abating rental property maintenance problems
that are ignored with impunity. I have asked that the Fire Department come forward with their
recommendations on both of these matters within the next three months.
These recommendations should help us address the vast majority of the housing maintenance issues that
Council hears from citizens. It also makes sense in terms of our very limited City resources and the fact
that that our housing conditions survey reveals that most of Fridley's housing is in good or excellent
condition. The recommendations also recognize that our code enforcement staff is barely keeping up
with the code enforcement workload that they currently have. I am convinced that we cannot simply
adopt a housing maintenance code and expect our existing staff to absorb the additional workload.
,� s,� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: October 10, 2007
TO: Dr. William W. Burns, City Manager ��
FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Housing Maintenance Code Budget Session Memo
INTRODUCTION
The topic of having a Housing Maintenance Code in Fridley is a topic that has been
around for many years. Today the Housing Maintenance Code question seems to have
shifted from: should we have one/do we need one - to — we're going to have one, how do
we make it work? The purpose of this memo is to discuss options and to provide you
with a staff recommendation in this regard.
ELEMENTS
One of the most frequently asked questions when considering any ordinance amendment
is; what are the other cities that surround us doing? For your convenience, I have
provided that information. Starting clockwise from the 12 o'clock position...
Blaine — The City of Blaine is not that different from what the City of Fridley has at this
time. Their City has what they consider a Housing Maintenance Code and it includes the
following:
■ Home Improvement Loan Program
■ Residential Maintenance Program (exterior issues much like our
current Code Enforcement compliment of issues we address
currently)
■ Rental Housing Code
Mounds View — The City of Mounds View has more of what we think of traditionally as
a Housing Maintenance Code. They have adopted the International Housing Maintenance
Code.
New Brighton — The City of New Brighten has no Housing Maintenance Code, but does
Code enforcement for outdoor property (not structure) issues.
Housing Maintenance Code
October 11, 2007
PAGE 2
Columbia Heights — The City of Columbia Heights has a Housing Maintenance Code
(Identical to Coon Rapids). Their Code is very similar to earlier editions of the
International Housing Maintenance Code.
Minneapolis — The City of Minneapolis has its own Housing Maintenance Code. As a
city they have been doing housing maintenance for decades. Their ordinance is fair, it has
been tested on nearly every legal point and refined where necessary, and it is a document
and program where they have had much success.
Brooklyn Center — Brooklyn Center has what they call a Building Maintenance and
Occupancy Code. Similar to a Housing Maintenance Code, but appears to cover buildings
beyond typical residential structures.
Brooklyn Park - Brooklyn Park Adopted 2000 International Housing Maintenance Code
(IHMC), Adopted 2003 Amendments to IHMC, Adopted Point of Sale Ordinance and
will likely adopt the 2006 International Property Maintenance Code, based on their
adoption of various Codes as they have become available.
Coon Rapids - The City of Coon Rapids has a Housing Maintenance Code Their Code is
very similar to earlier editions of the International Housing Maintenance Code.
Other Options for Fridley - Truth in Housing/Point of Sale
Beyond our neighboring cities, there are cities of similar age and position in the region
that have adopted a Truth in Housing Ordinance. This Code requires (mandatory in some
cities, voluntary in others) compliance with matters revealed in a mandatory inspection
that must occur before you sell your home. The local cities with Truth in Housing
Ordinances are: Bloomington, Crystal, Hopkins, Maplewood, Minneapolis, New Hope,
Osseo, Richfield, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, and South St. Paul.
The City of Fridley contemplated a Truth in Housing/Point of Sale ordinance in the mid-
nineties. The ordinance failed to garner the votes necessary for the ordinance to pass.
Truth in Housing ordinances do at least make sure that when a home changes hands; it is
of a standard that has been deemed acceptable to the City and assures future viability of
the property. Ultimately this helps the neighborhoods by keeping the housing stock in an
overall better condition. Like housing maintenance, a Truth in Housing ordinance
requires staff to inspect and make certain every home listed on the market has complied
and had its inspection. That added inspection staff obviously does have a budget impact.
Beyond a Point of Sale or Truth in Housing option, cites have chosen to implement
Housing Maintenance Codes. Though Fridley hasn't reviewed the Truth in Housing
Housing Maintenance Code
October 11, 2007
PAGE 3
option again, and three of the current Council members were on Council at the time, it
appears the greatest interest lies in a Housing Maintenance Code, not a Truth in Housing
process.
Housing Maintenance Code Document Options
Three primary options exist regarding the process of deciding on a Code that fits best
with the desires of the Council. These options are:
l.) The City could draft and adopt its own original Housing Maintenance Code.
Pros: ordinance could it our needs precisely, it would be unique to Fridley, and it
could be designed to apply just the amount of government control deemed
appropriate by our Council. Cons: time required to draft document, it would be
unique to Fridley and would present a learning curve issue for property owner's
familiar wifh other cities' maintenance ordinances, and there would be much legal
review necessary to protect City interests and properly define scope, liability, etc.
2.) The City could have staff investigate other cities Codes and come back with a
recommendation of another city's ordinance that would fit our needs in
Fridley, we could tweak as necessary, and adopt.
Pros: gets the City an ordinance quickly, allows staff to have another City to lean
on for their experience with the code and to point out hurdles they have had to
overcome, the legal work has presumably been done and ordinance tested, and the
City of Minneapolis has an excellent Code. Cons: ordinance may not precisely fit
City of Fridley needs, ordinance may be based on assumptions that are known to
the drafting city, but not to us, legal review by other City is assumed.
3.) The City could adopt the International Housing Maintenance Code.
Pros: Gets the City of Fridley an ordinance quick, it is uniform and accepted as a
uniform Code, so that property owners who own properties elsewhere may be
familiar with the ordinance. State has had its own legal review of the document
and has deemed it enforceable. Cons: The Code goes inside buildings. I don't
believe that Council intended for staff to intrude into homeowners homes, without
cause. Our current process protects us and peoples individual rights, and privacy.
An interior code likely would be viewed as too much government.
Who is to Enforce?
Along with selection of the ordinance, we will need to consider who will be responsible
for enforcement. Housing maintenance is neither code enforcement, nor building
inspection exactly. Housing maintenance resides in a peculiar space somewhere between
building inspection and code enforcement. Though a building inspector possesses the
knowledge necessary to enforce a Housing Maintenance Code, it is time consuming and
draws inspectors away from building inspection. Remember, building inspections are
paid through building permit fees.
Housing Maintenance Code
October 11, 2007
PAGE 4
Housing maintenance does not have a permit attached to it, so it requires funding of a
different type. We are well suited with inspectors for permit related work, we would not
be and would need additional staff and funding for housing maintenance inspection
program.
As for code enforcement, we have a talented and aggressive planning staff. This is a staff
where each member devotes a portion of its time to code enforcement duties. We learned
from the citizen survey that satisfaction rates are impressive, but the public would support
even more efforts in that area. An impressive majority of the public (over 85%)
indicated that they would even support spending more money to increase Code
Enforcement duties.
An easy answer would seem to be to hire another full-time staff person to do code
enforcement/housing maintenance. The answer gets a bit more complicated, as we think
about the bottle-neck that would be created at the data entry level. Right now, we are
able to track the progress of each of 4 staff people that do field inspections. As letters
need to be written, inspections/re-inspections would need to be scheduled, etc. The
answer to that bottle-neck would be to find precisely the right person. The ideal candidate
would have building inspection experience, would have an interest in and an ability to do
code enforcement, and the ability to do their own data entry once they are back in the
office.
A vehicle would be required for the field work of this additional staff inember. Office
space, computers, etc. would also need to be programmed for the additional staff
member.
Costs overall would near $100,000
Current salary and benefits would amount to approximately
Training (on — going),
Car and maintenance
Fuel annually,
Computer, tools, and equipment,
TOTAL
$76,000.00
$7,500.00
$6,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$95,500.00.
ReSUItS Of HOUSIrig COri(�IiIOriS StU(Iy '� taken from Laurel Tracy's August 9, 2007 Report to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority.
1. General Conclusions & Observations:
Housing Conditions Scores
• Average Scores:
Housing Maintenance Code
October 11, 2007
PAGE 5
• 85% of Fridley's housing stock is in "excellent" condition.
• 11 % of homes are in "good" condition.
• 4% of homes are in ` fair" condition.
• Only 3 homes in Fridley received a"very poor" condition rating.
• When visiting with residents, the most common complaints have been
related to poor lawn maintenance or involve personal or other conflicts
between neighbors.
• Typical cosmetic problems most commonly found include:
• Unattractive front doors and garage doors.
• Doors damaged by dogs
• Damaged or weathered garage doors
• Faded screen doors and garage doors
• Peeling window trim paint.
• Peeling paint on soffit and facia boards
2. Rating Notes:
• A sagging roof results in an automatic poor (" 1") rating regardless of the
condition of the shingles.
• Most foundations are not visible and are assumed to be in good repair
("3") based on information and opinions gathered from city inspectors and
residents. Poor foundation ratings are given if observable signs of
disrepair are seen ar the home is suffering from obvious settling problems.
• A good rating ("3") does not guarantee an attractive home. Often, the
house is plain with barren, minimal landscaping or it may feature an
outdated or unconventional color scheme. The home may not specifically
be suffering from disrepair and thus does not warrant a poor rating.
In general, I have found that our housing consistently scored very high ratings. Though
some houses may appear outdated, very few can be said to be suffering from a state of
disrepair. In addition, most of the residents I have spoken to while out in the field have
lived in Fridley for the greater extent of their adult life and seem to be quite satisfied with
the quality of their community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since there are no funds to hire a full-time building inspector, staff is recommending that
the relevant sections of our code be modiiied to enable our code enforcement personnel
to deal with the following structural problems:
Housing Maintenance Code
October 11, 2007
PAGE 6
1. Falling gutters and spouting.
2. Boarded or broken windows
3. Rotting soffits
4. Peeling paint
5. Damaged or missing garage doors.
We recommend further that the City hire a second seasonal code enforcement officer at a
cost of $7,500 to handle these issues. To the extent that these problems require
abatement, we recommend that the staff time involved in these abatements be assessed
back to the property owner.
Although we are not recommending that the City adopt the International Housing
Maintenance Code for homesteaded residential property, we are investigating the
possible adoption of this code for rental housing. We are also looking at the prospect of
abating rental property maintenance problems that are ignored with impunity. The Fire
Department has been directed to come forward with their recommendations on both of
these matters within the next three months.
These recommendations should help us address the vast majority of the cosmetic issues
that Council gets from citizens. It also makes sense in terms of our very limited City
resources and the fact that that our housing conditions survey reveals that most of
Fridley's housing is in good or excellent condition. The recommendations also recognize
that our code enforcement staff is barely keeping up with the code enforcement work load
that they currently have.
emoran um
Planning Division
Date: October 11, 2007 �
To: William Burns, City Manager �
�
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Subject: Consideration of Funding a 2008 Summer Code Enforcement Intern
Background
In 2007, Council made the decision to fund a summer internship position for the Planning Division for the
purposes of conducting systematic code enforcement inspections. Systematic code enforcement, where staff
inspects each property in one area at a time in the city, had not been done throughout the entire city since
1999. The use of new technology and a high energy staff person resulted in a very successful code
enforcement sweep through Fridley during the summer of 2007.
Our summer code enforcement intern, Andrew Villella, inspected every single and multi-family housing
property in the City, as well as, some of our industrial areas in the 13 weeks he was on staff. A total of 421
cases (that is an average of 32/week) were created from those inspections. Andrew completed all of the
administrative (letter drafting and phone calls) tasks related to his cases. As a result of his work, great
awareness was created in the community about code requirements, and the level of complaints increased.
These complaints were then handled by our permanent Planning Division staff.
The cost of adding a temporary code enforcement staff person in 2007 was a new expense in Planning's
budget, but staff would like to point out that we captured about the same cost of the intern in new service
fees on our public nuisance abatements this year. In 2006, Planning staff discontinued providing oversight of
public nuisance abatements at no cost to the violator. We started charging an hourly fee for oversight and
correction of these violations. In 2006, nearly $10,000 was billed as staff oversight fees on abatement cases.
In 2007, we charged $7,587 for our staff time when unpaid abatements are assessed. With the amount of
foreclosures expected to rise, we expect our fee level to be even higher in 2008. These proceeds are added to
the City's general fund balance.
While our 2007 systematic code enforcement efforts were very successful in educating the public about City
Code requirements, it was quite evident at the end of the summer that lasting awareness requires annual
sweeps of this nature. Our intern could have started his sweep through the City over again in August and
found many repeat offenders.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council modify the 2008 budget to include $7,500 in funding for a summer
code enforcement internship. This $7,500 would cover the cost of 13 weeks of salary, benefits and gasoline.
We were able to share the Community Development car without much disruption to other ongoing tasks, so
an additional vehicle will not be needed. We already own. the hand held computer and customized software,
which should have another two years of useful life before needing replacement.
Enyineerm9
Sewer
Wa�er
P2rks
S�reets
Mamtenancc
MEMORANDUM
TO: William W. Burns,
City Manager��
FROM: James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director
DATE: October 12, 2007
SUBJECT: Municipal Parking Deck — 2008 Funding
PW07-053
As we have discussed, the municipal parking ramp has for some time been without a long-term
repair schedule. As problems are exposed with the ramp, it has been repaired on an as-needed
basis. There appears to have been modifications and limited quality control during original
construction of the ramp. Several structural members are constructed in an atypical fashion which
appears to evidence this fact.
We have recently received a proposal from Ulteig Engineering to provide the City of Fridleywith a
report summarizing any structural issues with the ramp and associated stairwells/walkways. The
report will provide recommendations regarding repair and upkeep necessary to maintain the ramp
in the coming decades. While the investigation has not yet been completed, I have discussed
informally what Ulteig has reviewed to date in regard to the ramp for their proposal preparation.
I have been advised that between $20,000 and $80,000 should be budgeted for ramp repairs in
the coming fiscal year. My recommendation is to budget as much of this as possible of the
$80,000 for the coming year, as there will be savings to the City for any repairs needed under a
single contract, and to include replacement of the east entrance membrane at $2,088.
Note that this is in addition to the following repairs that are in progress, including:
1. Installation of a raceway for electrical wiring. The raceway is required due to the
lack of ability to pull wire through the existing conduit.
2. Parking deck structural repair. This will allow for the installation of the raceway and
repair the previous exposure of the deck.
After these repairs are complete, the west membrane installation will be completed in 2007.
c: Rick Pribyl, City of Fridley Finance Director
JPK:jpk
. .
•
Alexandra
Ending domestic violence for women, families and communities.
House, Inc.
P.O. Box 49039
Blaine, MN 55449
Phone: 763.780.2332
Crisis/TTY: 763.780.2330
Fax: 763.780.9696
www.alexandrahouse.org
Board of Directors
Vicki Reece,
Chair
Laurie Wolfe,
Vice Ghair
David Rymanowski,
Treasurer
Mary Steege,
Secretary
Gayle Anderson, Ph.D
Mary Laschansky
Ron Lewis
�ave Sallman
Terri Neely Tinklenberg
Connie Moore,
Executive Director
June 1, 2006
Bill Burns, City Manager
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Bill:
Alexandra House respectfully requests that the City of Fridley allocate
$42,561.00 for services provided to Fridley residents by the Alexandra
House Community Program. In 2005, a total of 17,904 advocacy and.
support services were provided to victims of domestic violence by our
Community Program. Fridley residents received 3,608 advocacy and
support services: I have included a budget thaf'details tlie major services
provided to Fridl'ey residents; the total cost of providing those services,
and the portion of those costs we are requesting that the city of Fridley
financially support. We based the total cost on the number of actual
services provided.
Community Program services include assistance in filing protection
orders, accompaniment to subsequent hearings, crime victim advocacy
immediately following a domestic assault and throughout the criminal
court process, follow-up provided to patients at Mercy and Unity
Hospitals and clinics, safety planning, information and referral services.
Weekly support groups are held in the cities of Fridley and Blaine to
assist vietims in breaking free from the cycle of violence and monthly
legal elinics are provided in order to enhance victims understanding of
their legal options. As you know, Alexandra House also enjoys a unique
collaborative relationship with the Fridley Police Department and
Prosecutor's Office. Tfirough a dedicated position housed within the
police department, the Fridley DART Advocate, in partnership with an
officer, is able to provide, in-person victim follow up, legal advocacy
throughout the criminal process, and wrap around services and support to
Fridley victims of domestic assault.
Domestic violence is a serious crime that impacts the public health and
safety of every community in this country. The negative consequences of
domestic violence reach beyond family and friends into the workplace
and to society as a whole. In 2003, the Centers far Disease Control and
Prevention reported that health-related costs of domestic violence
exceeded $5.8 billion each year in the United States. Nearly half of all
battered women report some type of injury as a result of their
victimization. Three out of ten women murdered in the U.S. are the
victims of an intimate partner.
A domestic violence situation is one of the most dangerous calls
responded to by law enforcement. It is critical that law enforcement
professionals develop and irnplement programs, policies and practices
that are safe and effective in meeting the serious and unique challenges of
domestic violence cases. Research sho«�s a well-coordir.ated and
multidisciplinary approach that emphasizes victim safety and offender
accountability is one of the most effective means of reducing domestic
violence. Your commitment to this is evidenced by your ongoing support
of the Fridley DART Program and demonstrates your leadership in
working to end domestic violence in Anoka County.
As a community partner, I hope that you will find merit in our request for
funding—funding that will ensure the Fridley DART Program will
continue. At this time, Alexandra House allocates one full-time advocate
to the Fridley Police Department as part of the Domestic Abuse Response
Team. In addition, Fridley residents also benefit from myriad other
services provided by both Shelter and Community Program Advocates.
Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have and look forward to meeting with you in person
to further discuss this funding request.
Sincerely,
. ��
4'�¢�
Connie Moore
Executive Directar
Cc: Scott Lund, Mayor
Don Abbott, Public Safety Director
ALEXANDRA HOUSE, INC.
City of Fridley Budget
7-1-2006 to 6-30-2007
# of
Services
Services Provided Provided
Protection Order Filings 43
Civil Legal Information Advocacy 558
Civil Court Hearings 51
Crisis Line 1016
Legal Representation on OFP's 28
Family Law Info Sessions / Legal Clinics 4
Arrest/Non-Arrest Victim Follow up 231
Criminal Court Information & Advocacy 1036
Criminal Court Hearings Attended 214
Safety Planning 259
Community Support Groups 125
Violence Prevention 34
Health Care Advocate 9
TOTAL 3608
Total services provided by Alexandra House, Inc.
Community Program 17904
Fridley percent of total services provided 20%
Community Program Budget $ 704,000
Amount charged to City of Fridley $ 141,870
Amount paid by other sources $ 99,309
AMOUNT REQUESTED $ 42,561