Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBudget Advisory Commission - 03/03/2011 APPROVED MINUTES BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011 6:00 P.M., CITY CENTER 8080 Mitchell Road EDEN PRAIRIE, MN COMMISSION MEMBERS: Chair Rick King, Vice-Chair Jon Muilenburg Commissioners: Annette Agner, Eapen Chacko, Dan Funk, Michael Morris, Chris Nylander CITY STAFF: Sue Kotchevar, Finance Manager; Tammy Wilson, Finance Supervisor; Jay Lotthammer, Interim City Manager; Jan Curielli, Recorder GUEST: Paul Groessel, Eden Prairie Sun Current I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER Chair King called the meeting to order to 6:00 PM. Chacko was absent. Morris arrived late. II. MINUTES A. BAC MEETING HELD THURSDAY FEBRUARY 3, 2010 King said the second paragraph on Page 5 should be changed. After further discussion it was decided to strike the paragraph from the minutes. MOTION: Nylander moved, seconded by Muilenburg, to approve the minutes of the meeting held Thursday, February 3, 2011, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. III. CITIZEN SURVEY RESULTS Lotthammer presented the results of the Quality of Life survey completed by Decision Resources. He said the survey is done every two years, and this year 400 residents were surveyed. We have the two previous surveys available for trend analysis. Morris arrived at 6:10 PM. Lotthammer noted one of the things liked the least about the city is the water quality. He said that might be attributed to the publicity given to the draw-down of Anderson Lakes and the impact of the drought years on Round Lake. He said the consultant commented that the 91% of those surveyed who were aware of Eden Prairie being named the "Best Place to Live" in 2010 by Money magazine was an exceptionally high number. Budget Advisory Commission Minutes March 3, 2011 Page 2 Nylander asked how the survey defined the terms, "fiscally distressed" and "value of services" Lotthammer said "fiscally distressed" included those who responded that their expenses were more than their income, and the "value of services" was the value to the respondents of City services when considering property taxes paid and City services received. King said he was amazed that 50% of those surveyed would favor a tax increase to maintain services and only 36% would oppose such a tax increase. Lotthammer thought Eden Prairie has done a pretty good job of educating people as to what City services are and the fact that we have no control over school and county taxes. King said most of the discussions we had last year were more informed by the 2008 study, and he thought these changes were reflected in the 2010 election results. Nylander said people have a comfort level with the City's management because we have kept the budget flat and that gives the perception of being responsible. Morris asked about the demographic data collected on the survey. Lotthammer said he has not asked if it was cross-tabbed by age or other category. In response to the question of what to do with a 1% budget increase, Lotthammer said many of those surveyed would spend more for police. Agner asked what the 2 1% who would put the extra funds into City planning and economic development were saying. Lotthammer said he would guess it relates to the fact there is not much happening in construction, so they would probably use the extra funds to generate more growth in housing and commercial development. Nylander asked if the negative responses about water quality were focused on lakes. Lotthammer said they were, and that will probably be the emphasis for the City Council. We will work on it with the Watershed District and Three Rivers Park District. King said there was a reduction in the number of those who felt airport noise is very serious or somewhat serious. He noted the noise complaints at the airport are up,but the number of complainants is down. Lotthammer said 91% favor continued operation of the municipal liquor stores. He said those who were opposed were then asked if they would still oppose it knowing that there would be a loss of$1,000,000 in revenue if that operation ceased. Nylander wondered what would happen if it was phrased with alternatives for sales in grocery stores. Lotthammer said 91% of those surveyed have access to the City website, and 78% have used it. He said electronic media provides valuable tools for communicating information such as snowplowing efforts. IV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN DOCUMENT—Sue Kotchevar Budget Advisory Commission Minutes March 3, 2011 Page 3 A. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY B. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN REPORTS Kotchevar said she wanted to spend some time tonight looking at the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) document before we meet with the City Council on April 28 to talk about the available funding sources for the CIP. We will get more information from the consultant at that meeting and will talk with the Council Members about what they would like us to do with the information we receive. Kotchevar reviewed the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Plan, noting that in 2003 legislation was passed that gave the City authorization to do capital improvements that were not passed by referendum. She said projects over $25,000 will go into the CIP, and we have a strong pay-as-you-go plan. She said the total for all of the CIP projects is about$254,000,000. There are three different sources of funding for the pay-as-you-go projects: the Capital Maintenance and Reinvestment Fund; the Facilities Internal Service Fund; and the IT Internal Service Fund. Nylander asked if the debt has already been approved. Kotchevar said this document shows what we are planning to do,but it is continually changing. It is important to remember that the document is for planning purposes, and any project that is actually done goes through the approval process. King said the list is what staff thought would need to be done at the time it was put together. Nylander asked if the funding sources are reliable or if those are what we expect to get. Kotchevar said some of it is what we expect from outside sources and some of it is already there. She said the emphasis of the work we will do with the consultant involves the three funds, and our charge right now is to look at the the revenue sources. Lotthammer said we will identify the spending needed from the three funds and will study how we can get revenue into those three. He said we know there will be a match for other funds on the list. Kotchevar said Page 7 of the document is a high level summary, and Page 9 lists the projects by department. Nylander asked about the meaning of the "Priority" designation. Lotthammer said we haven't used the priority designations in the system, and a project listed in 2011 has a higher priority than one listed in 2012. Kotchevar said Page 13 lists projects by category and shows the different locations where the City plans to complete projects in the next five years. Page 19 breaks down the projects by funding source. She said in the past we have had a higher tax levy for the capital maintenance and reinvestment projects. Lotthammer said the capital maintenance and reinvestment projects were formerly called capital improvement projects but that was confusing to some people. It is a list of things that are wearing out and need to be maintained or replaced. Budget Advisory Commission Minutes March 3, 2011 Page 4 Muilenburg asked if the $1,170,000 listed for 2012 under the Utility Fund — Water was a typo. Kotchevar said as a result of the utility rate study we discovered a lot of things that needed to be done so we changed a lot of what we planned to do. Funk asked if the historical source of funding for the three funds would have been a tax levy. Kotchevar said the Capital Maintenance and Reinvestment Fund is a tax levy. We collect about$2,000,000 a year for that fund,but we need about $3,000,000 a year for the projects. Things have become tighter over the last few years. Lotthammer said we used to have a General Fund category for this that was funded at$1,000,000 a year but it was cut back to $600,000. Nylander asked if the projects have always been in the $3,000,000 range. Kotchevar said the largest program is the pavement management program and that is slowly increasing over time. Nylander asked if the initial pavement was paid through assessment. Kotchevar said it was paid by the developer. If we do not have a general tax levy or another funding source to redo the streets, a special assessment would be another option for street reconstruction. Nylander asked if we expect much more expansion of our pavement system. Kotchevar said we do not. V. FUND BALANCES, CIP STATUS,AND FORECASTS — Sue Kotchevar Kotchevar said the General Fund is our main fund and is used to pay for all the basic activities in the City. We reserve 50% of tax revenue for working capital, and 15% of the budget goes for budget stabilization. She said the Capital Maintenance and Reinvestment Fund is projected to have a negative balance of($710,000) in 2015, so we need a long term funding solution for that. She said the funds that are shown with shaded lines in the document are those where we have limited or no flexibility. Nylander asked about the source of the Economic Development Fund. Kotchevar said that comes primarily from proceeds of the sale of City property. Nylander asked if it has an on-going fund source. Lotthammer said there is nothing on-going for that fund. King noted the Commission talked a lot about that fund last year. King asked if contributions we receive go into the Park Fund. Lotthammer said they do, and donations have to be accepted by resolution of the City Council. Nylander noted the acquisition and development of new park land will push more capital investment and maintenance and actually drives costs elsewhere to maintain the parks. Kotchevar said part of the permit fee on new homes goes into a new park in the neighborhood. Nylander asked if ongoing park fee collection can only be used for new development. Kotchevar said that is true, and it is governed by state law. Budget Advisory Commission Minutes March 3, 2011 Page 5 Kotchevar said we project the balance in the Facilities Internal Service Fund to go from the current balance of just over$2,000,000 to a negative ($632,000)by 2015. She said they are recommending offsetting the negative balance projected with the IT Internal Service Fund which is expected to have a positive balance in 2015. She said the revenue for the Fleet Internal Service Fund comes primarily from charges to other funds, the sale of assets and interest earnings. Nylander asked if the Capital Maintenance and Reinvestment Fund is used exclusively for capital improvements. Kotchevar said it is. Kotchevar said the CIP Pavement Management Fund is included in Public Works, not the CIP. Money that is not spent is moved into this fund to save for larger reconstruction projects. She said we may be short in the Utility Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund, but we will continue to monitor that now we have changed the utility rates. Lotthammer said Ms Kotchevar worked through this information with the City Council at a recent workshop. The information has gone a long way to helping the Council with some of the decisions they make. Funk asked if the consultant will provide information ahead of time. It might make sense to see a summary of terms and a glossary ahead of time in order to save our time with the consultant. Kotchevar said she will put some thought into that and see how that works with what they are putting together. King asked if the City Council will receive information in their packet before the workshop. Kotchevar said the Council packet is usually sent out the Friday before the regular Council meeting,but we don't always provide information beforehand for a workshop. King thought it would be good if both groups got something before the workshop. King asked if there was anything the Commission members should do before the workshop. Kotchevar said she did not think so. It will be a good education for both the City Council and the BAC, and the Council may have some ideas they want us to consider. Funk asked if there is a goal for the three funds we are working on because that would play into our considerations for alternate sources of funding. Lotthammer said this is just a five-year snapshot, and there are big numbers for infrastructure maintenance in future years. Kotchevar said we are always updating and refining the numbers as we go along. Lotthammer said our intent with the RFP for the financial consultant was to get an expert to come in and educate us so we are all on the same page. The consultant should be able to give us some ideas of what has worked well in other cities, and it will be a chance for the Council and the BAC to have a dialogue. After that meeting the BAC will start to consider the benefits or concerns about certain types of funding and to recommend what proportion of the mix should come from the various funding methods. Budget Advisory Commission Minutes March 3, 2011 Page 6 Nylander asked if we should get a copy of the RFP and the consultant's response to that document. Kotchevar thought it is more about having the consultant give us information. We could potentially bring them back because there will be a lot to cover. King asked about the time frame for the workshop. Kotchevar said it will probably be about two hours and will start at 6:00 PM. King asked if there will be some time for discussion with the City Council. Kotchevar thought we should have that. King asked how much time the consultant will take. Kotchevar said she could work with the consultant to see what they need to do a reasonably good job. King thought we need at least a half hour to talk about the information. Muilenburg said we might be more comfortable having the discussion with the City Council after we have a chance to digest the information. Lotthammer thought it probably does not have to end at 8:00 PM if it makes sense to go longer. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Nylander moved, seconded by Muilenburg, to adjourn the meeting. Chair King adjourned the meeting at 8:05 PM.